35TH CONGRESS,  I HOUSE  OF REPRESENTATIVES. { REPORT.
2d Session.   f                                               o. 184
NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
[To accompany Bill H. R. No. 884.]
FEBRUARY 24, 1859.-.The further consideration postponed until Monday next, and ordered
to be printed.
MARCH 2, 1859.-Resolved, That five thousand extra copies of the majority and minority
reports of the Select Committee on Naval Contracts and Naval Expenditures, together with
the evidence, be printed for the use of the members of the House of Representatives.
Mr. BococG, from the Select Committee on Naval Contracts and
Expenditures, made the following
REPORT.
Tze Select Committee on the subject of contracts and expenditures in
Navy Department, ask leave to submit the following report 
The resolution under which  your committee was appointed  was
moved by a member from  the State of Ohio, (AMr. Sherman,) and
unanimously adopted by the House of Representatives, on the 18th of
January last, and, together with the preamble, is as follows:
G Whereas D. B. Alien, a citizen of the State of New York, specifically charges that certain officers in the Navy Department, in
awarding contracts fbr the construction of vessels of war of the United
States, have been guilty of partiality, and of violation of law  and
their public duty: and whereas grave charges have been made that
money appropriated for navy yards and for the repair of vessels of the
United States has been expended for partisan purposes, and not for the
purposes prescribed by law: Therefore,'  Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed to examine, 1. Into  the specifications and bids for, and the terms of, the
contract for the work and labor done, or materials furnished for the
vessels of the United States, constructed, or in the process of construction or repair by the United States, since the 4th day of Mlarch,
1857, and the mode and manner of awarding said contracts, and the
inducements and recommendations influencing said awards.  2. Into
the mode and manner, and the purpose, in which the money appropriated for the navy and dock-yards, and for the repair and increase
of vessels, has been expended. That said committee have power to
send for persons and papers, and have leave to report by bill or otherwise."
It will be seen that one definite subject of inquiry was presented to
the committee, viz: the specifications, bids, and contracts for vessels
of the United States, constructed, or in the process of construction or
repair, by the United States, since the 4th  day of March, 1857; the
mode and manner of awarding said contracts, and the inducements




2            NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
and recommendations influencing said awards. The purpose of such
inquiry was to ascertain whether   certain officers of the navy had
been guilty of partiality and a violation of law and their public
duty," as charged against them.
The construction and repair of the vessels themselves, of the navy,
since March, 1857, has been done by the government in its own navy
yards, and not by contract; with the solitary exception of the
Brooklyn, which has been constructed by Jacob A. Westervelt, under
a contract with the government made in 1857.
That contract appearing to be entirely fair and nothing to the contrary being alleged, so far as the vessel itself is concerned, on any side,
the committee directed its attention particularly to the contracts for
engines and steam machinery for vessels of the navy, made since the
4th of March, 1857.
The second branch of the resolution instructs the committee to
inquire " into the mode and manner and the purpose in and for which
the money appropriated for the navy and dock-yards, and for the
repair and increase of vessels has been expended."
And the object designated in the preamble is to ascertain whether
said money "has been expended for partisan purposes, and not for
the purposes prescribed by law."
Inasmuch as this branch of the inquiry embraces in its scope all
appropriations for navy yards and for increase and repair of vessels
without regard to time, it was clearly impracticable for the committee
during the remainder of the session literally to carry it out. It was
in effect limited by the committee to such items of appropriation in
that connexion as were made the subject of complaint.
Wherever either zeal for the public good, or disappointed selfinterest, or party intolerance, or love of fault finding or any other
motive indicated that wrong could be found within the scope prescribed for the investigation, to that point the attention of the committee was directed.
The subjects which were particularly investigated under this branch
of the resolution, were:
1. The management of the Brooklyn and Philadelphia navy yards.
2. The purchase of anthracite coal for the navy, and,
3. The contracts for live-oak for the navy, made in 1857 and 1858.
The leading facts elicited on all these points so far as they are embraced within the prescribed scope of our inquiry will be briefly stated
under the heads respectively to which they belong, and for convenience
of arrangement will precede the statement of facts in relation to the
contracts for steam machinery.
I. THE BROOKLYN OR NEW YORK NAVY YARD.
The large amount of money annually appropriated for the navy,
though that branch of the service continues so limited in extent and
power has justly excited interest and inquiry on the part of the people.
The following statement will show the extent of the increase in our
expenditures for naval purposes in the last quarter of a century:




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                     3
No. of Vessels. No. of Guns.   Annual Cost.
1834.........5.................. 53      1,982      $3,956,370
1846......................................    77    2,345  7,449,703
1858.........................................79  2,244  13,262,561
Much of this increase of expenditure springs from the higher price
of material, provisions, clothing, &c., now than in 1835 or even in
1846.  Much also arises from  the substitution of steamers for sail
vessels in the navy of the United States.
In Great Britain the cost of the navy in 1853-'54, when its force of
men was 39,407, amounted to ~6,285,493 sterling; while in 1857-'58,
when its force of men was only 39,000, it cost ~8,109,168 sterling,
under all the exertions that were made after the Russian war to reduce
expenditures to the lowest practicable point. This increase of expense
is attributed in that country to the substitution of steam for sail vessels.
But while the increase of expenditure in our naval service is thus
accounted for in part, it has become a matter of general belief that
there is much of waste in our navy yards.  For the number of vessels
annually constructed and repaired in our service our appropriations
for yards and docks, and for construction, equipment, and repair, seem,
to be disproportionately large.
To show how our appropriations for these purposes have increased
in the last twelve years, the following statement will suffice:
1846.            1858.
Yards and docks...........................   $585,549    $3,157,522
Construction, equipment, and repair...... 1,838,479         3,129,427
Total....................................   2,424,028  6,286,949
The investigation made in this case explains some of the causes of
waste in the navy yards.
Your committee believe that persons in their dealings with the
government generally display more of voracity and less of scrupulous
integrity than is usual in transactions with individuals.
Supplies for government, whether obtained by contract or in open
market, are made the occasion for fraud; the property of the government is not preserved with due care; its responsible superintendents
prove unfaithful, and their subordinates lack the zeal which private
interest dictates, and the fidelity which private scrutiny exacts.
These principles, applicable more or less to all departments of government work, are shown by the testimony to be especially applicable
to the Brooklyn navy yard.
It is a feature of the times, and to some extent an incident to our
system of government, that offices and appointments have come to be
employed very generally, and more or less by all parties, as rewards
for partisan service.  Not only does the dominant party give the high
and responsible places of State into the hands of party friends, but the
subordinate and merely ministerial places, such as those of clerk',
postmaster, mail agent, messenger, doorkeeper, and day laborer, are
made to subserve the purposes of party advantage.  It is natural and




4             NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
not improper that those who have themselves obtained office by party
favor should prefer to bestow the patronage of that office upon persons
who have been their friends and supporters, rather than upon those
who opposed them; and in regard to qualifications, all leading parties
have competent men in their ranks.
When the appointing power, in looking around for competent men,
is left merely to exercise its natural preference for friends over opponents, all is well. But when party relations and party services are
made to constitute a controlling claim upon office, then the strongest
partisan has the strongest claim. And as in party times the success
of the party often assumes greater importance than good government,
so party claims, in bestowing office, come to receive more consideration and influence than character or qualification. Offices, indeed,
cease to be viewed practically as positions of trust, created and maintained because their duties are essential to the public good. They
come to be regarded as places of emolument whose salaries are essential to party welfare, and to be distributed with that view.
If, as has been said, such is the tendency of the present time and
with all parties, no one party is altogether blameable therefor.
Whenever, in a densely settled community, party strength is nearly
equally divided and party ascendancy often changes, there, of course,
this spirit becomes imbued with a peculiarly mercenary tinge. Want
presses, victory leads to place.  The emolument being the object
which was sought, engrosses attention; and while officials have but
little thought except as to the means of holding their places, so those
who want office have no care except to gain it.  Thus principle and
duty are forgotten in the angry conflict of the ins and outs.
If we have correctly described the tendency of things at the present
day, it will not be regarded with surprise that this spirit prevails
strongly in the commercial emporium of the nation, and has found its
intensest development in the Brooklyn navy yard.
The fact that appointments in the navy yard have for many years
past been bestowed upon party grounds is distinctly proven.
The IHon. John IKelly, recently a popular member of the House of
Bepresentatives, and now holding an important office in the city of
New York, upon examination before the committee made the following statement:
Ic Question. Have you known what has been the management of the
yard under all parties?
" Answer. Yes, sir; when the whigs formerly had the yard they
would, of course, turn out the democrats, every man of them; they
would not permit them to work there; and as soon as the democrats
got into power again they would turn out the whigs, and so it has
been:in all the offices in New York, post office, custom-house, &c.,
and so it is to-day in the appointment of the police; the republicans
appoint all republicans; it is very seldom  that a democrat can get a,
place; if he does it is through some extraordinary influence."
And the Hon. William  B. Maclay, at present a member of the
House of Representatives, from New York city, a gentleman of the
highest integrity, and a politician of experience and influence, has
deposed before the Committee to the same effect.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                   5
The following extract is taken from his testimony:
"Question. How long have you been acquainted with the managem.ent of the yard?
Answer. Since 1842.
" Question. What change, if any, has taken place in the meantime
in the mode of making appointments, &c.?
Answer. I do not think there has been any change.
Question. H-ow long have appointments been made there upon political recommendations?
a Answer. I cannot speak of it previous to the date I mentioned; at
that time, 1842, or 1843, Mr. Henshaw was Secretary of the Navy, I
was representative in Congress; upon one occasion there were a great
many applications for the place of masters; the Secretary finally concluded that he would make the appointments upon the recommendation of the then members of Congress from Brooklyn, who were Henry
C. Murphy, and myself; he said if we would look carefully over the
matter, and write a joint letter making recommendations, he would
make the appointments. Mr. Murphy and I, thereupon very carefully
selected some ten or twelve masters, who remained in office during
the remainder of the administration of Mr. Tyler, and the whole of
MIr. Polk's.  They were removed after the incoming of the succeeding
administration, that of Mr. Fillmore.
" Question. Do you know whether appointments were made upon
political grounds during the administration of Mr. Fillmore?
"Answer. Yes, sir; they were made on that ground."
Where appointments are made upon party grounds it is a necessary
consequence, especially at points remote from the appointing power,
that the wishes and. recommendations of leading politicians should be
considered.
Everywhere the recommendations of members of Congress are solicited by those seeking executive appointments.  So it has been in
the past; so, probably, it will be in the future.
When the present administration came into power, in consequence
of the fact that, under the last administration, many of the congressional districts had been represented by political opponents, the
patronage in the Brooklyn navy yard had been concentrated mainly in
a few districts.
Now, all the districts of the city, and of the country immediately adjacent thereto, were, for the first time in years, under representation
friendly to the administration.  Each member considered himself
entitled to favor, and much of contention arose between themselves,
and between them and the officers of the yard.
Under these circumstances it was represented to the Secretary of
the Navy that it would be agreeable to them, and would save trouble
to him, if he would adopt the principle of an equal partition of the
patronage among the districts, as far as practicable. And in order to
do this, it was suggested that it would be well, if practicable, to allow
a master workman to each district.-(See letter of Hon0 H. F. Clark
to Secretary Toucey, dated April, 1857.)-To this arrangement the
Secretary assented.  It does not appear that an exactly equal partition was ever attained or attempted.  The master painter only came




6            NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
from Mr. Searing's district, and, for a long time, the master caulker
alone from  3Mr. Cochrane's, while some of the other districts had
three.
And, in regard to the employes under the masters, the distribution
has remained until this day very unequal. It is stated in the testimony that the number from the district in which the yard is located,
now represented by the Hon. George Taylor, has remained about
twice as large as from other districts.
The arrangement appears to have contemplated such an approach
to equalization as might conveniently be made in regulating the dismissals and the new appointments.
If appointments in the yard are to be made on political grounds, it
would be difficult to resist the conclusion that the districts are all entitled to a fair share of the patronage.
The evils and abuses in the yard appeared however to grow greater.
How far this has grown out of this principle of partition, and how
far out of other causes, it might be difficult to determine.  It should
be borne in mind that during the year 1857, a crisis of commercial
and pecuniary distress fell upon the country, which, in the city of
New York, threw a great many persons out of employment, and thus
increased the clamor for government work. It is also true that in
1857 and 1858, the government had need of a larger number of men
in the navy yards than perhaps ever before, and of a larger number
of master workmen also.
From whatever causes it has sprung your committee are satisfied
from the testimony that great abuses have been, and are, practiced in
the yard.
Where so many men are gathered together in government employ, abuses are to some extent unavoidable.  But the system of appointing and retaining men in the yard upon political influence
works great evil.
Men have been appointed without due regard to their qualifications
and retained sometimes after they had shown themselves unworthy.
They learned to rely in part upon a strong friend to retain them, instead of striving to entrench themselves behind meritorious services.
This state of things has shown its natural results in producing insubordination, idleness, and a disregard of obligation and duty in general.
The testimony upon which your committee have come to this conclusion, is mainly the testimony of Captain Rootes, who was for
months the executive officer, and frequently during that time the acting commandant in the yard; the confessions of the master workmen
themselves, and the letters and testimony of the members of Congress.
The complaints of displaced and disappointed men who discredit themselves by saying that they knew of these abuses while employed in
the yard, but never gave information about them  till they were dismissed, should, we think, be received with allowance.  Wherever
their stories have been thoroughly investigated they have generally
been shown to be either wholly or in great part untrue.
A man named Berry, who was displaced from  the position of master painter, alleges that the Hon. John Kelly became irritated with




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  7
film and had him displaced because he would not keep in office men
who he informed Mr. Kelly were drunkards and entirely incapable of
a proper discharge of duty. Mr. Kelly, on the contrary, denies the
statement, alleging that he never asked to have any man retained
after being informed of his incompetency; and says, that the cause
of difference with Berry, was that the latter used towards him coarse
and insulting language. It turns out, however, that Berry was not
dismissed till some three months or more after his difference with Mr.
Kelly.
Another man tells of a place being bought by one Mr. Teller of the
master painter (Turner) with a present of five gallons of whiskey.
When examined, Teller and Turner concur in a representation of the
matter so utterly unlike that given by the informant as to make it, in
all its essentials, an act of slander. Yet another states that he was
assessed twenty dollars for political purposes upon his clerkship in
the custom-house at New York, and refused to pay it; and when
asked, "What was the result?" answers,  I was removed; from
what cause I cannot tell."  He attempts to convey the impression
distinctly that he was removed for this refusal, and upon examination
it is found that his assessment certificate is dated 1856, and his
removal took place on the 7th of August, 1858.
Such charges are entitled to very little weight.
Commander Rootes says: " There were a large number of men who
were very insubordinate."  " In my opinion theft was common in the
yard."  I think that a short time before I left the New York navy
yard, the foreman under lr. Cohen made a charge against Mr. Cohen
and some one else in the yard, that they were in the habit of letting
men go out of the yard and still receive their wages.  I have no
doubt in my own mind that it was done."  "A short time before I
left the yard the men got to knocking off work twenty or thirty
minutes before the bell-ring in the evening," &c.
When asked to what these abuses were owing, Commander Rootes
answered: " From the fact that they think members of Congress pat
them there and can keep them there, in defiance of the officers of the
yard."
Lieutenant Barnett says, when asked what abuses passed under his
observation in the New York navy yard: " I think there is one that
exists in relation to taking in laborers. It should be particularly
the province of the officers to select these men.  They are, many of
them, physically incapable.  In one instance, in dismasting the St.
Louis, I could scarcely get the masts out of her. I could not get the
men to work; in fact, they were not strong enough. If they had been
sailors I could have done well enough, but these were men who had been,
apparently, broken down by whiskey, and besides that they were oldvery old-so that they were unable to perform the labor required of
them.  If I would set them to whitewashing, I had to watch them to
see that they did not stop.  I reported this thing to Captain Rootes,
but he said he had no authority to discharge them and take in better
men, although I believe he took it upon himself to do it pretty
violently upon one or two occasions, when he got angry and turned
them out of the yard by neck and heels."




8            NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Merrifield and Turner, who are still master workmen in the yard,
and who testify under no bias, state that they often kept incompetent
men under them from fear of giving offence to members of Congress;
and the letters of these gentlemen published with the evidence will
show how fiercely some of them wielded the rod of terror. But it is
due to these gentlemen to say, that each of them who was questioned
denied that he ever desired the retention of an incompetent man, and
all agreed that the duties imposed upon them by the necessity of
superintending this division of patronage was very irksome and annoying.  They did it because the system imposed it upon them, but
would have been glad to be relieved.
They recommended men, from  the nature of the case, without
knowing much about their qualifications, and when these men were
removed they were apt to attribute it to some other cause than incompetency.
It is very probable that the system of appointing men upon the
recommendation of members of Congress tends to the retention of too
many men in the yard, especially about the period of elections; and
this may have been done to some small extent last fall; but the proof
is not decisive on that point.
The officers testify that during the last fall there were both at
Brooklyn and Philadelphia more men than were absolutely necessary,
but they say that those men were usefully employed. Mr. Crabbe,
the clerk of the Philadelphia yard, testifies that at that place the
number of men was greater after the election than before.
The official statement of the number of men at the different yards
does not sustain the allegation that the yards were stuffed with a view
to the election. In New York the greatest number of men in the yard
coincided with the time of the State and congressional election.  In
Philadelphia the election occurred during the first half of October,
while the greatest number of men were employed there in the latter
part of that month.  It so happens that the greatest number of men
in other yards, viz, in Portsmouth, Boston, Washington, Norfolk,
and Pensacola, were employed also in the months of September, October, and November, 1858, about the same time as in New York and
Philadelphia.  But in none of these States was there any election in
the fall of 1858, except perhaps in Florida.  It will not be contended
that the yards were stuffed in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Virginia, to affect the elections in Pennsylvania and New York.
The table to which I have alluded was furnished to the House of
Representatives in answer to a call from that body, and is hereto annexed.-(See page 54.)
It appears from the testimony that there was, at all the eastern
yards, in the fall of 1858, an unprecedented amount of work in progress, and that as that was completed, the number of men was diminished.
Commander Rootes speaks of the large number of men necessary
for fitting oiut the Niagara and the Paraguay expedition, and sailing
master Brady follows up with this statement:
" Question. How does the amount of work going on now compare
with the amount that was being done in November last?




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  9' Answer. I think we are doing a similar amount of work at the present time, only we are not quite so hurried as we were then. At that
time we were hurrying off this Paraguay expedition. As soon as we
could possibly dispense with the services of such a large number of
laborers without inconvenience to the public service, they were discharged.
"Question. When was the first dismissal of the men made?
" Answer. I cannot say exactly. I think it was made sometime after
I got there; I think about the first of the ensuing month, the first of
December, and more dismissed on the 15th of December.
But the testimony of Mr. Lenthall makes a more full and satisfactory explanation in relation to the work:
" Question, State what work has been done in your department in
the navy yards, according to the present means of stating, during the
past year, in the summer and fall more especially?
"Answer. At Portsmouth they have been working upon the c Con
stitution,' which required very considerable repairs, and the sloopof-war Portsmouth, and have been building one of the new sloops. At
Boston they have been repairing the sloop-of-war Constellation, the
sloop-of-war' Levant,' and the brig Dolphin, and building one of
the new sloops.  At New York they have been fitting out the Sabine,
Niagara, the' St. Louis,' and the two store-ships Supply and Release, building one of the new sloops, and fitting the steamers Atalanta, Westernport, Caledonia, and Mlemphis. At Philadelphia they
have been repairing the frigate' Congress,' finishing the sloop Lancaster, building two of the new sloops, fitting out the steamer Chapin
for the Paraguay expedition, repairing the merchant vessel Richmond,
which had been very seriously injured by being run into by a government vessel. At Norfolk they have been building the sloop-of-war
Richmond and one of these small sloops, repairing the' John Adams,'
and fitting out the steamers Southern Star, the Preble, Fulton, and
Water Witch for the Paraguay expedition.  At Pensacola they have
been building two sloops, one called the Pensacola and one of the new
sloops last authorized by Congress.  That is all that I remember of
the work during the last summer and fall.
" Question. How did this amount of work compare with the amount
of work at any time before going on in the navy yards?
" Answer. I think that it is rather more than we have ever had at
any one time before.
" Question. What occasioned the necessity of this great amount of
work being done last autumn?
"Answer. Part of it was due to the fitting out of the Paraguay expedition. Occasionally ships came in wanting more repairs than we
could foresee.  In repairing a ship we may sometimes find it necessary to rebuild it.
" Question. How many new sloops did you have at this time?' nswer. One at each of the yards; at Philadelphia there were two.' Question. How many new vessels have you had in progress during
the last yeam?
"Answer. Five authorizedby the last Congress, and seven authorized
since.




10           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
"y Question. WVas there ever a time before when there have been
twelve vessels in the course of construction at the navy yards?
" Answer. I think not."
Here, then, appears a reason for a larger number of men than usual,
during the fall of last year, at all the yards.
If; however, the system did not lead to this result of packing for
elections during the last fall, it certainly tends in that direction.
The practice of levying contributions upon the men, and receiving
costly presents from them, was amply proven and fully admitted.
It is a practice which your committee cannot too strongly reprobate.
The bestowal of a present by a subordinate upon a superintendent is
simply the purchase of an indulgence.  It must be a man of strong
principle who will require full compliance with duty from one whose
costly gifts he bears upon his person.
If such practices should be tolerated, employments in the yard will
be bolght and sold, and the question of a man's retention will be determined, not by his faithfulness in duty, but by his liberality in
presents. And, so, the office of master-workman will be a mere brokerage in appointments.  The men themselves, having obtained their
places by pay, will feel no sense of obligation to discharge their
duties properly, and the superintendents being bribed, there will be
none to exact fidelity.
If a fair share of the responsibility, whatever it may be, for the
policy of equalizing the patronage among the different congressional
districts must attach to the present Secretary of the Navy, it will not
be denied that he is fairly entitled to credit for the measures of reform
adopted during his term and by his direction.
Commander Bootes, whose service there commenced soon afer the
incoming of the present administration, says:    There were a great
many reforms made in the yard while I was there."  And one important reform  he mentions as made by him, in carrying out the
orders of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.  Constructor Delano mentions a regulation adopted about a year and a half ago, for the examination of all master-workmen before they can be appointed, thus securing that none but competent men shall hereafter be appointed to these
places.
This he thinks will have a decidedly beneficial effect.
It appears also that an order was issued on the 14th of December
from the Secretary of the Navy, the purport of which is to give to the
commandants of the yards the power to dismiss disorderly and incompetent men.  It is as follows:
c CIRCULAR.' NAVY DEPARTMENT, December 14, 1858.
"cThe commandant of a navy yard, at any time when in his judgment
the public interests require it, is authorized to direct the discharge of
any of the men employed in the yard under his command.
"He will report to the department when the services of any of the
master workmen can be advantageously dispensed with; also any just




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURESS.                 11
ground of complaint which may come to his knowledge against any
of them.'ISAAC TOUCEY,
" Secretary of the N2avy.
"     To the COMMANDANTS of Navy Yards.
If it be borne in mind that the evil complained of in these yards is
that the master workmen are appointed at the Navy Department, and
that they select their own men, so that there is no sufficient power in
the hands of the commandant of the yard to enforce discipline and rid
the service of idle and worthless employes, the importance of this
order will be seen.
Here, then, are several valuable reforms introduced under Governor
Toucey into this branch of the service. And as to the abuses which
have been mentioned, flagrant as they are, it would be difficult, upon
any principle of justice, to hold him particularly responsible, because
it does not appear that they were made known to him. The witnesses were questioned closely on this point, and almost unanimously
said that no complaints had been lodged before the department at
Washington.  That the department was always ready to have all
necessary investigations made Commodore Roote distinctly proves" Question. I want to know whether, so far as came within your
knowledge, when complaints were made to the department at Washington about misconduct in the yard, was. there any remissness in the
department in having these things investigated into-these complaints
alleged against men or practices in the yard?
" Answer. They seemed to be very anxious to have investigations
made."
If Governor Toucey be allowed due credit for the many important
reforms introduced by him into this branch of the service, and also for
his readiness to inquire into all alleged wrongs that might be brought
to his knowledge, he is entitled, as your committee think, to a favorable judgment at the hands of his countrymen.
It seems to be conceded, however, that, in order to secure thorough
reform in this regard, some act of legislation is necessary. The great
object would be to remove the appointment and dismissal of men from
the reach'of political influence. It is a serious question with your
committee whether it is practicable to do so.  Can appointments be
made at such a location without the intervention of party bias?  Its
accomplishment, if practicable, is necessary not only for the good of
the yard, but for the comfort, convenience, and independence of New
York city members of Congress.
The Hon. John Cochrane, the Hon. H. F. Clark, and others have
spoken out explicitly on that subject.
In speaking of the management of the Brooklyn navy yard, your
committee have thus far passed over the investigations made by them
into the manner in which the offices of storekeeper and navy agent at
that place have been discharged.  These are both important offices
and have each been the subject of much nnfavorable rumor.
As supplies cannot be purchased exactly when wanted, and as it is




12           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES,
found useful in practice to keep a quantity on hand ready for immendiate use, the office of storekeeper is indispensable.  It is his duty to
preserve them, to keep an account of the quantity received, and the
quantity paid out; and thus be able to show at any time the quantity
on hand.  Whenever a new storekeeper is appointed, it is indispensable that an inventory should be taken, in order to ascertain whether
the supplies on hand correspond with the quantity which the books
call for; otherwise one man might be made to suffer for the fraud or
carelessness of another.  Indeed, it appears advisable to your committee that inventories should be required at stated periods, even during
the service of the same storekeeper, should that service be long.  It
does not appear that this regulation has heretofore for years been
strictly and thoroughly complied with.  The present storekeeper (Mir.
I-errick) speaks of another abuse as heretofore existing in his office.
It has been the custom  of some of his predecessors, he says, when
supplies of a permanent character were furnished to out-going ships,
to credit them upon the books as paid out; yet if the vessels, upon
coming in from their cruise, should return a portion of thles`supplies,
as frequently happens, they have not again been charged against the
storekeeper on the books. Thus the storekeeper would have on hand
stores for which it would be difficult to fix his responsibiliey.  It is
difficult to see how such a case could arise without gross neglect somewhere.  The purser or commanding officer of the vessel s, or should
be, required to account for all stores, permanent or perishable; and
if paid over again to a naval storekeeper the receipt of that officer
should be required as a voucher.
This abuse, however, Mr. Herrick states, has been reformed during
his service.
The amount of stores which should be on hand in the offices of the
different storekeepers on the 1st of July, 1858, according to the
records of the department, is $6,333,664 21.
At New York, alone, the amount on hand at that time should
have been $1,414,152 68, and at some other yards even more. There
passes through the hands of the storekeeper at New Yorkn, in the
course of the year, stores amounting to something like a half million
of dollars.  The penalty of his official bond, as he states, is $40,000
only. This appears to your committee to be scarcely adequate..
Though the importance of this office is thus shown, it appears for
years past, and under administrations of different parties, to have
been regarded as a respectable and comfortable place for some man
who wished government aid while he carried on other business.  It
has often been filled by editors of newspapers. Such was Colonel
Fuller, under Mr. Fillmore's or General Taylor's administration;
such is Mr. Herrick now.  He says in his testimoy:
" I am editor of a newspaper.  I do not imagine that a storekeeper
with a salary of $1,700 is paid mainly for the manual or mental
labor he performs, but for the responsibility he assumes."
When asked whether he devoted as much as one-seventh of his individual time to the duties of his office, he answers: " I do not know
that I do; but I do all that is required."  Again, he says;
I think I am  as much in the storekeeper's office proper as any




NAVAL GONTRACTS  &AND EXPENDITURES.                 13
storekeeper I have known  and I have known several for at least fifteen
or twenty years. There was Captain Paul R. George, Colonel Craven,
Mr. Pentz, Colonel Fuller, and Colonel Delavan, who all conducted
the business jLst as I do; at least, I suppose they did.  Colonel
Fuller told me that he used to go there once or twice a week.  It is
not necessary to go every day.  I consider the storekeeper's place as
one of responsibility; the storekeeper is not expected to do manual
labor, or the work of a clerk.
" Question. Has not this office been given for many years, under all
administrations, to editors of papers, or some political person?
"Answer. A11 offices that I know of are given to some political person  they are all politicians, either on one side or the other.  Colonel Fuller was editor of the Mirror; Colonel Delavan was not, I
believe, in any business when he was appointed.  He was a politician, however."
While Commander Rootes thinks that the force in the storekeeper's
office is unnecessarily large, he thinks it too small, and states that
his books are now behind on that account.
If the government should approve the policy of paying one man for
responsibility, and another for labor, it will find occasion to increase
its employes in all branches of its business.  This policy your committee are not prepared to recommend.
The office of navy agent is one still more important.  He disburses
all the money expended at that point, both under the Bureau of Yards
and. Docks, and under that of Construction, Equipment, and Repairs,
amounting in the year to $3,000,000 and more.
Against this office, for years past, rumor has alleged grave abuses;
and therefore your committee resolved to make an extensive examination into its management.
Many ch-hrges more or less grave were made against the present
navy agent,, Mr.B anders, by different witnesses in this investigation.
Mr. B. S. Swackhamer, who had been employed as a clerk under
Mr. Sanders, and been discharged, stated that his accounts had. been
falsely made out, so as to show less of money chargeable against him
than was correct; and also that lJe had in some cases, for a compensation to himself, paid money to some parties before it was payable,
withholding it from  others to whom  it was due.  Mr. Swackhamer
said:
"' Answer. The statement made to the Secretary of the Navy during
the last months I was there did not represent the finances of the office.
There were generally several bills, amounting to several thousand
dollars, entered as having been paid the last of one-month, when they
were really paidc early in the following month.' Question. By whom was this done?
" Answer. By the chief clerk generally.
" Question. What effect would that have upon the statement of this
account; would it enable Mr. Sanders to draw more money?' Answer. Yes, sir; I took that to be the design. It would present
an incorrect view of the matter to the Secretary of the Navy. He
would not suppose there was so much money in hand as there really
was.




14           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Question. How long did you continue with Sanders?
" Answer. Until his office was confirmed; a little over a year after
his appointment.
" Question. What amount of bills were returned as paid which were
really unpaid?' Answer. I think about $20,000 or $30,000.
" Question. What was the aggregate amount?
"Answer. It passed on from one month to another, probably increasing. I remember one bill of $8,000 and odd, which was reported
as paid in April, which was not paid until some time in May."
Mr. Swackhamer further said that the accounts of the former navy
agent (his brother) had been incorrectly stated also.
Others charged Mr. Sanders with sending his requisitions almost
exclusively to Secor & Co., of which house his surety is a member,
without making the requisite call upon contractors, and without
knowing anything about the price which Secor & Co. would charge,
and many witnesses charge him with neglect of duty, &c.
Upon all these points Mr. Sanders was examined at length.  He
denied the charges made by Mr. Swackhamer, and on that subject
submitted the following explanations:
" Question. When you send a bill to the department to draw the
money on it is this receipt attached to it?
" Answer. A blank form of receipt is attached to it; it is not signed,
however, until the money is ready to be paid.
" Question. You send the bills to the department, they send you the
money, you pay the parties, and then they sign the receipts?'Answer. That is so. They sign the receipts when the money is paid
to them; and these receipts, thus signed, are my vouchers.
" Question. Then the bill when it is first sent on is the same as the
one you send on as a voucher, only the receipt is not signed?
" Answer. Yes, they send it back to me, and when I get the receipt
signed, it goes to the accounting officer of the Treasury as my voucher.
" Question. Is a record of these bills kept at the department?'Answer. I presume so, at least; I do not know enough of the way
they manage their business, however, to say positively.
"Question. Then at the end of the quarter you send to the Treasury
Department all your receipts?
"Answer. Yes, and they then close up my accounts for the quarter;
I have never had a mistake found in my accounts yet; some items
may be sent back for explanation, but in every instance it was satisfactorily explained."
In relation to the charge of leaving unpaid accounts which were
due Mr. Sanders, stated as follows:
" Question. Has it ever been the case that you have used money,
which you have received for a particular bill which you have sent to
Washington, to pay another bill which yuu have not sent on to Washington, leaving the other bill unpaid?' Answer. No; I have never let a bill lie over at all, except when I
was directed to use this discretion, to work off the treasury paper to
the least injury of all parties, giving a part of the cash, which reaches
tne in advance, to one and a part to another. I have never heard a




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 15
word of complaint from a contractor on this ground, and no man who
received money through my office ever had cause to complain that I
had kept him waiting for his money a minute after he applied for it,
if I had received it.  Now, to show that if I am deficient in anything
it is not in keeping sufficient funds on hand, because it takes a week
for me to make a requisition upon Washington and get the money, I
will mention an instance. At the time the Niagara was ordered off,
the purser of the Niagara received an order from the Secretary of the
Navy upon me for $10,000, and I received a despatch to that effect
also.  Recent drafts from the Secretary and Fourth Auditor had exhausted all the pay and contingent fund on hand; but I promptly
borrowed the money and paid it over to the purser. There has been
no instance, after the receipt of funds, in which I have kept creditors
waiting for their money from the smallness of the contingent fund.
The department has overdrawn on me twice, yet I have always paid.
I recollect that there was an article in the Herald, about the time of
my confirmation, saying that the Secretary had better examine my
accounts; yet on that very day I was $2,000 in advance of the government, and transmitted a telegraphic despatch to the Secretary
of the Navy to that effect.
Question. When did you last settle up your accounts?' Answer. On the 30th of September last.
Question. Did you exhibit your receipts and vouchers at that
time?
" Answer. Yes; everything.' Question. How did your accounts then stand?
"Answer. They were all square.
Commodore Smith, chief of the Bureau of Docks and Yards, says
that these things could scarcely be true to any important extent with —
out discovery, and that no complaint even had ever been made to the
department on that subject.
" Question. Under that system, would it not be practicable to bring
into the settlement of a former quarter what had happened during
the current quarter, by making a false return?
" Answer. I do not see how it could be done, unless he committed
a fraud, altering figures and dates.
Question. If that were done would it be likely that complaints
would be made?
"Answer. The person who is to receive the money upon the bill
which has been approved would certainly make a complaint if he did
not receive his money, unless he had made a bargain with the navy
agent to allow him to retain the money upon paying for the use of it.
If he did that the navy agent might charge upon a previous quarter
the payment of a bill which he had not paid, excepting by a promise."
Mr. G. A. Blood, who has been chief clerk in the navy agent's
office for five years, fully sustains Mr. Sander's denials and confirms
his explanations.
In relation to the charge of procuring all his supplies of Secor &
Co., allowing them to charge too high a price, Mr. Sanders stated that
his purchases in open market from Secor & Co. had been, since the
1st of April last, only about $13,000.




16           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES,
In relation to his failure to consult contractors, he explained by
referring to the following letter addressed by him  to Commodore
Smith on that subject:
N        AVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
" New York, August 17, 1858.' SIR: Your letter of the 14th instant, calling my attention to the
circular of the department of December 29, 1855, has been received.'I think it proper at this time to present to the bureau a few obstacles
in connexion with this matter, and which if the bureau will remove,
I will be very happy to carry out the circular to the letter. So far as
it has been in my power I have endeavored to act according to the
spirit of the instructions of the department, always keeping in view
the fact that the department required nothing but of the very best
quality; and it is admitted at the yard that the articles are the very
best in market, and give the highest satisfaction; for which a fair
market price should be paid, and nothing more; and when I have
thought parties wished to charge exorbitantly, I have refused them
any of the trade of the office.  And in a case recently, where purchases
were made on account of Mr. Lesley, contractor, the articles were procured at a much lower rate than the contract, although they were
afterwards turned over to the contractor, and the bills made in his
name.
" Requisitions are often made for so small quantities-for instance,
three spools of cotton-and so indefinite, (if for tools, or iron, &c., no
size is given,) that no merchant could form an estimate of the price
until the parties at the yard are consulted.  This occupies time, and
two or three applications of this kind, if they should fail to receive
an order, the bureau will readily perceive, would not only discourage,
but disguAs them with the whole working of the department.
" It is often the case that articles are not required until the moment
they are wanted for use, and then they are either purchased by the
yard, or, if time is taken to go through the form of the circular, hundreds of men are kept idle, waiting, and the government really loses
more than twice the cost of the article; and this cannot be avoided, if
the circular is carried out to the letter.  If there is a requisition from
the yard of any large amount, it is invariably the case that it is stated
on the face of it where it is to be bought.  I have too amiably yielded
to these suggestions, thereby establishing a bad precedent, as the inspector should not influence the purchase.
"I do not understand the circular to give contractors the monopoly
of supply.  Some of the contractors are evidently of this opinion, and
recklessly make bids below the cash value of the best articles of the
class, hoping to make up such losses by excessive charges on articles
ordered by open purchase.  If the inspectors do their duty there will
be little profit on the open purchases, even were they all given to a
single house, and it is certainly to the interest of the government that
the best house in the city should do all the miscellaneous business, as
I have shown it is not of sufficient consequence to be much divided.
"Very respectfully,
"GEO. N. SANDERS, Navy Agent."




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES,                17
The chief clerk, Mr. Blood, corroborated Mr. Sanders on this point
also.
Mr. Sanders distinctly denied having ever received any part of the
profits upon articles purchased by him. Having investigated these
charges as thoroughly as they could, your committee have no hesitation in saying that, upon the weight of testimony before them, Mr.
Sanders has not been convicted of any fraud or malfeasance in office.
The charge that Mr. Sanders is frequently absent from New York,
and gives comparatively little personal attention to the duties of his
office, appears to have been better sustained. He alleges, however,
that when absent from the office he leaves a very competent assistant
to discharge his duties for him. It does not appear to your committee
that the business of his office has suffered by the absence of Mr. Sanders, nor does it appear that any complaint of personal inattention to
duty has ever been made to the department in Washington against
him.
It appears to your committee that the duties of navy agent are not
defined with sufficient distinctness. The only legal provision on the
subject is that which fixes the salary at $3,000; the rest is left to the
regulations of the department.
The contest which appears several times to have arisen between the
navy agent and the commandant of the yard in relation to their relative rights and responsibilities in making purchases ought to be settled. The responsibility should be clearly fixed.
The large amount of open purchases, and especially the large
amount made without the intervention of the navy agent, has struck
your committee with surprise.
Purchases by the master workmen do not seem to be sufficiently
guarded against fraud and collusion.
The navy agent purchases upon a requisition drawn by the civil officer
of the department that needs the article, which requisition is approved
by the commandant and countersigned by the storekeeper. The article
when bought is inspected by the inspection officer, and is entered upon
the books of the storekeeper. There appears to be every necessary
precaution in this case, except as to the question of price. When the
master workman purchases, the civil officers above him and the commandant of the yard are required merely to approve the bill. Other
safeguards are removed.  And yet it appears that more than twothirds of the articles recently purchased at New York have been purchased in that way.
H. Rep. Corn. 184 —2




18             NAVAL  CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Amount of open purchases made at the New York station, arranged according to the quarters, from  April 1, 1857, to December 31, 1858,
inclusive.
Quater.                     Purchases by   Purchases by
agent.        yard.
Second quarter, ending June 30, 1857   -----      $32, 287 97    $52,739 56
Third quarter, September 30, 1857 ---------        14,832 72      61,028 40
Fourth quarter, December 31, 1857  - --------       4830 30       39,912 24
First quarter, March 31, 1857 -------------         5,787 57      57,086 13
Second quarter, June 30, 1858 —--—......... ------    13, 192 88  27, 172 12
Third quarter, September 30, 1858................ —   6,425 15   29,860 07
Fourth quarter, December 31, 1858. —-----------—.-   11,036 23  34, 189 80
88,392 82    312,888 32
The Philadelphia yard was the only other to which the investigation
of your committee was seriously invited.
The testimony in relation to that discloses nothing which calls, in
the opinion of your committee, for special comment.
The question in relation to the employment of eighty oakum-spinners in the summer of 1858, so far as the government is concerned,
appears to have been simply a question whether it was better to have
the oakum spun up rapidly by a large number of men, and then dismiss them all, or whether it should have been done by a smaller
number in a longer time. The competency of these persons for this
work and their faithfulness in labor is proven.
AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANTHRACITE COAL.
Since the substitution of steamers for sail vessels to so great an extent in our navy, fuel has become a very important and costly part of
our naval supplies.
For a long time the government was greatly imposed on in making
purchases of the article.  The circumstances under which the mode of
purchasing was changed is thus described by a very intelligent witness,
Mr. B. H. Springer, of Philadelphia:
" Answer. So far back as 1845 or 1846, I am not positive which, the
coal trade in Philadelphia, seeing the manner in which the government was supplied, felt desirous of introducing a better article, for
their own interest of course, as well as for the interest of the government.  They urged me to visit Washington and try to get it
introduced into the navy. I think this was during Secretary Mason's
first term, under President Polk.  I complied with their request, and
visited Washington each session without accomplishing anything until
the long session-I do not remember which Congress-which terminated in 1850.  I was informed by Mr. Graham  that if we could
succeed in getting the law altered which gave it to the lowest bidder
he would appoint an agent. We did succeed, and I was appointed in
January, 1851."
Mr. Springer was a man of intelligence, who had been much em



NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                19
ployed in the coal trade, and who understood the business thorGughly.
He made, doubtless, a very excellent agent. After him a Mr. Tyson
was appointed for four years, and at the expiration of his term the
present agent, Dr. Charles B. Hunter, of Reading, Pennsylvania,
received the appointment. The last appointment was made in May,
1858, since the coming in of the present administration.
It is very clear from his testimony, as well as from that of other
witnesses examined before the committee, that Dr. Hunter has proved
himself an utterly worthless agent.
It appears, too, that he has an equal partner in the profits of this
agency, a Mr. J. F. Smith, of Philadelphia, who has been very little,
if at all, more useful than Dr. Hunter.
Such execution of government trusts your committee cannot too
strongly condemn.
The inquiry naturally arises, how far are the authorities at Washington responsible for this worthlessness and incompetency of their
agent?
Dr. Hunter is an educated man, of high respectability as a gentleman, a resident in the vicinity of the coal region, and for some time
connected with the iron business. It could scarcely be expected that
Governor Toucey should make appointments in the different States
upon his own personal knowledge; and though the President resided
in the same State with Dr. Hunter, yet he had been so much employed
in public affairs, and recently so much out of the State and away
from the country, that he, too, might well be allowed to rely even for
Pennsylvania appointments upon the information and recommendation
of friends. Proof has been exhibited before your committee that
Dr. Hunter's testimonials and recommendations were of the strongest,
most extensive, and most influential kind.
The following is a specimen of them:' The undersigned, members of the senate and house of Berks county,
in the State legislature, beg leave to recommend Dr. Charles H. Hunter,
of said county, for the agency to supply the government with anthracite
coal, now held by Benjamin Tyson.
" Doctor Hunter is a sound, active, and influential democrat, of undoubted integrity, and in every respect fully competent to discharge
the duties of the office.
" We earnestly request this appointment as one due to the applicant,
and as one which will prove highly gratifying to the democracy of this
county.
" JOHN 0. EVANS.
"J. LAWRENCE GETZ.
"W. WM. HEINS.
"B. NUNEINACHER.
"MICHAEL HOFFMAN.
"Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy."
Similar recommendations for Dr. Hunter were signed by Mr.
Scwartz, Mr. Heister, and a large number of other gentlemen.
If gentlemen in public pos.tion, having the interests of the entire




20          NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Union to supervise, with important trusts constantly claiming their
attention, and important appointments constantly to dispose of, with
numerous applicants crowding upon them night and day, and with
their army of backers and friends, literally laying the Executive
Mansion and the public departments under seige,-if under such circumstances they may not fall back, and rely safely upon such recommendations as these, what iesort will be left to them?  They cannot
make one appointment in a thousand upon their own knowledge; if,
then, they may not rely upon gentlemen of known position and standing to advise them as to suitable persons for public positions, your
committee are at a loss to know how such duties are to be performed.
Your committee do not know what testimonials rival applicants may
have produced; but unless they were absolutely overwhelming, the
question would appear to be, what right had the President and the
Secretary of the Navy, as men anxious to do well for the country, to
disregard such recommendations in making this appointment?
And after the appointment was made, what was there, as shown by
the testimony, to have caused them to remove Dr. Hunter? No complaint was ever made to them up to the time when this investigation
began of his inefficiency or inattention to duty.  Coal of better quality than that received in former years was being furnished; Lenthall,
the chief of the Bureau of Construction, under whose supervision much
of it passed, was satisfied; Commodore Smith, the chief of the Bureau
of Docks and Yards, who supervised a large proportion of it, was
satisfied; this branch of the public business seemed to move forward
as smoothly and as successfully as if Dr. Hunter had been all his life a
coal-digger, and was devoting himself to his business with an energy
and intensity unsurpassed in the history of public officers. What
was there, then, to have awakened the attention of men constantly
pressed with public engagements, particularly to the coal agency in
Pennsylvania?
It is true, there were men all this while apparently lying in wait
for their victim, and setting their toils in the dark. There was Niven,
himself a disappointed applicant for the coal agency, and who had
proposed dishonorable arrangements in order to obtain the place; he
was making proposals which he knew could not be fulfilled, and deliberately preparing himself, as it would seeem, to be a swift witness in
the future.
There, too, was Repplier, displeased because he was no longer allowed to sell his coal to the government at a more extravagant price;
there were others envious perhaps of the better fortune of more successful competitors for this desirable trade.  But no one of them all
gave one word of information to the authorities at Washington in
relation to a proceeding which they knew at the time (as they now
swear) to be a great fraud upon the government.
In relation to the quality of the coal received during the present
agency, Mr. Pierce, naval storekeeper at Boston, says:' It was very
good; it is said by engineers to be superior to that received in former
years."
Chief Engineer Wood, says: "It was everything, so far as regards




NAVAL  CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                          21
quality and preparation, that could be desired; I never saw superior
coal to that furnished."
Scinickson, of Philadelphia, and others, confirm generally this
statement.
The importance of procuring the best article of coal for steam purposes, in view of the limited coal room in steam  vessels, and to avoid
useless freights in supplying foreign stations, will be apparent to all.
What is called the foreign freight is greatly larger than the home
price of the coal, and is as much on worthless dust as on the purest
ore.  The requirement for the best article of coal seems to have been
fully met in the recent supplies.
Your committee have said that it was furnished at a price, both relatively and absolutely, lower than for years before. In proof of this
they refer to a table of prices of coal purchased in former years, as furnished by Mr. Lenthall in his examination.
abstract statement showing coal purchased and shipped to foreign stations,
semi-annually,from  January 1, 1852, to September 30, 1858.
Dates.                No. of tons. Average cost per   Total cost.
ton, including
freight.
First half year of 1852-.  -— 2 2.240~-                 $13 04       $29,233 78
Second half year of 1852 ------          5, 9161         18 70       110,620 80
First half year of 1853 —-, -  -         4, 9364         16 93        83,548 18
Second half year of 1853 -----           8,279k          19 89       164,745 05
First half year of 1854 —----    -      12,07615         21 05       254, 312 15
Second half year of 1854 ----     -        416           14 73         6,131 15
1855, none.
1856, none.
First half year of 1857 —---,      2, 759s         14 22~       39,249 10
Second half year of 1857 —-----   -     13, 676          14 32       195,881 13
First half year of 1858, none.
Second half year of 1858, to September 30  4,474         12 70        57,834 80
It appears that the agent, some time after his appointment, made an
arrangement with  the firm  of Tyler, Stone &  Co., coal dealers of
Philadelphia, under which they furnished the greater part of the coal
through the year at $3 85 per ton., What was a fair price for such coal at that time it is difficult precisely
to say.  The difficulty in the case grows out of some apparent conflict
in the testimony, and also out of the difficulty of fixing a standard by
which to determine what is a fair price, and out of the different value
of coal of different qualities, and under different preparation.
It is in proof that coal of a similar character to that furnished the
government was sold at the same time by other persons, in some instances, at the same rate. Mr. Luther says that he sold it, in one instance, at a price equivalent to $3 85 in Philadelphia.
As he is intelligent, the following is extracted from his testimony:
" Question. What would have been a fair market value during the
spring and summer of 1858 for such coal as the government uses, pro



22           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
vided a man had obligated himself to be in readiness to furnish any
amount the government might call for upon short notice-any reasonable quantity of coal the government might call for; such quantities
as the government did in fact use?
"Answer. I would not have undertaken to have supplied it, with
such despatch, at less than from $3 75 to $3 85 a ton.  When I said
that a man might have bought it for $3 40 or $3 50 a ton, he could
not buy the quantities the government orders of one single individual
or firm alone. None of them  ever have that amount on hand. He
might get it, perhaps, by going around to several different houses,
taking half a cargo of this one, a cargo of that one, and, perhaps, two
cargoes of another.  What I mean by a cargo is 200 to 300 tons,
which is the usual size of a boat load.
"I Question. Do dealers in Philadelphia often have a quantity of coal
on hand, such as the government would need for its uses?
" Answer, No, sir; I have never seen any of them have more than
five hundred tons of it on hand at a time in my life; never.
Mr. Scinicksen, another coal dealer, also testifies as follows:
"Question. As you saw it delivered, what would have been the fair
market price in Philadelphia in the spring, summer, and fall of 1858?
" Answer. $3 75 to $3 90 would not be anything more than a regular paying business of ten per cent., I should judge; we sold coal at
the same time at $3 85.
"Question. To whom?
"Answer. To coal dealers in Virginia; we sent a good deal to the
south; I do not remember the firms."
Mr. Tyler, of the firm of Tyler, Stone & Co., swears that at $3 83
per ton the profits of his firm were about ten per cent.
Mr. J. Vaughan Merrick, of the firm of Merrick & Sons, testifies
that his firm in Philadelphia actually paid a price at least equivalent
to this for all the coal they used.
On the other hand, there is testimony that it could have been sold
at a considerably lower price.
G. P. Nevin swears that he proposed to sell it to the agent at $3 20
per ton.
He was an applicant himself for the coal agency, and before the
matter was determined he made a proposition to Mr. Beach, of the
firm of Tyler, Stone & Co., which is described by Mr. Beach as follows: "He said he was anxious to get this appointment, and if I
would assist him I might dictate my own terms in return."
This incident rests upon the testimony of Mr. Tyler as well as of
Mr. Beach.
But if this is insufficient to discredit Mr. Nevin, the whole current
of the testimony will show that he could not have sold to the government a good article of coal and well prepared for steam purposes at
the price named by him. At that price he must necessarily have lost
money, or else have practiced a fraud upon the government.
Then Mr. Repplier testifies that he would have been glad to have
sold to the government as good coal as that purchased of Tyler, Stone
& Co. at $3 30. He says, at the same time, however, that he never
examined the coal furnished by Tyler, Stone & Co. He may not have




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  23
known precisely the quality and condition of their coal. The coal he
proposed to furnish at $3 30 he called by the same name as that
furnished by Tyler, Stone & Co., viz: black heath. But Mr. Springer
says: " We do not go by names, sir.  *   *   *   I have frequently
known the names of the best veins applied to very inferior coal."
Your committee are of opinion, from the testimony, that he would
not have furnished coal of the vein purchased by Tyler, Stone & Co.,
dressed as Scimicksen saw them dress it, and placed in the state of
preparation described by Pierce, at $3 30 per ton.
A few facts scattered here and there in the testimony will throw
some light on his sincerity in the declaration.
He furnished a good deal of the government coal in 1857.  The
price he got was $4 25 per ton. It is proven that in 1858 coal was
about thirty cents per ton lower than in 1857, so that the price at
which he sold it in the year 1857 is about equivalent to $3 95 in
1858.
Tyler and Luther both testify that they bought coal of Repplier &
Co. in 1858, at the mines, at a price far more than equivalent to $3 30
in Philadelphia.  And Smith, the partner of Dr. Hunter, testifies
that some of this very coal for which the government paid $3 85 was
purchased of Repplier & Co. Scimicksen also says that he knew the
price of Repplier's coal in 1858, and it was from $3 75 to $3 65. Your
committee attach little importance to his testimony under such circumstances.
There is a sworn affidavit sent on by sundry firms of Philadelphia
coal dealers, saying that they would have furnished coal to the government, suitable for its uses, at $3 35 per ton. As they were not
before the committee, to be questioned about the qualities of the coal
to which they refer, their affidavit is not conclusive.
The testimony of Mr. Borda, united with that of Scimicksen, will
perhaps afford the surest bases of calculation. Mr. Borda was the
manager of Hecksier & Co., of whom Tyler, Stone & Co. bought.
He says he sold to Tyler, Stone & Co., at the mines, at $1 80, except for six weeks, during which he sold to them at $1 75. Taking
$1 80 as the basis of calculation, the freight from the mines to Philadelphia is $1 35.  The cost of special preparation, such as they
gave, and placing on ship-board, is, according to the testimony of
Scimicksen and others, twenty cents.  Then add five cents per ton
for waste in rehandling.  Thus it will be:
Price of coal per ton at mines...........................  $1 80
Freight to  Philadelphia................................      1  35
Preparation and putting on board vessel..................       20
3 35
Loss from rehandling.................................            5.e 40
That Tyler, Stone & Co. did usually rehandle it, the excellent




24           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
condition of their coal when delivered, and the express testimony of
Mr. Scinnicksen, will sufficiently prove.  Mr. Scimicksen says:
"Question. Did you observe personally that they put extra labor
and care upon it in preparing it for government use?
"Answer. I did with regard to some of it; I did not see it all
shipped.
"Question. How often did you observe it?
"Answer. I saw them load vessels frequently; I could not say how
many times. I remarked at the time, to them  and to others, that
they were taking great pains with the coal, and must get a big price
for it."
If the sum of $3 40 is a fair price at which to estimate the cost of
the coal to Tyler, Stone & Co., then 10 per cent. on that would
be 34 cents, making $3 74. Twelve per cent. would be.3 80.
But a question of drawbacks is raised here.  That matter will be
given as stated by the witness, Mr. Borda:
"Question. You say that the freight would be $1 35; how much
of that is allowed as drawback?
"Answer. If it is to go to New York there is a drawback of 20
cents; but if it is loaded at Philadelphia, to go south or east, there is
no drawback.
"Question. What is the five per cent. allowance?
"Answer. It is the allowance made by the railroad for waste; we
include that in the shipping expenses.' Question. How do you ascertain the weight?
"Answer. Upon the railroad scale at the mine.  We have lateral
railroads, and the coal is weighed upon scales at the termination of
those lateral roads, where they meet the Reading railroad. That is
called the gross weight. Five per cent. being taken off, that leaves
the net weight.  We get paid only for the net weight."
How far this statement should modify the above calculation your
committee need not stop to inquire.
It must be remembered that in order to supply large calls from the
government, sent without notice, it was necessary for Tyler, Stone &
Co. to keep a large amount of coal, suitable for government purposes,
constantly on hand.  On this, of course, they lost interest.
From all that has been said, your committee conclude that $3 85
for such coal as Tyler, Stone & Co. furnished the government allowed
them profits somewhat too large but not very excessive.
A good agent might, with unusual diligence and devotion to the
public interest, have to some extent reduced the price.  In every
other respect Tyler, Stone & Co., who took upon themselves the
duties of the agency, acquitted themselves thereof in a manner that
left nothing to be desired. Indeed, while your committee will not
withhold its censure from negligent and unskilful agents, yet, in view
of the great difficulty of obtaining for the government a good article
at a fair price, they think that this transaction, in its practical results,
is not peculiarly unfavorable.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                25
Certainly nothing appears in the action of the Secretary of the
Navy to condemn.  Mr. Beach, of the firm of Tyler, Stone & Co.,
was, it is true, his wife's nephew-a connexion rather too remote to
overcome by its influence any but a very weak morality; and in the
absence of all proofs to show that he had. any agency, direct or
indirect, in securing for that firm the chief supply of coal, or, in fact,
that he ever knew of that arrangement, he is entitled to the full
benefit of his own denial, sustained, as it is, by Dr. Hunter's sworn
declaration that Mr. Toucey never made any intimation, direct or
indirect, to him as to the persons of whom he should purchase, and
that nothing ever occurred between them on the subject.
The rate of compensation allowed was precisely the same which
had been allowed by Mr. Fillmore's administration for the first agent,
viz: five per cent. on the coal purchased and on inland freights. The
testimony of Mr. Springer, who was the first agent, will best sustain
this declaration:
"Question. How was your compensation fixed?
"Answer. At five per cent.
"Question. Upon what?
"i  Answer. Upon the price of coal and freight. I took up all vessels
and superintended them."
The amount of coal purchased then was much smaller than it has
since become, and as it grows larger it might have been well, in the
opinion of the committee, to have reduced the per centage allowed.
But the amount of coal purchased in the summer and fall of 1858,
swelled as it was by the Paraguay expedition and other unusual
demands, furnished no just basis on which to fix the proper per
centage; and it must be borne in mind that both the former agents
had made claims for some additional compensation.
It would appear hard to hold an administration responsible for not
foreseeing contingencies, and adapting its regulations always strictly
to them. In the case of the Japan expedition, under Mr. Fillmore's
administration, Howland & Aspinwall, of New York, were allowed
ten per cent. on every cargo of coal sent out, including original cost,
inland and foreign freights, insurance, &c.
This gave them a clear compensation for the coal furnished to that
expedition, in the two years of its existence, greater than the total
commissions of all the coal agents together since the agency was
established. This will appear from the annexed table:




Commissions paid to the several coal agents by the Bureau of Construction, &fc., during each fiscal year, since their first appointment in 1851.
Names.                 To June 30,  To June 30,  To June 30,  To June 30,   To June 30,  To June 30,  To June 30,   To June 30,   To Dec. 31,                       Total.
1851.          1852.          1853.           1854.          1855.          1856.           1857.          1858.      1858,6 months.
B. H. Springer.................       $115 09        $292 31         $274 23      $2,100 37        $214 00.........................................                  $2,996 00
ohn Jamison....................        234 45        1,041 36         924 24         690 17          346 67.......................................................        3,236 89 
Benjamin Tyson...................................................................    15022 13  $1,244 30  $1,404 29  $5,633 78..............  9304 50 
C. H. Hunter....................................................................................................................               319  21     $5807  74          6,126  95 
James Polk.............................................................................  22702  90 47    201  6.............          79 06           597 81
349 54       1,333 67       1,198 47       2,790 54        1,809 82       1,334 77        1,605 55       5,952 99       5,886 80         22,262 15.______.___   ______ ______.___.___  _____ ______ _______  _______   H
Howland & Aspinwall*........................    1785 17            22,030 73      27,159 96.....................'..................  i...........       50 975 86
*This amount was paid to Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, who acted for that time as the special agents of the department for the procurement of coal and freighting it for the Japan            m
expedition, they purchasing the coal and paying the freight bills out of their own funds, and, upon settlement with the bureau, receivirg a per centage upon the gross amount.                    ~
Statenent of the amount of commiissions paid to the several coal agents, for purchases under the cognizance of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, during each fiscal year since
theirfirst appointment in 1851.                                                                                   M
To June 30,   To June 30,  To June 30,  To June 30,  To June 30,  To June 30,   To June 30,  To June 30,  To Dec. 31,                        Total. 
lb5.          1852.          1853.           1854.          1855.          1856.           1857.          1858.      1858,6 months. 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __1.     1  8    _ 8.               _    _  _ _         _          _         _                                                                                    dH
John Jamison...................        $213 30        $872 35         $936 05         $66 79..................................................                  $2,088 49 f
B. H. Springer...................         58 21         550 08         840 20       1,020 52........................................................2,469 01                                 12
James Polk...........................................................................   $1,949 75         $1994 22          1,761 46     $2,434 70       $1,866 21         10,006 34
Benjamin Tyson..........................................................................    1,363 34   687 95        1,373 72       1,709 67............          5,134 68
271 51       1,422 43       1,776 25        1,087 31  1 3,313 09          2,682 17          135 18       4144 37131     3,511 39         21,343 70
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.                                                                                                                                  JOS. SMITH, Chief of Bureau.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                27
In this connexion it is just to say, that in providing for the use of
American coal on most foreign stations on terms cheaper than foreign
coals have heretofore been purchased, Mr. Toucey deserves well of
his country, and especially of the coal interest itself.
Your committe'e thus far have omitted to allude to the testimony of
Mr. Smith, connecting the President of the United States in a peculiar
manner with the appointment of Dr. Hunter. It is proved that there
was a great contest among the numerous applicants for the appointment.  At length it was arranged by a number of friends that Dr.
Hunter should be designated as the man agreed on, and the emoluments of the office should be divided between him, Mr. Smith, and
Mr. Getz.
No one traces any knowledge of this arrangement, either direct or
indirect, to the Secretary of the Navy; and no one but Mr. Smith
speaks of any allusion to it in the presence of the President. In
order that his testimony may be properly understood, what he says
on this point is given as follows:
" Question. Did you communicate this arrangement to the President?
Did he understand that an arrangement had been made between the
competitors for this office?
"Answer. Yes, sir; he understood that the emoluments of the office
were to go to the three, as I have stated.
"Question. Did he say anything about it?
"Answer. No, sir."
Again he says:
" Question. Do you say that the President understood that you three
gentlemen had made an amicable arrangement about this office, or
that he understood the profits of the office were to be divided up
between you?
"Answer. He understood that we had come to some amicable
arrangement.
"Question. Did he understand that the profits were to be divided?
"Answer. I do not know what he understood, whether it was that
one-half was to go to one man and one-fourth to each of the others,
or what it was.
" Question. Was anything said by him about dividing the income of
the office between you three?
"Answer. No, sir.
"Question. Was anything said to him about it?
"Answer. No, sir; not by me. I donot know what conversation
the others may have had about it."
Again he says:
"Question. Did the President understand that this arrangement was
for the mutual benefit of you three gentlemen?
"Answer. From what little conversation I had with him, I suppose
he understood that we three, who were all pressed for appointment,
had made an arrangement. But I suppose he knew nothing in regard




23          NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
to how the emoluments were to be divided, whether equally, share and
share alike, or not.
"Question. Did he understand that the office was for the benefit of
you three persons?
"Answer. Yes, sir; that we three were to be satisfied, but he knew
nothing about the arrangement, whether one-half was to go to one
party and the other half to the other two or not.'
It will be seen that Mr. Smith states that the President understood
that the emoluments of the office were to go to the three. Again, he
says that the President understood that the three were satisfied. He
says further, that nothing was said by him to the President, or
by the President to him, on the subject of dividing the income of the
office between the three.
How then did he know that the President understood the matter?
Clearly, it was a mere inference on his part. The matter was strongly
in his mind, and he took it for granted that the President knew it too.
This is the whole testimony to that effect.
When he said the matter was settled, the President said he was
glad the thing was done or "finished."  He was glad that the contest was ended, but made no allusion to a division of the compensation between the three.
As this announcement was made by Smith, who appeared to be
satisfied, and as Dr. Hunter was to be the appointee, the inference
perhaps is just, that the President understood that they two were to
have the agency.  But that he knew that Mr. Getz would have a
part of the compensation, is rendered highly improbable by the testimony of Mr. Getz himself:
"Answer. The appointment was spoken of, I think, by the President in my presence.
"Question. The appointment of Dr. Hunter?
"Answer. Yes, sir.
"Question. What did the President say to it?
"Answer. It was in reply to something that was supposed to refer
to me; it was in reply to an application for my appointment to that
office, as it was supposed; he said he had made up his mind to appoint
Dr. Hunter; these were his words, I think-"Mr. Jones urged me
to appoint you; but you were no applicant, and I have made up my
mind to appoint Dr. Hunter."
" Question. Was anything further said?
"Answer. Not in regard to this subject, I think, sir."
Now, would this have been the language of the President to Mr.
Getz, if he had known that he was to get a part of the compensation?
If it be conceded, then, that the President understood that Hunter
and Smith were to have the profits of the agency, does it afford any
ground of complaint?
Mr. Springer testifies:
" Answer. It would require a number of persons to attend to it.
One person could not attend to it to give it the attention it requires.
For instance, sometimes there will be two or three vessels loading at




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                29
once at different ports. When I first had it, it could have been done
much better, when the different vessels would be loaded near each
other.  One coal inspector could not attend to the whole; but if the
coal were to be procured on contract, it might be still worse."
Mr. Tyson, who preceded Dr. Hunt, actually had a partner in the
duties and profits of the agency.
Dr. Hunter, too, would certainly need aid in the discharge of the
duties involved. It was a mere agency which might be given to two
men, and not an office to be filled by one only.
If Smith was to remain at Philadelphia to attend to the duties of
the agency there, while Hunter was to be employed in the region of
the mines, your committee can see no impropriety whatever in the
arrangement.  What the committee does condemn is the gross ne.
glect of duty on the part of both.
It appears to your committee that a coal agency, under proper
regulations, is very desirable.  No other system has served so well.
Mr. Springer says on this point:
" Prior to that, the government was supplied in a very bad way, and
I think injuriously to its interest.  I think they got a much better
article and at a lower rate, during the agency than before. I consider it an all important thing; I consider a coal agency properly conducted is one of the most important stations belonging to the Navy
Department.  The properties of coal are so various that a person who
is not thoroughly acquainted with it may purchase a bad article and
endanger the ship and all on board. The received opinion of persons
not acquainted with the subject is that all coals are alike; but there is
as much difference between different coals as thereis between the best
hickory and the worst pine wood. The government has bought coal, to
my knowledge-not under agencies, but prior to them-which was
condemned. I was removed in 1853. Mr. Dobbin was then Secretary of the Navy, and for a time he tried the navy agents; but they
sent such coal as could not be used. Mr. Dobbin told me himself that
on some of it they had a survey, and it was condemned and sold for
either a dollar and a quarter or a dollar and a half per ton. I was
familiar with the fact myself. I must say that I consider a coal agency
indispensable for the Navy Department.' Question. What is the proper business of the coal agent?
"Answer. When I was in the agency I can inform you what I considered the business.  I was required, when I was first appointed, to
abandon all other business and devote my whole time to the agency.
The duty of the agent is to select the coal, purchase it, and superintend the shipping of it; to do which it would require the closest
attention of two or three persons, Indeed, while I was agent that
was the course I pursued."
Your committee would recommend that the agency be retained, but
that safe-guards against abuse be thrown around it.
In this connexion it is proper to say that the other coal agency,
that for the purchase of bituminous coal, stands unimpeached in this
investigation.




30         NNAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
PART  II.
CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK TIMBER.
On the 14th of June, 1858, immediately after the passage of a law
directing the construction of eight sloops-of-war, and authorizing the
expedition to Paraguay, the Secretary of the Navy advertised for
150,000 cubic feet of live-oak timber, of specific dimensions, to be
delivered at six of the navy yards, to wit: Kittery, Charlestown,
Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Warrington, 25,000 feet at
each yard; one-half to be delivered on September 1, 1858, and the
other half on February 1, 1859. Proposals or bids were to be received till three o'clock p. m., on July 14, 1858. The proposals
contained this unusual clause: "The department will award the contract in each case to the lowest bidder, reserving the right to decline
making any contract for a purchase and delivery at any navy yard
if it shall then deem it unnecessary or disadvantageous to the public
service.'
W. C. N. Swift, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, and James Bigler,
of New York, had each previously been contractors for the delivery
of live-oak timber at several of the navy yards: Swift at Brooklyn,
Gosport, and Philadelphia; and Bigler at Boston, Gosport, and Kittery; and they each had a surplus of timber at the yards at which
they had been delivering amounting in the aggregate to over 100,000
feet.  Swift's surplus was more than twice as large as Bigler's.
In May, 1858, each applied to the Secretary of the Navy to purchase his surplus timber, and urged it upon the ground that the
nature of the service unavoidably left a surplus on hand after the fulfillment of such contracts, which it was the usage of the government
to purchase at a fair price.  The Secretary declined, on the ground
that he had no power to purchase without having first advertised for
proposals, in order that the wants of the government might be supplied by the lowest bonafide bidder in fair competition.
The Secretary had power to procure timber by open purchase if
needed for immediate use. Such is the plain language of the law.
(See Brightly's Digest, 191, section 7.) And so the law is understood
by the Navy Department, as proved by John Lenthall, chief of the
Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and Repairs.  About 3,000 feet
of Bigler's timber in the Kittery yard and probably as much at the
Gosport yard, had been used and paid for by open purchase, being
needed for immediate use; and this circumstance was urged by Bigler
as a reason for the purchase of his entire stock. But the Secretary
did not consider the exigency of the public service required the immediate purchase and delivery of a large quantity of live-oak timber.
This is obvious for the reasons:
1st. That he refused to purchase, although the stock of Bigler was
offered at the moderate price of $1 10 per foot; and Swift said that




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 31
would establish the price, and he would have to take the same for
his.-See Bigler's testimony.
2d. The unusual clause in the published proposals to bidders,
"reserving the right to decline making any contract for a purchase
and delivery at any navy yard, if he should then deem it unnecessary
or disadvantageous to the public service."
3d. The Secretary instructed Mr. Lenthall, as he understood, to
specify, in the advertisement for the timber, the earliest time at
which it could be cut and delitered; and he specified the 1st of February, 1859, as the earliest day practicable.  Of course the Secretary
knew it would take several months to cut and deliver it.
4th. But little of it has been used since the delivery of it on contract, as hereafter stated. Mr. Lenthall, chief of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and Repairs, testifies as follows:
"I think that timber of that description was needed; not the whole
of it; probably we could have done with much less than was called
for. But I think it was for the interest of the service to have got
that description of timber, and I think we wanted it then.
"' Question. At that time?
"Answer. Yes, sir; a portion of it."
They got a portion of it as already noticed. They must have gotten
all or nearly all then needed, for it is proved but little of the timber
referred to has been used since it was delivered under the contract.
According to the testimony of B. F. Delano, naval constructor at
Brooklyn, about one-fourth of the quantity delivered then, say 6,000
feet, has been used.  Samuel T. Hartt, naval constructor at Gosport,
proves that about 300 feet have been used at that yard.
Francis Grier, naval constructor in the Philadelphia yard, proves
there was a little of it used on sloop No. 1, in the Philadelphia yard,
and that some was used on the Griffith ship, but leaves the quantity
indefinite. He also says if the matter had been referred to him he
would not, as a matter of official duty, have recommended the purchase of Swift's timber, and it was not necessary to purchase it to
carry on the business of the yard.
Proposals for timber were prepared by Mr. Lenthall, under the directions of the Secretary.  When submitted to him, he did not approve of the time fixed for the delivery, which was the 1st of February,
1859, and changed it, making half deliverable on the 1st of September, 1858, (about twenty days after the contracts were completed,)
and the remaining half on the 1st of February, 1859.
Swift and Bigler seemed to have entertained no doubt they had the
contracts within their grasp, as they had the timber already in all
the yards except Warrington, and to prevent competition between
them in bidding, Swift agreed, if he got the contracts, to purchase all
of Bigler's timber at the same rate for which he contracted with the
government.  Swift bid to furnish the timber at $1 30; Bigler nominally bid at a much higher rate, in order that the contract might be
awarded to Swift.  It turned out there were several other bidders,
though they knew it would be impossible for them to deliver any timber on the 1st of September.  They believed the Secretary would
grant them  an extension of time, and doubtless, under that belief,




32           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
bid in good faith. Swift was underbid for every yard, and the contracts were awarded to the lowest bidders: Buxton and Lawrence at
Kittery, Charlestown, and Brooklyn; Samuel B. Grice at Philadelphia and Gosport; and Coates, Degraw  &  Beach at Warrington.
Buxton and Lawrence failed to execute their contract within ten days
allowed them. The other successful bidders executed their contracts
as required.  Samuel B. Grice delivered only 1,400 feet of timber at
Philadelpiha within the time stipulated for the first delivery. Coates,
Degraw & Beach did not deliver any at Warrington.  They, each,
applied to the Secretary for an extension of time, which he declined
to grant; and on or before the 16th of September the contracts were
all annulled, and a contract made with W. C. N. Swift to supply all
the timber at the several yards, at the same rates at which the contracts were first awarded, ranging from $1 09 to $1 17 per cubic foot,
and being an average of $1 12.
The usual time allowed contractors for live oak is one and two years,
because, unlike other timber, it is rarely kept on hand by lumbermen,
and generally has to be cut near the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico
after the contracts are made; and being esteemed more valuable when
cut between the 1st of November and 1st of March, one winter season
at least is allowed for that purpose.
Having shown the Secretary did not deem this timber necessary for
immediate use, it may be here remarked that he could not, and did
not, under the first contracts, or under that with Swift, expect half of
the timber to be delivered on the 1st of September, or near that time.
Every one knew it was physically impossible to deliver any portion of
it at Warrington (Pensacola) by that time, or for months afterwards.
None of the contractors for that yard had any timber there, or near
there.  Each of them had to cut it from the forest before he could
deliver it. The yellow fever was prevailing along the Gulf coasts
with great fatality, and no one would have exposed himself to the
danger by cutting timber during its prevalence.  Without this
obstacle, it was impossible to have cut and delivered the timber by
the time specified, or even to have placed a force in the forests, where
it might be cut between the execution of the first contract and the 1st
of September.
It appears that Coates, Degraw & Beach, the first contractors for
the Warrington yard, were making reasonable exertions to furnish
the timber. There is no sufficient reason for believing they would not
have furnished it as soon as Swift. In fact, it appears he has not even
yet complied with his contract at that yard, and has delivered but a
small portion of the timber. Beach, of the firm of Coates, Degraw &
Beach, testifies that they had made arrangements by which they would
have been able to deliver it all by the first of February. And whether
that be so or not, there is nothing shown to justify the belief that they
would not have furnished it as soon as Swift.  The inquiry at once
arises, why was their contract annulled and a new one made with
Swift?  If it was the desire of the Secretary from the first to give the
contract to Swift and Bigler, or either of them  an answer is furnished.
It is, however, proper to state, in this connexion, that the Secretary
in the month of December last annulled Swift's contract for the War



NAVAL CONTRACTS ANbD EXPENDITURES,                33
rington yard on account of his failure to deliver the timber; but orders
have since been given by the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks
to the commandant of this yard to receive timber offered under the
contract since it was annulled.
Some facts appear touching this matter to which it is deemed proper to refer. Swift and Bigler had previously been reasonably good,contractors for live-oak timber, and seem  to have had more favors
than other contractors in allowing their surplus timber to remain in
the yards; a favor which perhaps they deserved. Swift was an ardent
friend of the present administration, and had expended his money
freely, more than $10,000, to aid the election of Mr. Buchanan.  It
was known to the Secretary that he had been liberal, as proved by
George Plitt, and it was natural he should have a kind regard for
him.
There is a striking agreement between the timber for which the
proposals were advertised and Swift and Bigler's timber in the yards.
This may have been accidental; and Lenthall testifies that the description of the timber in the proposals was not made by the Secretary,
but by himself. He also says he had in his possession, at the same time,
Swift's letter, and knew what kind of timber he had, but did not pay
any attention to his timber in drawing up the advertisement.
The first contracts were annulled, and the contract with Swift
entered into with remarkable promptness, the two acts seeming to
have been performed at one and the same moment.
The strong confidence of Swift, at all times, as well after the letting
as before, that he would finally get the contract; his prompt declaration that the contracts of his under bidders would be annulled and
he would take their place; his quietly remaining in Washington till
after the 1st of September, and in the meantime writing to Bigler to
assure him that their agreement about the timber of the latter would
be carried out, are circumstances, the significance of which cannot be
overlooked in this connexion.
For what reason was the 1st of September fixed for the delivery of
half the timber?  The Secretary knew Swift & Bigler had it then in
all the yards except Warrington, and no other person in the country
had it. Bigler testifies as follows:
After I got my contracts filled, I went to the Secretary of the Navy
to get him  to buy my timber upon open purchase.  He gave as a
reason for not buying it upon open purchase that it was against the
law to buy timber upon open purchase, except for immediate use.
Mr. Swift went to him on the same score; that he had timber over,
which he wished to sell to the government. This induced the Secretary, I suppose, to make this advertisement to cover about the amount
of timber that we had. There was nobody else in the business who
could supply the amount and kinds of timber called for, and. we did
not suppose there would be any opposition to us; and when the advertisement came out I was very much surprised that it was in that shape;
for it was in a very bad shape for me, as I had only about enough
timber to fill out the call for two of the yards.  This was bad for me
in this way: for instance, if I put in bids for all the yards, I migh
H. Rep. Corn. 184-3




34           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
get Pensacola or Philadelphia, where I had no timber; and then I
would be obliged to move it from another yard at great expense and
trouble.  This induced me to make the arrangement with Mr. Swift
to avoid the expense of removing my timber from one yard to another.
" Question. Did the Secretary intimate that he had any purpose in
preparing this advertisement to cover the timber of yourself and Mr,
Swift?
" Answer. I understood him that it was his calculation that it would
just about cover the amount.
" Question. When was that?
"Answer. During the last summer.
" Question. Before the advertisement came out?
"Answer. Yes, sir.
" Question. Who made that statement to you?
" Answer. The Secretary of the Navy himself.  He said he did not
think he had authority to buy my timber; he did not wish to do any —
thing about it but what would be entirely straight, and he did not
feel authorized to make a purchase of this timber without advertising;
and then if we put in for it-he knowing that we were the only persons
that had the timber-at a higher price than they thought was a fair
price, that he would not take it at any rate; mind you, I had already
offered my timber to the government."
The same witness further testifies as follows:
" Question. Was it not understood between you and Mr. Swift, and
live-oak dealers generally, that this advertisement was framed for the
purpose of preventing competition, and to enable the Secretary to
contract directly with Mr. Swift?
"Answer. I always understood it so; that is, notfor Mr. Swift alone,
for up to the time when I came here, after the advertisement was out,
I thought it was for both of us."
The same witness further testifies as follows:' Question. There is one statement of yours that I feel it my duty to
question you further about. In answer to a question, you have said
that you have always understood that it was the purpose of the department, in framing these specifications in the advertisement, to,
exclude competition and to take your and Mr. Swift's timber.  Do
you say that it was the object of the department to prevent other
people from coming in and underbidding you, if they could furnish
it at the time at a lower price?
" Answer. If you understood me to say that, I do not think I understood the question. My explanation now would be, that the Secretary
of the Navy knew, and the chief of the bureau knew, that there was
nobody else in all America that had the timber and could put it in at
such a time but Mr. Swift and myself.  There was not any such timber in the United States that was already got out except ours. There
was nobody else in the business but Mr. Swift and myself who could
furnish it.  The Secretary knew there was no such timber any where
else in the market.  But he told us distinctly that if we did not put
it in at a reasonably fair price they would not take it at all."
The explanation of the Secretary does not conflict with the testimony
this witness, nor does it touch the point which the testimony quoted




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 35
tends to establish.  If there was a conflict between them, the high
official station of the one, as a functionary of the government, should
be a guaranty against any attempt to mislead; and it would be an
ungracious task, to say the least, to balance between his statement
and the testimony of the witness, although the latter stands in a favorable condition to obtain credence.  He is free from the suspicion of
prejudices engendered by disappointed expectations; has no grounds
of complaint for supposed personal or pecuniary wrongs imposed by
the Secretary, and is not a heated political partisan.
Whatever may be the true state of the facts in regard to the Secretary's intention concerning these contracts, and however much the
committee would condemn any personal favoritism  to the public
detriment, they are gratified to perceive that the Secretary seems never
to have lost sight of the public interest.  They find the wideness of
this in his repeated assurances to Messrs. Swift & Bigler, if they bid
cC at a higher price than he thought was a fair price he would not take
it at any rate."  They find it in the unusual clause already referred
to, inserted in the advertised proposals, "reserving the right to
decline making any contract, if it (the department) shall then
deem  it unnecessary or disadvantageous to the public service."
The provision was doubtless inserted to protect the government
against the imposition of exorbitant bids, when it was expected
there might not be more than one or two bidders.  They fin(d
still further evidence of this in the reasonable price at which the contracts were actually and finally taken, it being proved that the average rate is lower than similar contracts had previously been made,
and as low as any one could have furnished the timber and realized a
reasonable profit for his labor. Your committee are of opinion that
the timber contracted for in this case was a kind proper to be kept
for the repair and construction of small vessels, and they are now prepared to say it could have been purchased materially lower under any
circumstances.-(See the testimony of Samuel B. Grice, Lenthall and
Bigler.) And if the policy of keeping the yards supplied with suitable timber is to continue, your committee cannot see that the transaction is in any way a disadvantageous one to the government, cer —
tainly it is not in contravention of law.
Before concluding their report on this branch of their inquiry, yourcommittee deem it proper to notice a contract between Mr. GeorgePlitt, as proved by Plitt himself, and W. C. N. Swift in regard tot
obtaining contracts with the government.  It appears that in 1854Plitt and Swift entered into a written contract, by which the former
undertook to use his influence with the officers of the government,
with several of whom, in high positions, he was supposed to be om
terms of intimacy, both personally and politically, to procure live-oak
contracts for the latter, and for which the latter was to pay him ten
per cent. upon the amount of all-live-oak contracts he obtained from
the government. Plitt alleges that he has performed his part of the
agreement, having taken pains to introduce Swift to various officers
of the government, and to recommend him  as a man of honor and
probity.  He introduced him  to Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Toucey, and
recommended him  in terms of high commendation, informing the




36           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
latter that he had contributed very liberally towards the election of
1856, &c. Swift had, after 1854, and prior to the contract of September, 1858, obtained some live-oak contracts from the government;
and after obtaining the last mentioned one wrote to Plitt, repudiating
his contract with him, never having paid him anything under it.
Shortly after receiving this letter, and between the 15th of October
and 15th of November, 1858, Plitt, for the first time, mentioned the
contract between himself and Swift to the President, and showed him
the written agreement, and asked his advice about it.  Plitt says:
"The President very properly told me that it was no affair of his;
it was an agreement made long before he came into power, and if my
attorney thought I could recover in a court of justice, I ought to do
so."  He also said " he had, of course, no advice to give, and said I
might do as I pleased about it.' This, it must be remembered, was
subsequent to Swift's last contract for timber.
Your committee believe they could not condemn such contracts in
too strong terms, as against public policy and most demoralizing in
their tendency.  They are not only a bid but offer of a premium,
indirectly, to say the least, for corruption.  They are a temptation
to the parties to the practice of deception and falsehood.  They are
nothing less than making merchandise of the social relations and personal confidence which may very properly exist between those occupying high official stations and the private citizen, and, if tolerated,
must result in making the government the daily victim  of duplicity
and fraud, or in placing an impassable barrier to all social intercourse
between high officials and the mere citizen, which would be contrary
to the genius of our government.
However much your committee may condemn such improper contracts, they feel called upon to say they do not perceive any ground
to attach blame in this instance either to the President or the Secretary. It does not appear that the Secretary was ever informed of its
existence, and of course never countenanced or knowingly encouraged
it. It does not appear that the President was ever informed of it
until a period between October 15 and November 15 last, and then
summarily disposed of it by saying "he had no advice to give;"
"that it was no affair of his."  Here his connexion with the subject
began and ended; and here your committee dismiss it.
CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY FOR VESSELS.
These contracts have been the subject of much outside rumor and
complaint. The committee have, therefore, sought for all the information they could obtain in regard to them, and it is herewith
presented.  It is full and satisfactory.
The contracts about which there has been complaint are the following: that relating to steam machinery for the "Lancaster," built
under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1857, and those relating
to steam machinery for the vessels now building under the act of
Congress of June, A. D. 1858.
The bids for the machinery of the Lancaster were as follows:




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                        37
Scate of offerssfor steam machinery for screw propeller ship-of-war building in the Philadelphia navy yard, under advertisement of November
19, 1857.
Merrick & Sons................                                  $145,000
Murray & Hazelhurst..............................               138,000
Reaney & Neafie................................   137, 500
Woodruff & Beach...........................   126,000
The difficulty in this case was to decide between the plans of
Merrick & Sons and Reaney &  Neafie.  They were both good, and
preferred to the others.  After much consideration the contract was
awarded to Reaney & Neafie.  Their bid was $7,500 lower than that
of Merrick & Sons.  The lowest bid was that of Woodruff & Beach,
but no one of the engineers approved their plan in comparison with
those of the others. It is claimed there is a family relationship between Beach, of this firm, and the Secretary of the Navy.  We may
allude to this hereafter.
We proceed now to a brief examination into the awards of contracts
for the machinery of the vessels now building under the act of June,
A. D. 1858.
This act of Congress directed the Secretary of the Navy to cause to
be constructed " as speedily as may be consistent with the public interests," eight war steamers, of light draught, "combining the heaviest
armament and greatest speed compatible with their character and
tonnage."
One of these vessels is being built, we believe, by the government.
On the 26th of July last the Secretary of the Navy invited sealed
proposals for the steam  machinery of the remaining seven.   The
circular of the Secretary calling for these proposals is in strict accordance with the directions of the law of Congress under which he acted.
It states, among other things, that it is "the object of the department
to procure machinery which can develop great power when required,
so as to insure high speed," &c., &c., and with this view  requires
the bidders to guaranty certain results. It gave them until the 8th
of September to prepare their plans. The terms of the circular seem
to have been satisfactory.  The leading engine establishments of the
United States, situated in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore,
and Hartford, made proposals. There were fourteen bidders and, in
all, forty-four bids. They were as follows:
Small sloop, Boston, 750 horse-power.
Morgan Iron Works, New York. $110,000  Locomotive Works, Boston"-   $104, 000
James Murphy & Co., New York- 107, 000  Atlantic Works, Boston -- -  100, 000
Allaire Works, New Yorkt —...    97, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford.... 118, 000
Large sloop,.New York, 1,000-horse pozer.
Morgan Iron Works, New York. $137,500  Allaire Works, New York -    $1e05, 000
James Murphy & Co., New York:' 130, 000  Novelty Iron Works, New, York —  97, 000
West Point Foundry, New York- 130, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford ---- 125, 000' Accepted bid.               t Lowest bid.




3 8              NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES
Small sloop, Pensacoa, (direc-action engines,) 750-horsepower..Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia $153, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford —-- $118, 000
Jiames Murphy & Co., New York.  127, 000  Locomotive Works, Boston —,,  115, 000
Morgan Iron Works, New York::-  120, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimoret  100, 000
West Point Foundry, New York.  118, 000
Large sloop, Norfolk, 1,000-horse power.
Beaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia $152, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford —--- $125, 000
Morgan Iron Works, New York..  142, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimore   115, 000
Novelty Iron Works, New York-  100, 000  C. Reeder, Baltimoret-.. —-----   94, 000
Large sloop at Portsmouth, Nrew Hanmpshire, 1,000-horsepoower.
Morgan Iron Works, New York - $143, 000  Allaire Works —----------           $110,000
West Point Foundry ----           136, 000  Novelty Iron Works —--------   98,500
James Murphy & Co ----- -  135, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford -:-  125, 000
Small sloop, Philadelphia, 1,100-horse power.
MIorgan Iron Works, New York-. $110, 000  Wi. Norris, Philadelphia  ----- $126, 000
Allaire Works, New York -----    97, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimoret   90, 000
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia  135, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford..,. 118, 000
Large sloop, Philadelphia, 1,000-horse power.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia $145, 500  Novelty Iron Works, New Yorkt  $98, 000
Merrick & Sons, Philadelpnia' -.-  102, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimore.  110, 000
Morgan Iron Works, New York-   141, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford ----  125, 000
Allaire Iron Works, New York -  110, 000
On  the  20th  of September  the  Secretary  appointed  a Board  of
Engineers to open and examine these bids and report to him  which of
them should be accepted. Each engineer, in order to secure his individual examination and opinion, was required to make a separate
report in writing. This board consisted of Samuel Archbold, engineer-in-chief of the United States navy, W. W. Wood, Henry Hunt,
and Daniel W. Martin, chief engineers.  This course of the Secretary
your committee find to be such as has been pursued heretofore, and
they regard it as very proper. It differs from the former practice
only in the increased caution of the Secretary in requiring each
member of the board to make a report of his opinion. The persons
chosen  are  engineers of long  experience  and  high  standing.   No
witness has expressed  a doubt of their qualifications to sit on such a
board, nor of their integrity  or impartiality.   Reference  has been
made to Mr. Martin as being liable to be influenced in his decision by
reason of his interest in  the "Martin  boiler."   We will notice this
hereafter.
Let us now examine briefly their action:
1. The contract for the machinery of the small sloop at Boston was
awarded to the' Locomotive Works,"  situated at that place.  There
were six bids for this contract, two lower and three higher than that
of the party to whom  it was given.  No one of the board recommended
the plan of either of the lower bidders; all concurred in objections to
them.   One  engineer  recommended  the plan  of the  Morgan  Iron
Works, New  York, at $110,000; another that of Murphy &  Co., New
York, at $107,000.   Two recommended  that of the  "Locomotive
- Accepted bid.                       t Lowest bid.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 39
Works," Boston, at $104,000, and the contract was awarded to them.
This seems to be right.  It is not pretended that any improper influence was used in getting the contract, nor is the standing or responsibility of the establishment questioned.
2. The contract for the machinery of the large sloop at New York
was awarded to James Murphy & Co., New York. Of the six bids in
this case, three were lower than the one accepted. One of the board
reported in favor of the Novelty Works; the remaining three in favor
of Murphy & Co. The bid of the " Novelty Works " is $33,000 lower
than that of Murphy & Co. This is a wide difference, and we do not
feel qualified to decide whether there is this difference in the merits
of the plans. Both the bidders included in their plans what is known
~as the Martin boiler.  It is proper to add, in this connexion, that the
contract should not necessarily be given to the lowest bidder, having
reference to price only. Every plan of engine is different-different in
arrangement, different in its fitness, and different in its cost to the
builder, and its intrinsic worth.  A primary object is to obtain the
one which will best answer the purpose of the government.  The
Morgan Works, New York, proposed a plan of engine for this vessel
at a price $40,000 higher than that of the Novelty Works, and Mr.
Quintard, one of the proprietors of the establishment, testifies that a
plan of engine that could have been built for $97,000 would not, in
his opinion, have been suitable for the ship.  We will only add, that
no improper influenceg in getting this contract are shown, and that no
witness has called in question the reputation and responsibility of the
house of Murphy & Co.  They are shown to be satisfactory and reliable.
3. The contract for the machinery of the small sloop Pensacola was
given to the Morgan Works, New York, at $120,000. The bids ranged,
in this case, from  $100,000 to $153,000.  There were in all seven
plans submitted for this vessel. But two of them  received the approval of the board.  These were the plans of the Morgan Works and
the Boston Locomotive Works; and upon these the board was equally
divided. Mr. Archbold, who favored the plan of the Locomotive Works
for this ship, had recommended the Morgan Works for the Boston
ship, at $110,000.  This latter ship was awarded to the Locomotive
Works at $104,000.  It is supposed by the committee that it was not
considered expedient to award two contracts to one establishment;
that it was considered desirable to distribute them, if it could be done
with propriety, in order to increase the rivalry among contractors. For
these reasons your committee think it was right to give this contract to
Murphy & Co., who were preferred by one-half the board, and were also
preferred by another member of the board for the Boston ship, which
was awarded to the competitor for this. The testimony does not show
that any political or improper influence was applied by any one to
obtain this contract. The establishment to which it was given is
responsible and reliable.
4. No contract was given on the first bids for the Norfolk sloop.
Two of the board reported in favor of Reeder, one (Martin) against
his boiler, and the fourth in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co. We give
the following testimony on this point:




40           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Iartin's deposition:
" Question. in your opinion you use this language: " Mr. Reeder's,
plan of engines is good and his price satisfactory, but his plan of
boiler I cannot recommend; if they were made satisfactory I would
recommend him for the Norfolk ship."
" Answer. That was not on account of its not being my boiler, but
in the way it was arranged; it was the same plan that had been tried
in the Princeton and had proved to be a failure.  Knowing it to be a.
failure, I could not recommend it again in that form, but proposed
some modifications, which I do not now remember."
Archbold's deposition:
"Question. Did he get the contract?
" Answer. No, sir.  There were two members of the board who reported in favor of his plans: one reported in favor of the engines and
against his boilers, and the other objected to his plans in toto.
"Question. What was the result?
"Answer. I believe he gave up his right to the contract, or something to that effect.' Question. Do you not know that he was deterred from presenting
his bid?
"Answer. I did not deter him; I do not know who did.
C Question. What was the final result of that matter?
"Answer. There was a new board ordered and new bids were given.
Question. Who got the contract?
"Answer. Murray & Hazelhurst, of Baltimore.
C Question. For how much? was it not $120,000?
"Answer. I think it was over that —131,000 for 14 miles per hour.
They had a speed bid."
Reeder withdrew his bid, we suppose, because he found it too low.
New proposals were called for, and it would seem that the terms were
varied, and called for a quantity of speed.  The following are the.
second bidders:' Atlantic Works —geared, $130,000, six months; direct, $125,000O
six months.
" Murray & Hazelhurst-geared, $131,000, eight months; direct,
$120,000, eight months.
Fulton  Foundry-geared,  $138,000, seven months;  direct,
$129,000, seven months.
" Reaney, Neafie & Co. -gared, $145,000, seven months; direct,
$135,000, seven months.
"Boston Locomotive Works-direct, $120,000, seven months.
"Novelty Works —geared, 1.30,000, six months; direct, $125,000,
six months."
Two kinds of engines were called for, the geared and the directacting.
For the direct-acting engine, Murray & Hazelhurst and the Boston
Locomotive Works were the lowest and equal bidders; and for the
geared engine, Murray  &  Hazelhurst were the next lowest, and
$1,000 higher than the lowest. The majority of the board which sat
upon these proposals, consisting of Chief Engineers Williamson,




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  41
Everett, Stimers, Isherwood, and Whipple, reported in favor of
Murray & Hazelhurst, and they received the contract.  There is no
testimony criticizing in any way this award, or the price to be paid,
or the plan of machinery, or the qualifications and responsibility of
the contractors.
We come now to the contracts about which there has been cornplaint and a more extended inquiry.
5. The contract for the machinery of the large sloop at Portsmouth
was given to Woodruff & Beach, Hartford. There were six bidders,
two lower and three higher than the parties who received it. Neither
of the low bids was approved for this contract, but every member of
the board approved and reported in favor of the plan of Woodruff &
Beach.  There is not a particle of evidence pointing to unfairness or
partiality in this award. All that has been attempted has been to
show that there was some relationship between the Secretary and Mr.
Beach, of this firm.  And what has been the result of this attempt?
We give it in the language of the witness:
"Question. I wish to obtain from you the precise relationship of Mr.
Beach, of the firm of Woodruff & Beach, to the Secretary?
"Answer. Mr. Toucey, George Beach, sr., and George Beach, jr.,
married sisters by the name of Nichols.  C. Nichols Beach, of Philadelphia, of the firm of Tyler, Stone & Co., is a son of George Beach,
sr., by the sister of Mrs. Toucey; Henry B. Beach of Hartford, of the
firm of Woodruff & Beach, is a son of George Beach, sr., by a former
wife."
That is, Mr. Beach, of this firm, is a step-son of the sister of the
lady married by the Secretary. Our vision may be obtuse, but we see
no relationship here, and, regardless of it, we report that nothing has
been brought before us tending to excite the slightest suspicion of
favor or partiality in awarding this contract.  The testimony of Mr.
Beach is reported, and worthy of attention.  It shows there never has
been any intimacy between the Secretary and himself.
6. Next in order is the contract for the machinery of the  "Griffith'
sloop. The struggle for this contract has been earnest and protracted,
resulting in much disappointment and unusual complaint by one of
the unsuccessful bidders. The case is briefly this:
Upon opening the bids in September it was found there were six
bidders for this machinery, four of which were lower and one higher
than that of Mr. Norris. But it was further found and reported by
the engineers that an untrue and incorrect model of the ship had been
sent to those proposing to bid. This arose from a peculiarity of this
model, unknown to the department at the time of the advertisement
of July 26, 1858.  Mr. Norris alone had been furnished with the
necessary information. Very properly, therefore, new proposals were
invited.
Two of the September board, Messrs. Archbold and Martin, condemned the plan of Mr. Norris; the other two, Messrs. Wood and
Hunt, said nothing for or against it, but merely reported that other
bidders had not been given the proper information to prepare their
plans.




42           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Under these circumstances, the department, on the 2d of October,
addressed a letter to all who had previously bid for this machinery,
but no others, inviting them to bid again, and furnishing them a
drawing showing the midship section and correct plan of the vessel.
They were given until the 2d of November to prepare new plans.
But three bidders appeared.  They are here given.
In the meantime, Mr. Norris, knowing that Archbold and Martin,
of the first board, had condemned his plan, requested the Secretary
not to put them on the new board.  The Secretary acceded to this
request, and on the 4th of November made a new board, consisting of
Chief Engineers Wood, Hunt, Everett, and Whipple.  On tEe 8th
of November each member of this board made his report in writing.
Before this, however, and as early as the 2d of that month, Mr.
Norris brought to bear what he seems to have considered an additional recommendation of his plan of machinery. It appears, in his
letter to the Secretary, dated Washington, November 2, 1858. We
give an extract from it:
" On the score of politics, which I have never mentioned before, I
have greater claims upon the government than my competitors.  Our
shop at Bush Hill, Philadelphia, was the first institution in this
country that raised the banner of Buchanan and Breckinridge. The
day after the nomination we raised the standard with full length
portraits of the President and Vice President, and at the election our
shop furnished 764 votes for them.  Notwithstanding the present
monetary depression, we gave 312 votes for the administration at the
last election.  We have supported the party with material aid by
thousands of dollars, and worked hard, as any of the party in Philadelphia will testify.
"Now, my dear sir, our competitors in Philadelphia were most
violent working opponents against the present administration, as is
well known in Philadelphia."
Here politics makes its appearance very boldly. In regard to the
five contracts we have previously considered, we have no evidence
that it was brought to bear, but it appears here with great directness-not modestly, or indirectly through a friend.  It is the bidder
himself who presents it inpropria persona. It is strongly presented.
The bidder comes bearing a banner on which are blazoned "full
length portraits of the President and Vice President."  But this is
not all. Alas! for his competitors! They must be unmasked, if perchance they have disguised themselves, and therefore it is brought
to light that they " were most violent working opponents against the
administration, as is well known in Philadelphia."
It is proper to notice that this extravagant political self-recommendation was interposed on the 2d of November, two days before
the board was appointed and six days before it reported.  Mr. Norris
was inquired of on this subject, and he has testified, undertaking to
explain why it was he resorted to political influence. He says it was
because Messrs. Landy and Witte interfered for his competitors. He
saw them at the office of the Secretary.
We give extracts from his deposition:
" Question. Please name the gentlemen who went in at that time?




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                   4
" Answer. Mr. Landy, now a member of the House of Representatives, was there.
4' Question. Who else?
" Answer. Upon my word, I forget the others.
Question. How many were there of them?
" Answer. There were two members of Congress with Mr. Witte.
The other gentleman I really do not recollect. I have forgotten his
name. Seeing these gentlemen there was what first alarmed me, and
started me off to get political aid.
" Question. Up to that time had you obtained any certificates as to
your political character?
Answer. No, sir.
*      *       *       *       *      *       *       *
" Question. When was this that you saw Mr. Landy and Mr. Witte
at the Navy Department?
" Answer. Some time in November.
" Question. What part of November?' Answer. In the early or middle part; perhaps in the middle part;
I have no recollection of it, only that it was just about the time I went
off to Philadelphia, for seeing them there induced me to go.
*3     *        k^         *       *',~  I
" Question. How long previous?
" Answer. It is impossible to say; that first induced me to return to
Philadelphia.
C Question. I wish you would put it within some limits; say that it
could not have been earlier or later than such a time. Was it before
the 15th of November?
" Answer. I cannot say. If I could see the letter of John G. Brenner I could tell exactly.  It was before November 15.
"Question. How long before?
"Answer. A day or two.' Question. Do you think it was as much as a week before?
" Answer. I do not know; I cannot say.
"Question. Could it have been more than a week before?
"Answer. Let me calculate.  [A pause.]  It was on the Friday
previous to the 16th of November; it was about the 12th or 13th of
November.
" Question. Your letter reporting yourself a democrat, and asking
favor of the government on political grounds, was dated November 2?
"Answer. Then it was in October that I saw Mr. Landy and the
other gentlemen here."
We now give some extracts from the testimony of Landy and Witte.
Mr. Landy says:
I I find, by reference to the books in which my name is recorded at
the hotel, that I arrived here upon the 7th of November, which was
after the election, that having taken place upon the second Tuesday
of October.  Upon reflection, I find a correction I would like to make.
I replied that I thought I came here in company with Mr. Witte.  I
distinctly recollect now that at that time I came here alone.
5*     *       *       *       *       *       * 




44           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
"C Question. What representations did you make to him in regard to
the matter?' Answer. That they were a very experienced firm, highly honorable
and creditable men; that in all their undertakings, so far as marine
engines were concerned, their labors had been crowned with the highest success; and I recommended them to the department, in view of
the success of the establishment, and their ability to perform the work
in a manner advantageous to the government.
"Question. Did you suggest to the Secretary any political considerations?' Answer. None at all; none.
"Question. Did you state anything about the political standing of
this firm?'I Answer. No, sir; nothing at all."
Mr. Witte, an ex-member of Congress, says:
"Question. What inducements did you hold out to the department,
or to any officer of the department, to give to Reaney, Neafie & Co.
the last contract, or either of the contracts?
"Answer. None other than that our house having a long experience
in the construction of marine engines, especially propeller engines,
and having, as I am informed by their books, built more propeller
engines than have been built in the country; besides, it would be for
the interest of' the government to give them the contract. I held out
no other inducement except what their supposed superiority, skill,
and ability to construct engines of that particular character afforded."
We do not propose to dwell upon this feature of the case; but we
think it is evident that Mr. Norris began this political movement.
It seems to us the letter itself, without reference to other testimony,
shows it; for we cannot but believe that if it had been predicated
upon a similar movement, begun first by his competitors, the letter
would have referred to it.
The new board reported, on the 8th of November, the'" Allaire
Works" was the highest bidder, and no one of the board approved
their plan.  Wood reported in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co., saying, among other things, their plans, contrasted with those of Mr.
Norris,   comprise fewer parts, are less complicated, more accessible,
and, in my opinion, best adapted to secure the object of the department." lie also referred, in his opinion, to the movement of the propellers.  Each plan had two propellers.  In Norris' plan they moved
in the same direction; in Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s they moved in directions opposite to each other.  Wood says of this: "I will add,
the practice of engineers heretofore has been, where two propellers
were used, to drive them in directions opposite to each other; and I
know of no sufficient reason to change the practice, and would not do
so, were the responsibility of the arrangement to devolve upon me."
Hunt leaned to the side of Norris. He says: " There is so little difference in the engines offered by Mr. Norris and Reaney, Neafie &
Co. as it regards what I consider will be their efficiency, that it is
difficult to decide which to recommend,           *            and
both their plans have not only good, but objectionable points about
them. The engines of Reaney, Neafie & Co. are simplest in form




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES,                   45
but they necessarily occupy 130 square feet, or about 30 per cent. the
most space in the vessel, and will not, in my opinion, be any more
efficient than those of Mr. Norris.  It is my opinion the condensers of
Mr. Norris are best.  Taking simply the plans and rspecifications
as presented to the board, with the time and price for building, I
would recommend accepting the bid of Mr. Norris."
Everett reported in favor of Reaney, Neafie &  Co.; Whipple in
favor of Norris; and three of them were of opinion that the peculiar
movement of Norris' propellers made no material difference.
How stands the case now among the engineers? Two boards have
examined Norris' plans.  Of the first board two condemned them,
and were, at Norris' request, left off the second board. The other two
of that board neither approved nor condemned, but simply recommended new proposals.  The second board was equally divided-two
for Norris and two for Reaney, Neafie &  Co.  We thus have, in
these boards, four engineers condemning Norris' plans.
The reports were sent to the Secretary, and the case was now with
him.  His decision was suspended.  Norris has seen Witte and
Landy just about this time, and, no longer trusting to his great letter
of the 2d November, begins afresh.  He plies the Secretary with
political letters and documents of all sorts. By the 16th of the month
we find on file, among other papers, the following political letters:
One from J. H. Baker, one from J. Hamilton, jr., and two from Hon.
H. M. Phillips, and Colonel Florence appeared personally for him,
If we could rely upon the recommendations on file by the 16th, we
might well say, in the language of one of Mr. Norris' friends, that
he stood before the Secretary on that day "personally, mechanically,
and politically meritorious."  But how was it with Reaney, Neafie
& Co. at that time? They had presented no political letter, nor is it
in proof they used such influence.  We can only infer it, because
Messrs. Landy and Witte represented them, and they deny they presented such considerations.  There are papers on file in behalf of
Reaney, Neafie & Co., but they are all pertinent, referring only to
the engines.  Among others is a letter of J. Ericsson, the inventor
of the propeller, which closes with this statement: "The advantages
of giving a contrary motion to the propellers in vessels of light,
variable draught, or in a sea way, are too obvious to need any demonstration."
In this state of suspense the Secretary again consults the engineerin-chief@, Mr. Archbold, and he, upon the 18th of November, again
reported, for various reasons which he gives, that the plans of engines
of Reaney, Neafie & Co. were "decidedly preferable" to those of LMr.
Norris.  On the same day the Secretary called for a board of outside
engineers.  This board consisted of Smith, Jones, and Corryell.
They reported on the 2d of December-Smith and Jones for Norris,
and. Corryell for Reaney, Neafie & Co.
This ship, the "'Griffith," is of peculiar model, and may be regarded
as an experiment to obtain speed.  This is the chief result sought
after in building it.  On the 9th of December Reaney, Neafie & Co.
addressed the department the following letter:




46           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
WASHINGTON, D. C., December 9, 1858.
DEAR SIR: We are informed that our proposition to give you fifteen
miles per hour, as the speed of "Norfolk ship," in case the contract
is awarded to us, has not been deemed worthy of notice by the Board
of Engineers.
That it should h]ave escaped their observation is impossible, and
that it should be regarded as unworthy of comment is, to say the
least, most extraordinary.
We have always supposed, and we learn from  your report just
issued, that the aim of your department was and is "to combine
speed and power with strength in the highest practicable degree."
We beg leave, therefore, most respectfully to call your attention to
that feature in our proposal which affords you a guaranty of a rate of
speed never before attained by any vessel built for warlike purposes
by this or any other government.
We have the honor to be your obedient servants,
REANEY, NEAFIE & CO.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary (f the Navy.
P. S. We beg leave also to say that we will stipulate for even a
higher rate of speed for the ship now building at the Philadelphia
station, known as the " Griffith ship."
R., N. & CO.
On the 21st of December, twelve days after, Mr. Norris added to his
specifications the following speed bid:
WASHINGTON, December 31, 1858.
SIR: I beg leave to add to my specifications now before the department for machinery for the ship under construction at the Philadelphia navy yard, by Griffith, naval constructor pro tempore, (reserving the right to modify certain parts of said machinery,) the
following:
1. I guaranty the speed of the ship twenty miles per hour.
2. The cost of the machinery shall be one hundred and eighty
thousand dollars, ($180,000.)
If, upon the trial trips, the ship does not make the speed of twenty
miles per hour there shall be a reduction of $10,000 from the cost
price for each and every mile lacking the speed of twenty miles per
hour as guarantied, reducing the cost as follows, viz:
For a speed of 19 miles, $170,000; for a speed of 18 miles, $160,000;
for a speed of 17 miles, $150,000; for a speed of 16 miles, $140,000;
for a speed of 15 miles, $130,000, &c., &c., &c.
Your obedient servant, very respectfully,
WILLIAM. NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
On the same day Reaney, Neafie & Co. particularize what they had.
agreed to intheir communication of the 9th, and stipulate for a speed,,




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                   47
under favorable circumstances, of sixteen miles per hour on the trial
trip, under a forfeiture of $15,000 if fifteen miles only is attained,
or $7,500 for each half hour between fifteen and sixteen miles which
they fail to accomplish.
With their propositions so modified, the parties stood as follows:
Norris guarantees 16 miles per hour for $140,000; Reaney, Neafie &
Co., the same, for $139,000; Norris guarantees 15 miles per hour for
$130,000; Reaney, Neafie & Co., the same, for 124,000. From this
it appears that Reaney, Neafie & Co's proposition was $1,000 less than
Norris' for a speed of sixteen miles per hour, and $6,000 less for a.
speed of fifteen miles per hour.  The Secretary submitted the specifications, as amended, to the engineer-in chief, and he, on the 21st of
December, reported in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co. The contract
was given to them, and in it they have guarantied speed at the prices
fixed. Mir. Norris, disappointed by this termination of a long contest,
has complained to the department and has complained to the public.
He has charged that his plans were furnished to Reaney, Neafie & Co.
In this he is mistaken. Your committee are of opinion that no partiality or favor has been shown to Reaney, Neafie & Co. in this transaction.  On the other hand, it seems to them  that Mr. Norris was
most highly favored in preparing his plans, and had advantages enjoyed by no other bidders.  It is abundantly proven that he and
Griffith, the naval architect, worked together from  the beginning 
that the engine was planned as the model was planned, and that they
progressed together, architect and engineer being in constant mutual
consultation.  It is proper to state that the Martin boiler was in
neither of these plans of machinery.
We think it fortunate for the Secretary it so happened that his
anxiety to obtain a good result and his sense of duty conducted him
to the decision he at last made. Had this contract been awarded to
Mr. Norris, considering his own political standing and the influence of
this kind he brought to bear, in comparison with the more obscure
political standing of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and the apparent absence
of all such influence on their part, it might have been that the Secretary would have been charged with political partiality.  For ourselves, we are of opinion that politics had no effect whatever in determining this result. It would seem that the plans offered by both
parties were good, and worthy of the patient and repeated examination
they received. The one party, Norris, is famous here and abroad in
connexion with land engines or locomotives; the other, by long experience, has acquired an excellent reputation as builders of marine
engines; and both seem to be reliable and responsible.  We approve
this award.
This brings us to the last of the seven contracts.
7. The contract for the machinery of the large sloop at Philadelphia was awarded to Merrick & Sons, of that city. There were seven
bids in this case; one lower, $4,000 lower, and five higher than that
of the successfhl party.  The bids range from $145,000 to $98,000.
That of Merrick &  Sons is $102,000.  No one of the board recommended the plan of the lower bidder; every member of it recommended
that of Merrick & Sons.  A comparison of the bids, and an examina



48           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
tion of the reports of the engineers, coupled with the high standing
of the contractors, render obvious the propriety of granting to them
this contract. This and the award of the Portsmouth ship are the
only ones in which the board was unanimous in their opinion, and we
would not notice it further were it not that, in the evidence, attention
has been called to a letter of W. C. Patterson to the President, dated
September 13, 1858.  We here give it:
PHILADELPHIA, September, 13, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I venture to suggest to you the importance of awarding
the contracts for the machinery of the sloop now building at the navy
yard at this time, and, if it can be done without prejudice to the public service, to Merrick & Sons.  Theirs is the only establishment in
the first district which employs a large number of mechanics; at this
time, 390; when in full work, 450.
The managing partners (Mr. iM., senior, being absent in bad health)
are fill of energy, straining every nerve to keep their force during
this depression, and, in so far as I know, the only old whigs of any
influence in that district who are in favor of the re-election of Colonel
Florence.
I know, from former experience, the value of that influence, and
feel persuaded that it is the interest of the democratic party to increase it.
The first district will, I hope, be carried in any event, but with that.shop at work lull-handed two weeks prior to the election the result
would, I think, be placed beyond all doubt.
With much respect,
W. C. PATTERSON.
The PRESIDENT.
[Endorsement.]
"SEPTEMBER, 15, 1858.' The enclosed letter from  Colonel Patterson, of Philadelphia, is
submitted to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy.
" J. B.'
We think it is very evident that the President expressed no wish and
interfered in no way in the award of this contract. It was not a case
that called for interference or allowed it.  The lowness of the bid, the
unanimous recommendation of the board, and the high character of
the contractors, very properly and promptly fixed the result.  There
was no actual competition and no contest.  The following testimony
gives the history of this letter and the practice of the President in such
cases:
"FEP.BRUARY 9, 1859.
6' HENRY M. McGILL called and examined.
" By Mr. Bocock:
"Question. What is your official position?
"Answer. I am assistant to Mr. Henry, who is private secretary of
the President.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 49
"Question. What is your business in that position?
"Answer. Sometimes opening the President' s mail, endorsing letters
for him, and recording commissions.  I am kept in the office for that
purpose.
" Question. Do you know anything of that letter? [showing witness
the letter of W. C. Patterson to the President, bearing date Philadelphia, September 13, 195, and which will be found in the Appendix.]
"Answer. Yes, sir.
"Question. Whose endorsement is that on the back of the letter?'Answer. It is mine.
"Question. By whose direction was it made?
"Answer. By the general direction of the President. I endorse
nearly all his letters.
"Question. Was there any special direction in regard to that letter?
"Answer. No, sir.
"Question. I want to know what the custom of the Presidentis when
he receives letters referring to business before the executive departments? Do you endorse them as a general thing?
"Answer. Yes, sir; I endorse, in fact, nearly all the letters that
come to him.  I take them  in, in the morning about nine or ten
o'clock. He reads them over generally, or reads the endorsement
on them merely, and directs us to refer them to the departments,
navy, war, &c., as the case may be.  Sometimes he takes them  and
marks on the back of the letter a reference to the Secretary. That
is the general practice with all the letters.
" Question. Is it common for him to make endorsements on the back
of letters, referring them to the department to which they relate?
" Answer. Yes, sir, very common.
"Question. Do you mean to say that it is his custom, whether he
approves the recommendation or not?
"Answer. Certainly; whether he approves or not, it is a custom of
his. My understanding was, when he made that endorsement, that it
was merely to draw the attention of the Secretary to the fact that
there was such a letter existing.
"Question? Do you know anything of that endorsement? [showing
witness the endorsement on the envelope, signed "J. B." ]'Answer. Yes, sir.
"Question. Whose handwriting is that?
"Answer. The President's, sir.
"Question. Is that the general form of endorsement for letters relating to the heads of the departments?
"Answer. Sometimes he uses one form and sometimes another; sometimes it is, "referred to the Secretary of the Interior," &c.; sometimes it is, "submitted to the consideration," and sometimes, "submitted to the attention" of the Secretary.  He does not confine
himself to any one form.
" Question. From your knowledge of his habit in this respect would
you be able to say whether that was a favorable or unfavorable endorsement?
H. Rep. Con. 184    4




50           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
" Answer. No, sir.  I take it he did not mean to be understood one
way or the other, from his general habit; it is the same formal reference that he makes with the other letters.
"' Question. I would like to ask you whether the President, no matter
what may be the character of the letters, destroys them, or is it his
practice to send them to the different departments?'  Answer. Yes, sir; he sends every letter to the departments, unless
it is a silly letter, or a, crazy letter. I know further that the President has never interfered with the giving of contracts. I have heard
him express himself to that purpose.  Upon one occasion, when a
gentleman wrote to get a contract for wood, he directed his private
secretary, in my presence, to write to the applicant and tell him  his
application should be made to the Secretary; that he never interfered
with contracts."
Tho following statement from the Secretary's communication confirms the foregoing:  " The contract given to Messrs. Merrick & Sons,
of Philadelphia, in regard to which a letter from Colonel Patterson to
the President was by him, in the usual course, without an intimation of any wish on his part, referred to this department, was
awarded to them  upon the merits of their plan and proposals, in
accordance with the unanimous opinion of the board of engineers; their
bid being lower than those of the other bidders whose plans were approved. The President did not in any manner interfere in this case,
nor has he in any other case of contract since I have been in the
department."
The party relations of the firm of Merrick & Sons are given by Mr.
Merrick in his testimony:
" Question. What are your party relations?
"Answer. They are not of a very decided character, one way or the
other.  We have never taken a very prominent part in politics, and
we have studiously kept from influencing our men in any way.  I
believe that no member of our firm has ever belonged prominently to
the democratic party, but that, generally speaking, the sympathies of
one or two of our firm have been upon the other side. I mean in reference to former times. I believe my father was what was called an
old line whig; but neither my brother or myself, who constitute the
remaining members of the firm, have ever taken any prominent part
in politics. I do not think my father has ever taken any at any time.
We have never endeavored to influence our men in any way, one way
or the other."
The letter was received by mail from Philadelphia. No special direction was given in regard to it, but it was endorsed in the usual
form, it being a custom of the President not to destroy but to send all
letters to the department to which they related, whether he approves
them or not. The very fact of sending the letter to the department to be
there preserved, and produced and made public upon any call for information, as it has been now, is to us satisfactory evidence that the President did not mean to be considered as at all interfering in the matter.
Your committee are aware of the very general practice which has
long prevailed of addressing, by letter and verbally, to the officers of
he government, recommendations based in whole or in part upon




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 51
political considerations. The practice cannot be too strongly condemned, especially so where it is resorted to with a view to affect the
award of contracts. It was resorted to in two of the seven cases of
contract we are now examining, but as your committee believe with
no advantage or success.
We have now gone over the seven contracts for the machinery of
the war sloops. With a brief reference to one other matter, we will
dismiss the further consideration of this subject.
Daniel B. Martin, a chief engineer of the United States navy, was
a member of the board which awarded five of the contracts.  He is
the patentee of what is known as the Martin boiler, and expects and
receives a patent fee from those who use it. We believe his boiler
to be a good one for marine engines, and could it be used as other
boilers without charge it may be it would go into very general use.
It has been extensively introduced into the vessels of the government,
and was included in nearly all the plans offered in these cases.
Martin was not on the board during the contest between Norris and
Reaney, Neafie & Co., nor was his boiler proposed by either of the
parties.  He was not on the second board, the one which awarded
the contract for the Norfolk ship; he was on the first and objected to
Reeder's boiler, because it was the same which " had been tried in
the Princeton and had proved a failure," but he did not object to it
because it differed from  his.  Mr. Reeder afterwards withdrew his
bid, but not for this cause.  In the opinion of the committee he
could have had the contract if he had wanted it.  Martin, as we
have said, was on the board which decided upon the other contracts.
There were twelve different bidders upon these contracts, and, in all,
thirty-two bids. Archbold testifies that all of these bidders but the
Atlantic Works, of Boston, and the Allaire Works, of New York, included the Martin boiler in their plans.  No one of the engineers, in
any single instance, approved the plans of either the Atlantic or the
Allaire works.  The objections are stated in the reports as follows:
" THE ENGINES OF THE ALLAIRE WORKS.
" Boilers: insufficiency of steam room. Engines: disk valves in air
pumps, or foot and delivery valves, standing vertically, the greater
quantity of coals being stowed over boilers; declining to conform to
the specifications of requirements of the department without extra
compensation.
"Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.
" ATLANTIC WORKS, EAST BOSTON.
Method of condensing arrangement decidedly objectionable.  The
plan proposed for sea steamers never having been successfully applied,
the board being opposed to trying experiments promising so little
success on such a large scale.
"Engines.-Cylinders of too small capacity to develop the power
required, without excessive and objectionable pressures of steam.




52           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
"c Boilers.-Grate surface being entirely inadequate and insufficient
for the purpose, with the impracticable length of eight feet bars.
" Objections concurred in by all the members of the board."
All of those among whom  there was real competition had the
Martin boiler.  Engineer Everett says:
"Question. You have said that it was a common practice to refer to
boilers in alternative in the bids; I will ask you to state whether in
the boards in which you have sat the character of the boiler has been
a chief subject of examination?
"Answer. Not a chief subject.  In determining a contract I do not
now recollect an instance where the kind of boiler controlled the
determination.
" Question. You do not know an instance where it decided the opinion
of the board in making the award?
" Answer. No, sir, not one."
Others testify to the high standing and good judgment of Mr.
Martin. As already stated, all the actual competitors before the board,
of which Mr. Martin was a member, presented plans including his
boiler, and therefore there could have been no preference on that
score. While this is so, and though the committee have no reason to
intimate even that the result would have been different if Mr. Martin
had not been on the board, they think it would have been more proper
and satisfactory if another person had been selected. In conclusion
we would say, it is our opinion that the Secretary has done well in
this matter.  With all the knowledge we now have, at the end of
this laborious and protracted investigation, we would not venture or
desire to change one of these contracts. We believe they have been
carefully, impartially, and stringently made, and with a view only to
carry out, in letter and spirit, and at the lowest practicable cost, the
provisions of law which directed the construction of these vessels.
In this connexion your committee will not omit to allude to some
evidence in this case tending to involve the Hon. J. Glancy Jones.
This is mainly the testimony of the Hon. William H. Keim, of Pennsylvania, in which he says that, as secretary and treasurer of the
Reading Forge Company, in the year 1854 he made an agreement
with Mr. Jones, then a member of the House of Representatives, that
the latter should obtain contracts for work for said company on a
commission of five per cent.
This alleged contract was never reduced to writing; no trace of it
appears on the books of the company; the precise terms in which it
was made, so necessary for its proper construction, are not claimed
to be given. Mr. Jones appears never to have claimed its benefit,
nor received anything in its fulfillment.
Under the circumstances an explanation from Mr. Jones was in
every way desirable.  Every other person who appeared to he implicated had that privilege. It is a feature interwoven in alI our
system of liberty, that no man shall suffer without the privilege of
being heard. As Mr. Jones was out of the country and could not be
notified in time to make response, your committee are of opinion,




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 53
under the circumstances, that it would be improper to express any
opinion upon this portion of the testimony.
After this long and searching examination into the branch of the
service under his supervision, the committee deem it due to themselves to state the fact that nothing has been proven impeaching the
personal or official integrity of the Secretary of the Navy.
They propose the following resolutions, asking leave to report a bill
hereafter:
RESOLUTIONS.
I Resolved, That the testimony taken in this investigation proves
the existence of glaring abuses in the Brooklyn navy yard, and such
as require the interposition of legislative reform; but it is due to
justice to declare that these abuses have been slowly and gradually
growing up during a long course of years, and that no particular
administration should bear the entire blame therefor.
2. Resolved, That it is disclosed by the testimony in this case that
the agency for the purchase of anthracite coal for the use of the navy
has been for some time past in the hands of a person wholly inefficient
and grossly incompetent, and that reform is needed in the regulations
which exist on that subject; but there is no proof which traces any
knowledge of such inefficiency and incompetency to the responsible
authorities in Washington, nor any which shows that the need of
reform grows especially out of any act of theirs; but, on the contrary,
it is expressly proven that the supply of coal for the naval service has
been purchased during this administration upon terms relatively as
favorable as ever heretofore.
3. Resolved, That while we could never sanction or approve any
arrangement on the part of an officer of the government which, under
pretence of making contracts for supplies, was designed to confer
especial and exclusive favor on individuals, yet, in the contract entered into in September, 1858, between the Navy Department and W.
C. N. Swift, for the supply of live-oak to said department, it is clearly
proven by the testimony that if the Secretary of the Navy did contemplate any favor to said Swift, he did not design to bestow it to
the detriment of the government, but that in all he did in this matter
he kept always in view the good of the public and the interests of the
service.
4. Resolved, That in the letting of the contracts for the construction of the steam machinery for the vessels of the navy during the
present administration, nothing has been shown which calls for the
interposition of the Congress of the United States; but it is manifest
that the present head of the Navy Department has displayed a very
laudable zeal to secure the greatest amount of speed and efficiency
attainable for said vessels.
5. Resolved, That nothing has been proven in this investigation
which impeaches, in any way, the personal or official integrity of the
Secretary of the Navy.




54                 NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Statement of the number of workmen employed at the several navy yards
in each half month of the year preceding the 1st day of December, 1858.
IDecemb0er 1 to 15....564    1, 2G6    1,479       646    863    17558    450
December 16 to 31.   544    1, 370    1,390            480    857    1,625    445 
1858.
1   0 1,74 
1857.
December 1 to 15...-    564    1,256    1,479           646    863    1,558    450        297
December 16 to 31-28     544    1,370    1,390         480    857    1,625    445
1858.
January I to 15 —---  538    1,251    1,426            574    785    1,540    410  {358
January 16 to 31 -—.   533    1,243    1,429           653    750    1,714    464 
February 1 to 15 —. —  516    1,237    1,302            695    722    1,749    448        304
February 16 to 28..-    438    1,288    1,288         709    683    1,756    424 
March 1 to 15.......    438    1,268    1,365          766    687    1,718    423        3
March 16 to 31.....   435    1,074    1,409           785    672    1,580    433 
April 1 to 15..-..-  526    1,079    1,403           800    670    1,553    422         279
April 16 to 30 -....-    556       991    1,416        914    672    1,503    384
May 1 to 15 ----         544       966    1,379    1,064    717    1,413    333  
May 16 to 31  -— 567    1,010    1,711    1,063    725    1,288    340 
June 1to  15       --   498    1,119    1,850    1,120    725    1,291    341            29
June 16 to 30 —..-.  525    1,204    1,912    1,156    715    1 223    365 
July i to 15   -- - 503    1,250    2,024    1,091    786    1,441    430                341
July 16 to 31 —-----  563    1,432    2,092    1,030    790    1,593    463 
August I to 15 -—.-  595    1,538    2,137    1,216    861    1 699    515              330
August 16 to 31 —-.  778    1,599    2 132    1,267    889    1, 660    545 
September 1 to 15..    836    1,626    2,166    1,250    882    1,783    568            312
September 16 to 30.    855    1,656    2,286    1,534    899    1,887    587 
October 1 to 15 ----    900    1,633    2,365    1,685    860    1,931    598            346
October 16 to 31....  814    1.543    2,414    1,722    872    1,936    619 
November I to 15..    777    1,576    2,488    1,541    878    1,824    634    320
November 16 to 30.      642    1,546    2,319    1,537    872    1,713    620 
NOTE.-The rolls for the navy yard at Mare Island are rendered for the entire month.




35TH CONGRESS, I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J Ex. Doc.
2d Session.                                            No. 184.
NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
FEBRUARY 24, 1859.-The further consideration postponed until Monday next, and ordered
to be printed.
Mr. JOHN SHERMAN, from the Select Committee on Naval Contracts
and Expenditures, submitted the following
VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.
The undersigned members of the Special Committee on Naval Contracts
and Exponditures beg leave to report:
That the present organization of the bureaus in the Navy Department is founded upon the act of August 31, 1842. Prior to that
time work in the navy yards, whether for the construction and improvement of navy yards and docks, or for the construction and repairs
of vessels, was done under the sanction of a board of navy commissioners.  The amount then expended was comparatively small.  In
1820 the work in navy yards amounted to $65,000; in 1830 it was
$180,500; in 1840 it was $110,250.  Prior to 1840 the total expenditures in the purchase, construction, and improvement of navy yards
was $7,023,942 12. An annual appropriation was also made for the
repairs of vessels, and another for gradual increase and improvement.
Under the act of 1842 expenditures in the navy yards have mainly
been disbursed under the direction of two bureaus:
1. That of Navy Yards and Docks, charged with the construction
of and improvements in navy yards.
2. That of Construction, Equipment, and Repairs, charged with
the construction and repairs of vessels, and with the purchase of fuel,
hemp, and materials for the navy.
The following statement will exhibit the expenditures under the
direction of these bureaus since their organization, excepting the
special expenditures for the construction of new vessels:




56                NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 -.... —-, —. —. —-,                  $366,881 03
For the year ending June 30, 1844 ----          ----        ---      --    396, 653 35
Do —------— do ------— 1845                                             546,359 15
Do ------— do -..-.. —1846 - --- -- ----...-    585,549 57
Do ------— do —---— 1847 -..-.. —-------- -                             806,748 63
Do —----     do -, —— 1848. —--— _- --                               1,053,018 76
Do —------— do —--..-1849 -— 1,797,129 18
Do. —-—.- do -----— 1850 --------          ---- ----                2,320,793 20
Do ------—.do —-       1851                                          18511,991 08
Do. —----— do —----— 1852 -             ----------------             1,636,635 21
Do ---—. —-do -----— 1853 -------           --------  1,762,339 63
Do -------— do —----— 1854  ------           ----— 1,231,159 99
Do —------— do  ----— 1855 -------           -------       -       -  2,010,920 17
Do ----—. —do -----— 1856 -------           ----        -            2,567,511 37
Do ----— do —----— 1857 —-----                -------—.              2,392,768 65
Do -------— do —----- 1858  ------           ----------  3,157,522 57
24,483,981 54
BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND REPAIR.
Amount expended for increase, repair, and equipment, armament, fuel for steamers, and
purchase of hemp.
1841-'42 —--------------                                        $2,803,820 70
1842-'43 —--------------                                            935,818 98
1843-'44 -------          ---------                              1,398,435 58
1844-'45 -----------            ----                             1,222,378 54
1845-'46 --   ----       ---------                               1,838,479 21
1846-'47 -------------------------------------— 1,567,371 85
1847-'48.. —------------—. —--—.    3,067,779 01
1848-'49 —-----        ---------                                 3,663,805 35
1849-'50 —--     -----------             ----                     1,867,205 52
1850-'51 —---------------                                         2,080,377 44
1851'52 —-— 2 —--------------------—, —-— _ —--                 2,354,052 93
1852-'53 ------------------------------                           2,724,036 97
1853-'54 --------------— 2,371,990 84
1854-'55 —--------------                                          2,767,544 40
1855-'56 —------           --------    3,156,593 48
1856-'57 ------------------------.    3,115,351 28
1857-'58 --------------— 3,129,427 68
To January, 1859 -- --------------— 1,739,688 38
41,804,159 15
In  pursuing  the inquiry  ordered  by  the House, the  attention  of
your committee has been chiefly  directed to  four distinct items  of
expenditure.
1. The purchase of fuel for the navy.
2. The purchase of live oak timber.
3. The  management of the  navy  yards, and  especially  that of
Brooklyn.
4. Contracts for steam machinery.
The undersigned beg leave to submit the result of their inquiry upon
tach of these subjects separately.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES,                57
COAL AGENCY.
Previous to and including the year 1850 fuel for the use of the navy
was required by law to be purchased by contract with the lowest
bidder, in the same manner as other materials for the navy.  By the
act of September 28, 1850, it was provided that
"In the article of fuel for the navy, or naval stations and yards, the Secretary of the
Navy shall have power to discriminate and purchase, in such manner as he may deem
proper, that kind of fuel which is best adapted to the purpose for which it is to be used."
In the exercise of this discretionary power, Mr. Graham, Secretary
of the Navy, appointed Mr. B. N. Springer, a retired coal merchant
of Philadelphia, the agent of the government to purchase anthracite
coal. Upon receiving a requisition for coal he went around among
the coal dealers, received their offers, and took the lowest bid; and
upon its delivery either he or his son was upon the wharf to see that
it was weighed correctly and shipped in good order. The compensation of the agent was fixed at five per cent. commission.
In May last Benjamin Tyson was the coal agent, and several applications were made to the Secretary of the Navy for the place. The
mode of purchasing the coal, the selection of the agent, if needed, and
his compensation, were, by the law, entirely at the discretion of the
Secretary. The coal business had largely increased, so that the amount
annually purchased was, in 1858, about 55,000 tons, being a larger
amount than in previous years, and the per centage yielded a larger
salary. In May, 1858, some of the applicants met at Washington,
and at a conference with each other and their friends, (among whom
was Hon. J. Glancy Jones,) it was agreed that Dr. Charles H. Hunter, of Reading, Pennsylvania, should be appointed coal agent; and
that the emoluments of the office should be divided equally between
him, John F. Smith, and J. Lawrence Getz, warm  personal and
political friends of the President, who had contributed largely-to his
election.  Hunter and Smith were both applicants for the office of
coal agent; Getz was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, and
then and now the editor of the Reading Gazette; each of the parties
above named was examined by your committee; and also C. Nichols
Beach, whose connexion with the transaction will hereafter appear.
Mr. Smith testified that he was in Washington in May last, and was
present when the arrangement for the appointment of Hunter was made.
That some of the applicants and their friends had a conversation to
arrange things amicably if they could. Finally it was agreed that
if the Secretary would appoint either of them, he should appoint Dr.
Hunter, Mr. Getz, and Mr. Smith.  That the arrangement was communicated to the Hon. J. Glancy Jones, then a member of this
House, and that the President also understood that the emoluments
of the office were to go to the three. As this was deemed important
by the committee the witness was examined and re-examined by different members of the committee as to the knowledge of the President;
he repeated that the President knew that the three were to divide the
emoluments of the office, and that the parties were satisfied with the
decision; but he knew nothing about the arrangement whether onehalf was to go to one party and the other half to the other two or not.




58           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Mr. Getz testifies that he was at Washington at the time, and was
informed of the arrangement for the appointment of Dr. Hunter, and
that he, (Getz,) was to have one-third of the profits.  He agreed to
it with a "mental reservation."  He conversed with the President
about the appointment of Dr. Hunter, and the President said to him
"Mr. Jones urged me to appoint you; but you are no applicant; I
have made up my mind to appoint Dr. Hunter."
Mr. Beach (C. Nichols) testified that he is a nephew, by marriage,
of the Secretary of the Navy; that he was on intimate relations with
him; that he was in Washington when the arrangement of the appointment of Dr. Hunter was made; that he was himself an applicant
for the office; that he conversed with Mr. Jones about it; that he
knew that the emoluments of the office were to be divided up among
these parties; and that it was a matter of general rumor in Washington before and at the time of the appointment; that he talked with
the Secretary about the appointment of.Dr. Hunter, and that the
Secretary informed him that, as the application was a Pennsylvania
one, he would defer to the wish of the President.
It is to be remarked that, by law, the President has nothing to do
with the purchase of coal. The only power in the matter is conferred
by law upon the Secretary; yet it appears, from the testimony and
the Secretary's admission to Beach, that the power was yielded to the
President.
In pursuance of the arrangement, Dr. Hunter was appointed coal
agent; Smith received the commission from the Navy Department,
took it to Dr. Hunter at Reading, and narrated to him the arrangement to which Hunter agreed.  Getz subsequently declined to share
in the profits, because, as he says, the arrangement was distasteful
to him.
Dr. Hunter had been for years, was then, and still is, a practicing
physician in Reading.  He had never purchased coal for sale; he did
not know its market value, took no pains to ascertain it; did not purchase any coal for the government, or do any act, in the performance
of his duty except to sign formal papers sent to him by Tyler, Stone
& Co., certifying that a specific quantity of coal of the best quality
had been duly inspected and weighed by him and shipped on board a
named vessel. These papers were sent to the proper bureau, and all
parties knew, or ought to have known that the certificates were false,
so far as relates to his personal knowledge of the facts certified.
By an understanding between Hunter & Smith the latter was to
make inquiries as to selecting coal at Philadelphia, but it is manifest
that he did but little in the execution of this trust.  He was in the
omnibus business, and had no connexion witi the purchase of coal.
The coal was required at Philadelphia, and was there delivered
on shipboard to the government. Neither Hunter nor Smith saw
the coal inspected, weighed, or delivered, and the whole business
was turned over to Tyler, Stone & Co. Mr. Smith testifies that he
took no personal supervision of the matter, except to see that the
best coals could be had, and depended upon Tyler, Stone & Co. to
inspect the coal. When the government needed coal a requisition
was sent to Dr. Hunter, which by him was sent to Tyler, Stone &




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.               59
Co., who became at once the purchasers for and the sellers to the government. Tyler, Stone & Co. and Dr. Hunter fixed the price at $3 85
per ton. The testimony of many witnesses establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of such coal as was delivered to the government would not exceed $3 50 per ton, and several respectable dealers
would have furnished the government at that or a less price, and then
made a profit. The purchases of coal thus made for the government
by Tyler, Stone & Co. for the six months from the 1st July, 1858, to
31st December, 1858, was about 40,000 tons, at a cost of $3 85 per ton.
The amount of emoluments received by Dr. Hunter, and divided by
him with Mr. Smith, was, for the same six months, $7,452 92, or, at
the rate of $14,905 84 per annum. In addition to this direct loss,
the mode of purchase adopted furnished no guarantee against fraud
in the quality or amount of coal which, when delivered on shipboard,
was not inspected by any officer of the government.
Your committee have furnished to the parties implicated in these
transactions every opportunity to explain them. All the parties,
except the President, Secretary of the Navy, and Hon. J. Glancy
Jones, have been examined. The President and the Secretary have
been furnished with a copy of the testimony, and notified that any
statements either of them desire to make would be heard by the committee, or that any witnesses desired by them would be examined.
The Secretary, in his letter of February 14, 1858, herewith submitted,
states that the same system existed in the coal agency during the
administration of his predecessor. He also states that he was not
aware until the present investigation of any want of attention on the
part of the coal agent.
LIVE-OAK CONTRACTS.
Live-oak timber, like other material for the navy, is required by
law to be purchased by contract with the lowest bidder; but, unlike
other material, it is not kept on hand in large quantities by dealers in
timber: Therefore, it has been the uniform custom of the government
to allow contractors from one to two years to furnish the supply
needed, unless the exigencies of the service demand an immediate
supply, when the amount needed may be bought in open purchase.
When delivered, it is stored away in the navy yards and used as the
service demands.
W. C. N. Swift, a whaler, of New Bedford, Massachusetts, had,
prior to 1844, been contractor for the supply of live-oak and other
timber for the government.  In 1854 he entered into a written
agreement with George Plitt, of Philadelphia, an active and intimate friend of President Buchanan, by which Plitt agreed to aid
Swift all he could in obtaining live-oak contracts with the Navy Department; for which Swift was to pay to Plitt ten per cent. on the
gross amount of the contracts made. The aid contemplated was that
Plitt should place Swift upon familiar relations with the departments.
He introduced Mr. Swift to Mr. Dobbin during President Pierce's
administration, and to other gentlemen and used all his influence in
behalf of Swift.  Pending the presidential election of 1856, Plitt




60           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
introduced Swift to Mr. Buchanan, and sought to place him in the
very best position he possibly could with the President. Plitt, at the
time, was treasurer of the democratic State central committee of Pennsylvania, and as such received from Swift, the sum of $16,000, of
which Swift contributed $10,000 and received the balance from his immediate friends, to be used in the pending election.  Mr. Buchanan
was informed before the election, that Mr. Swift was an old line whig
who had come over to his party, and was taking an active part in the
election; and he was subsequently informed of the amount contributed
by Swift.
Plitt testifies that" In introducing Mr. Swift, I told Mr. Toucey that he was a gentleman whom I should
be very glad to have him aid in any way that he could, legitimately, of course; that he
was my very warm friend, who had contributed very liberally towards the election of
1856, and that he had a number of old-line whig friends in Massachusetts, who were
equally liberal, some of them, at least, and I thought that such gentlemen ought to be
patronized of course."
Plitt further testifies that he regarded the contract with Swift, of
April, 1854, as a continuing contract, and " supposing that agreemnent was still in force under the present admininistration as it was
under the former one, I had taken pains to make him acquainted with
every one of my political friends."
In the frequent interviews of Plitt with the President and Secretary,
whenever Swift's name was mentioned, Plitt took pains to recommend
him as a very good fellow, "and I was very sorry he should be disappointed; he was anxious to get some appointments in Massachusetts, in all of which he was disappointed, and. I felt some sympathy
for him. I frequently spoke of him in that way." He testifies this
was the extent of his aid to Swift.
The undersigned need not dwell upon the corrupting tendencies of
such agreements as that between Plitt and Swift, whereby the influence arising from social relations and personal interviews with the
highest officers of the government are sold for money.  When they
become the general rule, and upon discovery are passed over without
objection or reproof by the highest functionaries, they become offences
which should be punished by severe penalties.  But they are still
more dangerous when they look not merely to political influence, but
to controlling and tampering with the judicial duty of awarding
contracts.
Contracts for live-oak, in 1857, were awarded to Swift for 150,000
feet, to be delivered at three of the navy yards. An outstanding
contract with a Mr. Blanchard was cancelled and awarded to Swift in
November, 1857.  The amount of these contracts is $232,940.
Prior to June, 1858, Swift brought to some of the navy yards large
quantities of live oak, which was rejected; some of it because the size
was below that prescribed by the contract, and some for its inferior
quality. By the rule of the department at most of the yards timber
not coming within the contract was required to be removed before
that which had been accepted would be paid for. This rule seems to
have been strictly enforced, except as to the timber delivered by
Swift & Bigler, whose connexion with these transactions will be
shown hereafter.  The officers on duty at the navy yards, except at




NAVAL  CONTRACTS AND  EXPENDITURES.                            61
Norfolk, would have enforced this rule, but they were required  by
an order of the Secretary to allow this timber to remain in the yards,
where, in some instances, it became a grievous inconvenience. By
the  15th  of June, 1858, when  it became necessary  to  prepare the
annual advertisement, the timber thus  accumulated  amounted  to
about 80,000 feet.  On the -               day of May, 1858, Swift, sent the
department a statement of the amount of his timber then on hand.
Before the advertisement of June, 1858, was issued, Swift & Bigler
each had interviews with the secretary, Bigler urged the Secretary to
purchase his timber on open contract. Bigler testifies as follows:
" After I got my contracts filled, I went to the Secretary of the Navy to get him to buy my
timber upon 9pen purchase. He gave as a reason for not buying upon open purchase, that it
was against the law to buy timber upon open purchase, except for immediate use. Mr. Swift
went to him on the same score, that he had timber over, which he wished to sell to the government. This induced the Secretary, I suppose, to make this advertisement to cover about the
amount of timber that we had."
Mr. Lenthall, the chief of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment
and Repairs, testifies that the Secretary inquired of him the shortest
time within which the timber could be cut and transported to the various navy yards. He named the 1st of February, 1859, and the testimony
shows that by extraordinary exertions and unusual expense and risk it
could have been delivered at the navy yards at that time. Mr. Lenthall
inserted this date in the advertisement, and sent it to the office of the
Secretary. It was there altered so as to require one half of it to be
delivered by the 1st of September, 1858, thus excluding all competition.  Bigler testifies that such was the design.  He says:
" The Secretary of the Navy knew, and the chief of the bureau knew that there was nobody
else in all America that had the timber and could put it in at such a time but Mr. Swift and
myself. There was not any such timber in the United States that was already got out except
ours. There was nobody else in the business but Mr. Swift and myself who could furnish it.
The Secretary knew there was no other timber anywhere else in the market."
If any doubt existed as to the design  of the Secretary in the particular terms of the advertisement, the subsequent conduct of the
parties concerned clearly proves that those terms were carefully
arranged so as to prevent all competition, and secure the contract to
Swift.  Dealers in live-oak timber perceived  at once the  effect and
purpose of the advertisement. Samuel P. Brown, of Maine, an intelligent lumberman, now a member of the legislature  of Maine, thus
testified to a conversation with Swift upon the subject:
"I think about the middle of June, 1858, I had one conversation with him, (Mr. Swift,)
that was after the advertisement was issued by the department, I told him that I was disappointed to see this advertisement come out; I knew that it was got out for his benefit
and that of Mr. Bigler, and that the way they were managing the thing would not give
satisfaction. I advised him for his own reputation to go to the Secretary and induce him to
withdraw that advertisement and let him purchase his timber, if he wanted it for immediate use. He told me that he had been trying to induce the Secretary to do that same
thing, but the Secretary told him that he had no authority to purchase this timber. He
had made up his mind that he could not do it without advertising; but the advertising arrangement was such that nobody could offer for it but himself, because he had timber in
the yards, and he knew that no other man could fill the offer, and it would only be trifling
to make any offer. I stated to Mr. Swift that I should make an offer to take the contract
in good aith, and then should ask the Secretary for an extension of time, says he,' he
will not grant it.'' Well, then,' said I,' let him do that, and I will report the thing to
Congress next winter.' "
By the advertisement as issued, 150,000 feet was required, being




62           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
25,000 feet at each of six yards, and a larger quantity than had been
purchased in any year previous, except in 1857; but it was of a
smaller size and of straighter form, and therefore much less valuable
for ship building. It was of the peculiar character and description
then owned by Swift in the different navy yards. It was impossible
for any dealer but Swift to comply in point of time.  The whole
amount of live-oak timber in the market within the reach of the Navy
Department, other than Swift's and Bigler's timber, was less than
4,000 feet. The yellow fever was prevailing in the live-oak region;
none could be cut and transported by the 1st of September, 1858, even
to Pensacola, in the midst of the live-oak district.  Work was then
suspended in the navy yard there, and neither human endurance nor
enterprise could meet the dangers of pestilence in that region.
The advertisement being thus arranged it is manifest that but two
men could compete, and these two were Bigler and Swift. They were
in this city about the time the bids were to be opened, and then entered into an agreement by which Swift was to put in his bid and
Bigler was to bid above him, so that there would be no possibility of
Bigler coming in competition with Swift. The contract was then to
be taken by Swift for the whole amount of timber-150,000 feet, at
$195,000, or $1 30 per cubic foot-and Swift was to take of Bigler
the timber he had on hand at the various yards at contract prices.
Bigler testifies that he told the Secretary:
" I did not care how he arranged the matter, if he would give the contract to Mr. Swift,
for it would make no difference to me, as he had agreed to take my timber."
This attempt of Swift and Bigler to procure the contract would have
been entirely successful but for the intervention of several other bidders,
who, being engaged in the business of lumbering, were anxious to obtain a contract with the government.  They noticed the shortness of
the time for delivery. Some of them had been for years contractors
for delivering live-oak to the government, and in no previous case was
the time of delivery less than from one to two years.  Not supposing
that the Secretary would enforce an impossibility, but would allow
a delivery of the timber at any time within the six months prescribed
for the delivery of the whole, and supposing that, by extraordinary
exertions, they could accomplish that, they made proposals.
The lowest bids were those of Buxton & Lawrence who offered to
deliver 25,000 feet at each of the yards, at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Charlestown and Brooklyn, for $81,750 for the whole; Samuel
B. Grice offered to deliver 25,000 feet at each of the yards, at Philadelphia and Norfolk for $57,400 for the two yards; Coates, Degraw
& Beach offered to deliver 25,000 feet at Pensacola for $27,750; in all
being 150,000 feet for $166,700, being $28,300 less than the prearranged bids of Swift.  If the usual time of one and two years had
been allowed by the advertisement, the testimony shows us that the
bids would have been reduced at least 15 per cent. or about $25,000.
But the bids made were upon the basis of an entire delivery before
the 1st of February, 1859, involving unusual expense and risk.
The successful bidders promptly took steps to complete their contracts.  General -       Berry of Maine was applied to by Messrs.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.               63
Buxton & Lawrence to become their security.  Before doing so he
wrote to his friend, Mr. John Appleton, Assistant Secretary of
State, to obtain an extension of the time for delivery. Mr. Appleton
applied to the Secretary of the Navy and was informed that if the
contracts were not complied with he would buy the timber in open
market and charge it against them under the law. Mr. Appleton
urged that unless the timber was needed for immediate use, it would
certainly be better to extend the time for its delivery and then get it at a
low rate, rather than purchase it at once at high rates. The Secretary
said he would consider that point before he decided. Mr. Appleton
called the second time, and was then informed by the Secretary of
the Navy that Mr. Swift had offered to take the contract at the rates
proposed by the lowest bidders, and he had accepted his offer.
Mr. Samuel B. Grice duly executed his contract, and promptly
delivered at the navy yard at Philadelphia over 1,400 feet. He
arranged to get the residue as rapidly as possible, and he had on shipboard at the navy yard at Philadelphia, on September 16, 1858, some
800 feet, when his contract was abruptly cancelled, and a new one
made on similar terms with Swift.
Coates, Degraw & Beach executed their contract, and immediately
took steps to fulfil it.  This contract related only to the Pensacola
navy yard, where Swift had no live-oa7, and was in no better condition
than other bidders.  Mr. Degraw immediately went on to Florida to
make arrangements to comply with the wants of the government
there.  He was informed by the naval constructor that but a small
portion of the timber would be needed immediately, and sixty days
would be in time for the delivery of the most of it.  He made arrangements to supply the few sticks wanted in the construction of a
vessel then on the stocks; as for the balance, he arranged to deliver
it when required, and all before the 1st of February, 1859.
Before Mr. Degraw went on to Florida, Mr. Coates came on here on
the first of September, the very day upon which one-half of this
timber was to have been delivered, and asked for an extension of
time. The Secretary said he was not in the habit of doing that, to
which Mr. Coates replied, that if their contract was to be annulled
for non-fulfilment he wanted to know it at once, and he would expend
no more time or money upon it.  He told the Secretary that they
were ready to do what other contractors had done to meet the wants
of the government, and asked if one of their firm had better not go on
to Florida and ascertain what the wants of the government were
there. To which Mr. Toucey replied that he had better do so, and
report to the department. In consequence of this, Mr. Degraw went
on to Florida. Before he returned, however, the contract had been
annulled and awarded to Swift. This was a case of peculiar hardship. A practical lumberman obtained the contract, evinced unusual
energy in its prompt execution, risking the dangers of the yellow
fever in its worst season, supplying by purchase the immediate wants
of the government and providing for them in future; yet he is
suddenly deprived of his contract, at the loss of his time and labor,
because he has not complied with an impossible condition, not designed




64          NIAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
to be performed, and the contract is awarded to a favored contractor
who could not comply and who has not yet complied.
During all this time Swift remained in Washington, in confidence
that he would finally get the contracts.  He assured Bigler " that he
was satisfied that the parties would have to give them up. The government were under obligations to him, and he thought he could bring
such influence to bear that they would give him these contracts. He
said it was due to him for services rendered."
By the law: "All purchases, &c., made by or under the direction,
&c., of the Secretary of the Navy, shall be made either by open purchase or by previously advertising for proposals respecting the same,"
&c.-(Brightly, p. 191.)
" In case the lowest bidder shall fail to enter into such contract and
give such security within a reasonable time, to be fixed in such advertisement, then the contract shall be given to the next lowest bidder
who shall enter into such contract and give such security. — (Brightly,
page 677.)
"Purchases in open market cannot be resorted to, except in case of
such articles as are wanted for use so immediate as not to admit of
contracts by advertisement."-(Brightly, note b, page 677.)
The Secretary is authorized to purchase in two ways: 1st, by contract
after advertisement, and acceptance of proposals of bidders. If the
lowest bidder fails to enter into the contract and give the security in
the tirme specified, then the contract is to be given to the next lowest
bidder.
2. By open purchase.
In this case the Secretary had no more power to enter into a contract with Swift than if the advertisement of June 14, 1858, had never
been issued. By the terms of that advertisement, one-half of the
timber was to be delivered on the 1st of September, 1858, and the
rest on or before the 1st day of February, 1859.  It was not possible
to award the contracts originally advertised for to any one. On the
23d day of September, when the contract was entered into with
Swift, it was manifestly absurd and impossible to award a contract to
any one to deliver timber on the 1st day of the same September. In
every possible respect, so far as Swift was concerned, the Secretary
was precisely in the same position, under the law, on the 23d day of
September, that he would have been if no advertisement for proposals had ever been issued. The Secretary alleges, in his defence,
that there were fears of a rupture with Great Britain when the
advertisement was issued, but all those fears were completely dissipated before the end of June; and in September, when the contract
was made, our relations with Great Britain were certainly as harmonious as they have ever been at any time in the history of the two
governments.
The allegation of want of timber in the yards is equally as idle as
the pretence of fears of Great Britain. The testimony shows clearly
that little of this timber was required, perhaps none of it was absolutely necessary for immediate use, and the quantity actually used has
been so small compared with the amount purchased as to be worthy




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                         65
of no consideration.  In fact, the testimony of the naval constructors
at Norfolk and some of the other yards renders it probable that the
timber purchased from Swift is of small value to the government, as,
in case it should be used, an equal quantity of timber already in the
yards will be suffered to decay.
Yet the Secretary, without notice to the next bidder, and without advertisement, and without such a necessity as would justify
an open purchase for such an amount as Swift had on hand, entered
into a contract with Swift for 150,000 feet.  This contract is dated
September 23. 1858, but was made as early as September 16.  On
that day Mr. Lenthall wrote to Grice, the lowest bidder, as follows:' NAVY DEPARTMENT,
" Bureau of Construction, &fc, September 16, 1858.
"SIR: I am instructed by the department to inform you that, as you have not complied with the terms of your contract for live-oak, a new one has been made with other
parties.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
"JOHN LENTHALL,
"' Chief of Bureau.
"SAMUEL B. GRIcE, Esq., Philadelphia."
The arrangement between Swift and Bigler was carried out. All
their timber on hand at the different navy yards that would pass
inspection, has been taken.  It was the same that was on hand when
the advertisement was issued, and no other has yet been delivered.
The rejected timber of Swift is still allowed to remain at the navy
yards.  The price paid is higher than Bigler offered his timber to
the government on open purchase.  The only failure in Swift's plan
is, that by the intervening bids, the government was saved $28,300.
On the 15th day of October, he, for the first time, repudiated his
written agreement with Plitt; Plitt thereupon consulted the President. The result of this conference is thus stated by him:
" I did not want to involve the present administration in any difficulty, and, therefore,
I asked the President whether there would be any objection to my prosecuting Mr. Swift
in court for this claim. The President looked at the agreement made in 1854, and said
he could not see any objection to it. He had, of course, no advice to give, and told me I
might do as I pleased about it."
At a recent interview of Plitt with the Secretary, the latter remarked to him:
" Your friend, Swift, I am afraid, has failed in delivering one of his last contracts at the
Pensacola yard, and if so, I intend to annul it."
Swift also claims that, as his arrangement with  Bigler did not
entirely succeed, Bigler should pay him $1,000 for nameless expenditures in obtaining the contract, and he testifies to an agreement to
this effect, which Bigler denies.
The undersigned have fully considered the statement of the Secretary, of the date of February 14, 1859, that the contracts were made,
to supply the pressing and immediate wants of the government, andi
have directed their attention to that subject. The yards at which
the Secretary says the live-oak was most needed. were Norfolk, Kittery, and Pensacola. The naval constructor at Norfolk testifies that
they have-used to this time less than 1,000 feet of Swift's timber,
and that they have on hand over 500,000 feet.  At Kittery the wants,
H' Rep. Corn. 184-.  5




66          NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
of the government were supplied by open purchase from  Bigler of
about 3,000 feet.  At Pensacola Degraw had arranged with the naval
constructor for the few sticks needed for immediate use, and for the
balance as needed.  The Secretary expressly refused to make the
purchase an open purchase, for the reason that the law would not
justify it.  He so stated to Swift, Bigler, and Appleton.
In June, 1857, a greater necessity for timber existed than when the
contracts were awarded to Swift, and yet the usual advertisement was
then issued. It is worthy of observation moreover, that at Pensacola, where the Secretary informs us the wants of the service were
most pressing, Swift had no timber and did not deliver it as soon
as the lowest bidders could have done.
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Shortly after the organization of the present administration, the
patronage of the New York yard having been previously confined
chiefly to a few of the congressional districts of New York, an understanding was entered into between the democratic members from New
York, with the acquiescence of the Secretary of the Navy, that it
should, as nearly as practicable, be equally divided among them. In
some cases the Secretary created new places of master workmen. The
correspondence of these members with the department is herewith
reported, and exhibits on its face the evil effects of the system.
The division of patronage among members was well known in the
yard. Each master workman understood to whom he and each of his
lellows owed their places. Thus the constructive engineer, the master
plumber, and the master block-maker, represented Mr. Sickles; the
master painter represented Mr. Searing; the master spar-maker,
master blacksmith, and timber inspector, represented Mr. Maclay;
the master laborer, under the constructing engineer, the master boatbuilder, and the master ship-carpenter, represented Mr. Taylor; the
master caulker represented Mr. Cochrane; and the master stonecutter represented Mr. Ward.  Until May, 1858, the master laborer,
under the constructing engineer, represented Mr. Clark, and the
master carpenter represented Mr. Haskin, and so with all the heads
of the departments of labor in the yard at Brooklyn.
Lawrence Cohane was appointed master carpenter, upon the nomination of Mr. Hlaskin, in the general division of patronage. He was
removed on the 9th of June, 1858, on account of Mr. Haskin's course
upon the Lecompton constitution, as he says. Alexander Ward was
appointed in October, 1857, for Mr. Clark; and in May, 1858, after
Mr. Clark had taken position upon the Kansas question, he resigned.
He states that he wanted to use his influence for the re-nomination of
Mr. Clark; and he knew that if he did so, and still remained in the
yard, he would subject himself lo being removed. Rather than that,
he preferred to leave himself. These places were then given to Mr.
Taylor.
Each master workman selected all the workmen under him, and
upon his requisition the number was increased or diminished, he
naming those to be selected or discharged.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                         67
This system, added to the abuses previously existing, has reduced the
navy yard to a mere political machine, where idleness, theft, insubordination, fraud, and gross neglect of duty prevailed to an alarming
degree.  Members of Congress, officers of the yard both naval and
civil, master workmen, contractors and laborers, have all testified to
many abuses.
Hon. John Cochrane testifies that the tendency of "the distribution
of patronage by members was very deleterious upon the purity of
elections; injurious to the workmen, in that it teaches laborers and
mechanics to look to political influence for sustenance and support;
injurious to the  member of Congress; that he himself had been
besieged-beset by hundreds of claimants at his house and in his office,
until now, having been driven from his office, he was in doubt whether
he should return to New York.  And Hon. H. F. Clark, in reference
to the same subject, makes the following statement:
"My attention was first attracted to the subject by receiving a very great number of
applications from mechanics and laborers in my district for my interference to procure for
them places in the navy yard. To such an extent was this demand that it became onerous, indeed offensive. My house was run down. I was addressed in the street upon the
subject. When in the lower part of the city on business I would be pursued. And I really
could find no rest by reason of the great number of such applications."
*o:'~ O  " " Another class of applications was from men who desired to have procured
for them the situation of quartermen in the navy yard, at $2 50 per day. Another class
was from men who desired to have procured for them the situation of masters in the navy
yard. And, between them all, I found that more was required of a member of Congress
than I had imagined. It appeared to me that I was expected to find places for the unemployed, and there were too many of that class in New York to render it possible that I
should voluntarily undertake that business.'
"This whole system tends, in the first place, to the demoralization of the laboring
classes, to their serious detriment, and, in my judgment, to the degradation, personal and
political, of members of Congress."
The incidents and details of these abuses are shown by the testimony, and the very voluminous correspondence of the department
with Commander Rootes and Mr. Graham, the constructing engineer.
Most of the members of Congress went to the yard during the hours
of work to look after their interests.  Each was anxious to have his
friends in the yard, and most of them  in person frequently pressed
these applications.  They had controversies with each other, with
the officers of the yard, and with the master workmen, about the
division of patronage.  Several cases of this kind are testified to by
the master workmen, and are shown by the correspondence Pressed
by laborers begging  for work  as a reward  for partisan  services,
members sent them to their master workmen, in some cases to others,
with letters of recommendation, in many cases without proper inquiry
as to their fitness or ability to do work.  The master workmen, themselves appointed for partisan services, often yielded. In some cases,
when they refused, threats of their own removal were sent to them;
and when compelled to choose in some cases they preferred packing the
yard with idle and unskillful workmen or laborers to risking their
own places.   In one case, Hon. John Cochrane, believing that Lawrence Cohane, the master carpenter, did not fairly divide the patronage in his department, wrote Cohane thus:




X;8            BNAVAL CONTRACTS AND  EXPENDITURES.
" NEW YORK, Tune 13, 1857.
" Mr. COHANE: Mr. Cullen tells me that you are to take men on on Tuesday; now I
ask you to take him on and the others I have asked you to take on. I will have my proportion of men under you; if you do not give them I will lodge charges against you.
You have turned away all the men but one from my district already. Of this I have
complained to the Secretary, and now, unless you rectify this injustice, I will make
application that you be turned out. The bearer will bring me an answer.
"Yours, &c.,                                        JOHN COCHRANE."
Mr. Cochrane's letters of a similar character to the master blacksmith are herewith reported.
In another case Lewis W. Berry, the master painter, discharged a
man for habitual drunkenness, who had been  appointed upon the
recommendation of Hon. John Kelly.  Mr. Kelly requested that the
man be taken on again. Berry thus describes what took place at that
interview:' I told Mr. Kelly I could not employ any such man as he was; that he had disgraced
himself, and was a disgrace to my department. Mr. Kelly said he could not help that,
but that the man must go to work again. I told him I could not employ him again.
Said he,' You may set it down as a fact that I will have you removed if I can, if you
don't put that man on again.' "
Within two or three months Berry was removed.  When asked if
he had been removed for this cause, he said:'I cannot say of my own knowledge; I only know what was said. I suppose he was
as good as his word, as he said he would get me turned out. When I came on to Washington afterwards I thanked him for being as good as his word."
Mr. Kelly testifies that he did  not know  that this man was a
drunkard, and always had regarded him as a sober man. He said he
applied for Mr. Berry's removal, but he did not think he was turned
out upon that application, as it was nearly three months before he
was removed. William Turner, the successor of Mr. Berry, was appointed for Mr. Searing. An immediate controversy arose between
him  and Hon. George  Taylor about the  division of his patronage.
The following letters were produced by Mr. Berry from Mr. Taylor to
illustrate the control of members of Congress over master workmen.
"WASHINGTON CITY, March 23, 1858.
"' CAPTAIN TURNER: You will much oblige me by retaining Mr. Fitzgerald as foreman.
This is the understanding between Mr. Searing and myself, and I may add, the Secretary
of the Navy. You will also oblige me by appointing Mr. Tenney, of the 12th ward, when
in your power to do so. As a general thing, Hugh McLaughlin, master laborer, knows
who my friends are, and he will confer with you at all times.
"Yours, respectfully,
" GEO. TAYLOR."
"HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, April 7, 1858.' DEAR SIR: I understood that, as a part of the arrangement before your appointment,
you were to retain Mr. Fitzgerald as your foreman.  You promised to do so; and that is
Mr. Searing's understanding. I am now informed that you intend to dismiss him and appoint some-one in —his place from New York. This is not right, and you ought not to think
of it, if you do. I trust that the original understanding will be carried out. I have just
conversed with Mr. Searing, and this is his view of the matter, and it was the Secretary's
view when you were appointed. In your turn you will, of course, do the best to equalize
matters among the various members.
" Yours, respectfully,
"GEO. TAYLOR.' I haVe just shown this letter to Mr. Searing.
"WILLIAM TURNER, Esq., Master painter."




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                             69
"WASHINGTON CITY, April 13, 1858.
"SI: Your favor has been received. I will be much obliged for a list of the men
under you, when I will write to indicate those I am especially interested in. I want only
a fair proportion of the men.
"In reference to Mr. Fitzgerald it was expressly understood between Mr. Searing and
myself that Fitzgerald should remain, and promised this yourself. I do not know what
Mr. Kelly has to do with this matter, but I shall be pleased to see him gratified so far as
it is proper; but I cannot and will not submit to Mr. Fitzgerald's dismissal; and now I
give you notice that if you do remove him I will do what I can to correct it, and if you
suffer you must not blame me. I desire to sustain you and to make your position pleasant; this I desire on your account as well as in respect to Mr. Searing, but, sir, I will not
stand by and see my friends struck down by you or any other master.
"Yours, respectfully,'GEO. TAYLOR."
"WILLIAM T'URNER, Esq."
The testimony clearly shows that, through  the  master workmen,
nearly all the workmen in the yard were selected by members of Congress and mostly on account of political services. One of the master
workmen  testifies that when  unfit men were pressed upon him  by
members of Congress he reported  it to the  naval constructor, Mr.
Delano, and the reply was, "He was sorry for me, but he could not
help  it."   He informed  Captain  Rootes, who said "he saw it but
could not help it." It was reported in the yard, and the report was
acted upon, that it was the order of the Secretary that the patronage
of the different departments was to be divided and distributed among
the members of Congress.
That this report was well founded, the following correspondence
will show:
" NEW YORK, July 27, 1858.
" MY DEAR SIR: I have applied to Mr. Fraganza, master joiner of the navy yard, to give
employment to a few men, good workmen and worthy persons, in my district. Although
he has 130 men or thereabouts in his shop, he has not done so.
" I have only sent one letter of recommendation to him, but no attention has been paid
to it, beyond the answer that when he put an additional number of men to work he would
then see what he could do.
" I appeal to you to vindicate my district from this unjust and partial discrimination.' Mr. Fraganza admits he has not one man in his shop from my district.
"If I have not misunderstood your views, it is your wish that the masters should select
from the different districts adjacent to the yard, in equal proportions upon the recommendation of members, the workmen employed in the shops, &c.
" Truly  ours,
"D. E. SICKLES.
"Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy, Washington."
"NAVY DEPARTMENT, August 2, 1858.
" SI: The department has addressed the commandant of the navy yard at New York
on the subject of your letter of the 27th ultimo.
"Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"ISAAC TOUCEY.
"Hon. DANIEL E. SICKLES, New York."
"NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 30, 1858.
"SIR: The Hon. Mr. Sickles has complained to the department that an unequal and
unjust course is pursued towards his district by Mr. Fraganza, the master joiner, who,
though he has about 130 men under him, has not employed a single person from his district, although Mr. Sickles has made only one recommendation.' The department desires that a fair and liberal course be pursued towards Mr. Sickles'
district, and wishes you to inquire into and report upon this matter.
"I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
"ISAAC TOUCEY.
"Commodore L. KEARNY, Commandant Navy Yard, New Yrrk."




70            NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
"NAVY YARD, NEW YORK, August 5, 1858.
"SIR: On receipt of the department's letter of the 30th ultimo, Mr. Fraganza, the
master joiner of this yard, was called on for an explanation in regard to the complaint
made by the Hon. Mr. Sickles. Mr. Fraganza's letter, in answer to the subject, is herewith
respectfully submitted.
" The department letter of the same date, with reference to the selection of their foreman by the master workmen, was also received, and on the recommendation of Mr. Kennedy, the master stone cutter, I sanctioned the rating of a foreman, named by him, and
the discharge of the person who had previously held that position.
" Believing that I have carried out the intentions of the department's order, I would
like to be informed if the course pursued in this instance meets its approval.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully your obedient servant,
"L. KEARNY, Commandant.
"Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy."
This is certainly very extraordinary business on which to detail an
officer of the highest rank known in the navy of the United States.
The natural result followed: many of them employed were of an
inferior class of men. With rare exceptions good workmen would not
humble themselves to seek from a politician a job of work when they
can get it elsewhere.  A master workman testified that the poorest
workmen were pressed upon him with the most pertinacity.  Romeo
Fraganza one of the master workmen, writes the department under
date of August 5, 1858, " In eight congressional districts who claim
the patronage of the yard, in nine cases out of ten the men who are
most strenuously recommended are very indifferent hands, many of whom
cannot obtain employment from private employers." Men from the
laborers' gang, who knew nothing about painting, were ranked as
first-class painters, (Fitzgerald,) others as blacksmiths, &c.; and so
on in the different departments. Laborers were employed to act as
clerks and to work as carpenters.
Worthless persons, old men, physically unable to work,   primaries," &c., were sent by members of Congress to master workmen,
often merely to get rid of their importunities, and they were taken
into the several departments, until their unfitness was palpable,
and even then in some cases partisan services outweighed public interest.  The only department in which the commandant of the yard
had a right to appoint the men was the riggers' and the sailmakers'
department, usually sailors working under warrant officers of the
navy. Commander Rootes was applied to by members of Congress to
put certain men even in their places, and in some instances he complied.
A system of appointment, so vicious, could not but produce disastrous results.  Master workmen neglected their duty.  The master
of laborers testified that some time after his appointment he continued
his business as a tin smith, two miles from the yard, and attended in
the yard about two hours a day. Many of these master workmen transferred to clerks and quartermen duties they should have performed
themselves. A general concurrence of many witnesses conclusively
proves that the work done by a laborer in the yard did not exceed
two-thirds of that done for private individuals.
How far, or whether employments were sold in the yard, your committee have not been able to ascertain. Master workmen testify that offers
of money were frequently made to them for employment, but they refused, and direct bribery of that kind could hardly be practiced with



NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                             71
out exposure. The same offence, however, was repeatedly committed
in another way.  The master workmen  received  presents, or "testimonials" as they were called, from  the workmen.  This practice was
common.  Watches, diamond breastpins, and the like, are the usual
gratuities. They were paid for by contributions levied upon the men
under them, nominally as voluntary gifts, but really under the fear
of removal. The master painter, when appointed, was asked by Captain Rootes if he knew  his duty.
"He said it was to set a good example to the men and keep them at their duty.' Further,'
said he,' Captain Rootes there are not three men in the yard who do the duty of one,' alluding, as I supposed, to the painters. I said to him:' That is the opinion of more than yourself,
and I am glad to hear you say what you do; I hope when you come in here you will set them
a good example.' Yet, within two or three weeks after that, my attention was drawn by
some person saying that this same master workman was receiving a gold watch from the men
in his employ."
This watch cost the laborers $175, all of which  was paid  by the
working men in the painter's department.
The foreman of the shop testifies as follows:
"A young man by the name of Leighton, in the office, first suggested it. He told me that
Mr. Turner would be glad to have it carried through, and I then assisted in the carrying
through of it.
"Question. You went round and collected the contributions?
"Answer. Yes, sir.
" Question. Did all the men contribute?
"Answer. I do not believe there was any who did not.
"Question. Was there any objection made by the men to making this contribution?
" Answer. Not at this time, when this contribution was collected; but afterwards, the following pay day, they had this other tax to pay for him to go to Washington, and they complained of being taxed again.
" Question. How was this regarded by the men; as a tax or as a compliment to Mr. Turner?
"Answer. I think if the men were left voluntarily to themselves they would not have done
it. They did it merely through fear that, as some few had started it, if the others did not encourage it they would be discharged."
A short time afterwards a contribution of ninety-four dollars was
collected from  the men to pay Mr. Turner's expenses to Washington, under the pretext that he could get the pay of the men raised.
Still another collection, of fifty-eight or sixty dollars, was taken to
defray  election  expenses.   All these  contributions were  collected
between April 1, 1858, and the November election, and from common
workmen, whose wages were alleged to be inadequate.  Master workmen testified  before your committee with their "testimonials"  on
their persons.  The only case of a refusal of such a donation, brought
to the notice of your committee, was that of Alexander Ward, master
of laborers. Shortly after he went into the yard about one hundred
dollars were collected, to be used in the usual way, before he heard of
it. He had the money returned to the men, who were then receiving
but $1 122 a day. In another case about one hundred dollars were
raised. by men under Mr. Graham  to aid in the election of Mr. Sickles,
which Mr. Graham, when he learned of it, caused to be returned to
the men.
These abuses increased in the yard as the election for members of
Congress approached. Members, master workmen, all were interested
in packing the yard.  If the master workman was reluctant to increase
his force, he was urged to do so by the members of Congress, and
2




72           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
was compelled to yield to the demand.  In this way the master
blacksmith increased his force twenty-five men. He testified that the
same general increase, for the same reason, occurred throughout the
yard in all the different departments; and that of the force of about
2,400 men thus employed, one-fourth were useless; that it was understood that particular master workmen were to administer this patronage
for the benefit of particular members. In most cases this pressure
was yielded to with alacrity, and a temporary pressure of work in September, 1858, to fit out the Niagara for Africa, and which lasted for
four days only, was made the pretext for retaining men after they
were no longer needed. Insubordination increased; in one case the
master laborer and a number of men answered roll-call and went to
the primary election in Mr. Sickles' district, and yet drew full pay.
A short time before the election the men got to leaving off twenty to
thirty minutes before bell-ring in the evening, and would collect near
the gate ready to go out of the yard. Commander Rootes attempted
to stop this; as soon as he got near them between the ship houses
some of them, in large gangs, sang out his name, and hooted and
hissed him. The only reason given by Commander Rootes was, that
the men thought that the members of Congress put them there and
could keep them there in defiance of the officers of the yard.
The same pressure to increase the force was brought to bear upon the
naval officers of the yard; when Commander Rootes sought to remove
some of the men after theNiagara hadsailed, the master workmen always
managed to find somethingtodo. He had no power to removethemaster
workmen, but could complain of them, and suspend them until an
order was received from the department. If this power was exercised,
the result was that the delinquent was soon restored to duty. A
short time before the election Mr. Searing applied to Commander
Rootes to employ some two or three men. He replied that he could
not do it, the orders were against it; the masters had that privilege.
Mr. Turner, the master painter, was present, and he said that it was
all important to have these men in the yard; that they could carry a
great number of votes and had a good deal of influence, and it was
necessary for the nomination of Mr. Searing. A few days before the
election Mr. Taylor urged Commodore Kearny to take in a number
of men. At this period, on the 27th of October, 1858, when the
public welfare demanded the vigilance of the officers of the yard,
Commodore Kearny was relieved from  duty, and Commander Rootes
was summarily detached and ordered to Washington by the Secretary
of the Navy.  Commodore Kearny was left in the yard until his
successor arrived. Their successors could not and did not assume
their active duties until after the election   This order was unusual,
without motive, and no reason has yet been assigned.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                                     73
The following statement of the number of workmen employed at
the several navy yards in each half month of the year preceding the
1st day of December, 1858, is furnished us by the department:
~s       o. 
o                 obID4
D ^               ^: t5                              g      I
1857..
December I to 15....    564    1,256    1,479        646    863    1,558    450        297
December 16 to 31-..   544    1,370    1,390          480    857    1,625    445 
1858.
January I to 15...-  538    1,251    1,426          574    785    1,540    410        358
January 16 to 31....    533    1,243    1,429        653    750    1,714    464 5
February 1 to 15 --     516    1,237    1,302         695    722    1,749    448        304
February 16 to 28 —-  438    1,288    1,288           709    683    1,756    424 
March 1 to 15 ---—.  438    1,268    1,365           766    687    1,718    423       301
March 16 to 31 -----  435    1, 074    1, 409         785    672    1,580    433 
Aprill to 15 --—.-  526    1,079    1,403           800    670    1,553    422        279
April 16 to 30 —. --   556       991    1,416        914    672    1,503    384 
May 1 to 15 _ —-.-._   544        966    1,379    1,064    717    1, 413    333         281
May 16 to 31, —--     567    1,010    1,711    1,063    725    1,288    340
June 1 to 15. -—. —  498    1,119    1,850    1,120    725    1,291   341              296
June 16 to 30......    525    1, 204    1,912    1,156    715    1,223    365
July   to 15 ---        503    1,250    2, 024    1,091    786    1,444    430          341
July 16 to 31 -—. —.   563    1,432    2,092    1,030    790    1,593    463
August 1 to 15 —---   595    1,538    2,137    1,216    861    1,699    515             33
August 16 to 31 —--  778    1,599    2,132    1,267    889    1,660    545 
September 1 to 15-..  836    1,626    2, 166    1,250    882    1,783    568            312
September 16 to 30 -    855    1, 656    2, 286    1,534    899    1,887    587 
October i to 15 —----  900    1, 633    2, 365    1,685    860    1,931    598          346
October 6 to 31 --       814    1,543    2,414    1,722    872    1,936    619 
November 1 to 15. -   777    1,576    2,488    1,541    878    1,824    634             320
November 16 to 30...     642    1,546    2,319    1,537    872    1,713    620 3
NOTE.-The rolls for the navy yard at Mare Island are rendered for the entire month.
It thus appears that the number of employes in the navy yards December 1, 1857, was 7,113; May 1, 1858, 6,697; November 1, 1858,
10,038. The chief increase was at Brooklyn and Philadelphia. In
Brooklyn the number, December 1, 1857, was 1,479; May 1, 1858,
1,379; November 1, 1858, 2,488, or an increase of 1,109 men in five
months.   In Philadelphia the number, December  1, 1857, was  646;
May 1, 1858, 1,064; November 1, 1858, 1,541.   During  the month
of October it ranged from 1,685 to 1,722-an increase of over six
hundred in four months.
It will be perceived thus the highest number at New York was
about the 1st of November, and at Philadelphia about the middle of
October.
The undersigned find that abuses in the Brooklyn navy yard are
not confined to master workmen and their men, but extend to all
the civil departments of the yard.




74           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
THE NAVY AGENT.
George N. Sanders, the navy agent at New York, disburses about
$4,000,000 annually.  By law he is appointed for four years, but
removable from office at pleasure. His salary is not to exceed $3,000
per annum.  His duties are not prescribed by law, but are fixed by
regulations of the department. He is therefore, as to term of office
and duty, entirely subject to the discretion of the Executive.  By the
act of March 3, 1843, all materials, of whatever name or nature, for
the use of the navy, when time will permit, shall be furnished by contract by the lowest bidder.
Fuel and a few other specified articles are exempted by subsequent
laws.  Contracts are annually made by the different bureaus for the
articles supposed to be wanted; but articles are often needed not embraced in the contract. Under the implication arising from the words
"' when time will permit," if articles not covered by the contracts and
not in the navy stores are needed, they are bought by "open purchase;" under the direction of the Navy Department. The navy agent,
among his other duties prescribed by the department, pays for all articles purchased at New York by contract, and makes all open purchases.
All the articles were purchased upon the assumption that time
would not admit of,heir being purchased by contract. The evidence
clearly shows that articles thus purchased were bought at a much
higher rate than the contract price. Thus, iron of prescribed sizes in
1853 was 31 cents per pound by contract. Yet a quantity of iron for
hooping the spars of the frigate Congress was needed. There was a
slight variation in the size of the iron from that furnished by contract
of the 2,000 pounds required.  1,835 pounds were bought on open
purchase at 54 cents per pound.
When articles are needed not embraced in a contract a requisition
is made out by the master workman, certified to by the constructing
engineer or naval constructor, as the case may be, and commandant
of the yard, and sent to the navy agent. It then becomes his duty to
enter the market and purchase the article needed at its fair market
value. Instead of this being done in the city ot New York, the requisitions are generally handed over to Charles A. Secor & Co., ship
chandlers, of New York, and they furnish the article.  One of the
firm is the security for Mr. Sanders on his official bond, and is his
intimate and confidential friend.  The articles called for are furnished
by them, whether within the line of their business or not, and sent
directly to the yard. The navy agent has followed this course during
his term, and never sees the articles, fixes their prices, or knows when,
of whom, or at what prices Secor gets them, and yet claims that he is
appointed to make the purchase and is accountable for the prices.(Commodore Smith.)
When the articles reach the yard a junior officer of the yard inspects
them, to see if they are good and to satisfy himself if they are charged
at fair market prices. To do that he sometimes has sent to the city
of New York to make inquiries, but usually he took the price presumed to have been agreed upon by the navy agent as the fair market
price.  Commander Rootes testifies that they had a great deal of




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                75
trouble with Mr. Secor, and that everything furnished to the navy
yard by Secor & Co. while he was there had been far above market
prices, and so he wrote to the department. Lieutenant Barnet, for
some time the inspecting officer, makes the same statement. Several
instances are shown in the testimony and in Commander Rootes' correspondence with the department where the price was exorbitant. In
such cases the article was rejected; but as the officer did not purchase
the article and was not informed in regard to prices, it usually passed
into the storehouse, and thereupon Secor got his pay of the navy agent.
When the attention of Commodore Smith, of the Bureau of Yards
and Docks, was called to the matter, he issued a circular to each navy
agent, requiring him to inquire of the contractor for articles in that
line, his prices, and also that he ask the prices of two other parties
dealing in the same line, and then take the lowest bid.
These instructions were disregarded by Sanders, and many of the
open purchases were, and are still, made in the same manner of
Secor & Co. Mr. Sanders denied, under oath, that he had received,
or expected to receive, any benefit from this arrangement. But it is
dangerous to allow a practice under which collusion between the
agent and the "provider" is so difficult of detection.
A still more dangerous custom has been allowed by Mr. Sanders
within the past year. Latterly, when requisitions were made by the
master workmen, Mr. Sanders has allowed them to indicate from
whom  they wish the purchases made: and in many cases he has
allowed master workmen to make the purchases themselves.  In some
cases where requisitions have come to his office, and he has had them
filled by Secor & Co. in his usual way, it was found that men in the
yard had made the purchases already, and expected the navy agent to
sign the requisite certificate and pay the money.  He testifies, himself,
that he has too readily yielded to that manner of making purchases,
and that most of the open purchases latterly have been made in this
way.  Why should the master workman seek to indicate the vendor?
why desire to make the purchase himself? The danger of collusion
between the seller and the master workman is increased as the number of master workmen increases.  Each becomes interested in increasing the amount of open purchases in his department, either to
favor a friend or to share the profit. He judges of the necessity of
the article; makes the requisition; purchases the article; agrees upon
the price; inspects it, receives it, and uses it; and yet the formal
certificates are signed by others, and the navy agent pays the money.
THE NAVAL STOREKEEPER.
This office is not created by law, and the duties of the office are
prescribed entirely by the regulations of the Navy Department. The
salary does not seem to be fixed by law, but the amount paid is
$1,700 per annum. The duty of this officer is to receive and take
charge of the naval stores in the yard and deliver them upon proper
requisitions for the use of the service. The following statement




76             NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
shows the amount of stores on hand at the different navy yards, July
1, 1858:
Navy yards.     On hand July    Received.     Expended.   On hand July
1, 1857.                                  1, 1858.
Portsmouth. —.. $751,685 50   $161,962 43   $182,681 32    $730,966 61
Boston —----. 1,530,800 39    862,247 22    764,882 62   1,628,164 99
New York —_ —- 1,315,019 03    556,712 03    457,578 38   1,414,152 68
Philadelphia -.-.....   526,426 93    295,800 90    293,002 44    529,225 39
Washington. —.      528,115 43    475,634 58    545,267 91      458,482 10
(Gosport   --- -     1,565,958 28    446,883 38    473,015 06   1,539,826 60
Warrington ----—...    341,316 80    61,819 26     70,320 22     332,845 84
Total. —------ 6,559,352 36  2,861,059 80  2,786,747 95   6,633,664 21
It appears that by the books of the department there should have
been in the yard at Brooklyn stores of the value of $1,414, 152 68 on
the first of July last, but whether that amount is on hand or not has
not been ascertained. No inventory has been taken for years. Anson
Herrick, the present storekeeper, was appointed in March, 1857, and
during that year an attempt to make an inventory was commenced,
but after some months' trial was abandoned.
From the manner in which the books were previously kept, as shown
by Herrick, it is utterly impossible to ascertain the condition of the
public stores, from  the accounts of the department, until a detailed
inventory is completed.  Mr. Herrick testifies that previous to his
time, when a vessel was fitted out for service, all her stores of every
kind furnished were charged as expended.  If the ship returned with
part of the stores on board, they were passed over to the storekeeper,
and not charged to him.  Thus the books of the storekeeper showed
that but two comparing watches, furnished the forward officers on
going to sea, were charged to the storekeeper as on hand; yet there
had been 15 or 16 in the drawer. Of these, about seven were stolen,
and the storekeeper could deliver over to the government the two
watches called for by the books, and have several left.
They also find that the present storekeeper neglects his official
duties.  He is an active editor in the city of New York; has no experience as a storekeeper except that, as a boy, he used to attend a
grocery store. He is seldom in his office, and considered his duties
well done when he signed his name to receipts and returns prepared
by his clerks, and carried to his office in New York for signature.
He testifies that his clerical force was too small, and that the returns
are behind, and cannot be written up for several months; that he has
two clerks-two writers-one foreman, who signs Mr. Herrick's name
to receipts to contractors, and seventeen laboring men; and yet he
testified that he did not know that he spent one-seventh of his time
in the duties of storekeeper.  To use his own language:
"I do not spend but very little time in the navy yard, for this reason: these papers and
documents are brought to me by my chief clerk, who is my son, whom I see every day,
or by the messenger-one of the laborers being employed as a messenger. I appointed my




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  77
own son first clerk because I could have confidence in him. All the papers that are necessary for me to sign, when I am not at the yard, are brought to me, and an account of all
the business that is done in the yard is brought to my house and reported to me."
Commander Rootes testifies that the force in the storekeeper's department has always been too large, and that this fact and Mr. Herrick's neglect of duty have been reported to the department. With
out further detail, and referring to the testimony, the undersigned
report that the civil officers of the yard have not and do not, as a
general rule, attend properly to their official duties; that their appointment has been controlled by political reasons, and not by their
fitness or qualifications for their respective offices.
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
The attention of the committee was directed to one transaction at
this yard. In August last a requisition was made upon the naval
constructor for eighty oakum spinners. There were then employed
ten to fifteen spinners, who were generally "old salts" disabled for
active duty and yet competent to spin oakum; the work is nothing
but rubbing oakum  upon the knee.  The naval constructor did not
deem a greater force necessary, and refused to sign the requisition.
The master calker brought it to Captain Carr, the commander in
the yard, who also refused to sign the requisition. Thereupon, Hon.
Thomas B. Florence, a member of this House, came to Washington,
and asked the Secretary to direct the eighty oakum spinners to be
employed. It was referred to the Bureau of Yards and Docks. Commodore Smith declined at first, but he received a slip of paper signed
by Mr. Welsh, the chief clerk, on which was written in pencil as
follows: "The master workmen having made a requisition for eighty
additional pickers, you will see that it is complied with." This was
enclosed in the written application of Mr. Florence. The order was
then issued to the commander of the yard, and the "oakum spinners"
were set to work.  Commodore Carr testifies that when the men
came in he went down and took a look at them; "they were the
lame, the halt, and the blind; but they did the work. I made a place
for them until they worked the oakum up."  They were then discharged.
All the oakum spinning for a year was crowded into a few weeks.
The undersigned refer to the testimony of Mr. Florence for the motive
of this transaction.
REMEDY FOR ABUSES.
Your committee have directed their attention, as far as time would
permit, to the best mode of correcting existing abuses in the management of navy yards.  They have considered whether, 1st, all or some
of the navy yards could not be dispensed with with advantage to the
public service, and the construction and repair of vessels be done by
private enterprise.
2d. Whether work in all or some of the navy yards could not pro



78            NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
perly be suspended, and they be placed  in ordinary until existing
abuses are corrected or the state of the treasury will allow further improvements.  Your committee have not fully considered these propositions and do not report upon them.
All work in the navy yards or upon vessels of the United States
depends upon the annual appropriations of Congress, so that Congress
by granting or withholding appropriations may determine these questions without changing existing laws.
In concluding their report upon this branch of the investigation,
the undersigned call the attention of Congress to the necessity of a
general law prescribing the manner of making government contracts.
The existing laws consist of detached sections of various laws, in most
cases attached to appropriation bills, and often unconnected with each
other. It is difficult to ascertain from the law the powers and duties
of officers authorized to make contracts. Abuses, therefore, naturally
occur. The undersigned at this late period of the session have not time
to mature a bill, but deem it their duty to call the attention of Congress to the subject.
CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY.
The inquiry of your committee into the contracts for machinery for
the vessels of the United States has been mainly confined to the contracts made for the machinery of the vessels now building under the
act of June, A. D. 1858.
On the 26th of July sealed proposals were invited by the Secretary
of the Navy for the steam machinery, &c., for the seven sloops-of-war
authorized by that act. The specifications did not prescribe the form,
plan, or details of the machinery, but promised a drawing of the section
of the vessel to any one making application therefor. It required the
bidder to guaranty certain results, such as power, speed, economy
of fuel, and the like, but left the design and the arrangement of the
machinery with the party whose proposition  should be accepted.
Under these specifications proposals were made by most of the leading marine engine builders in the United States, accompanied in each
case by pHans and drawings. The following is a statement of these bids:
Large sloop at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 1.,000-horsepower.
Morgan Iron Works, New YTork. $143,000  AllaireWorks              $110,000
West Point Foundry-....   136, 000  Novelty Iron Workst ------      98,500
James Murphy & Co. — -       13.S,-000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford'..  125,000
Small sloop, Boston, 75&0-horse power.
Morgan Iron Works, New York.. $110, 000  Locomotive Works, Boston0. —.. $104 000
James Murphy & Co, New York.  07, 000  Atlantic Works, Boston ---    100, 000
Allaire Works, New Yorkt.....  97,000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford ---- 118, 000
Large sloop, New York, 1,000-horse power.
Morgan Iron Works, New York.. $137, 500  Allaire Works, New York...... $105, 000
James Murphy & Co., New YorkC  130, 000  Novelty Iron Works, New Yorkt  97, 000
West Point Foundry, New York. 130,000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford ---- 125,000
* Accepted bid.   f Lowest bid.




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES,                              79
Large sloop, Philadelphia, 1,000-horsepower.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia $145, 500  Novelty Iron Works, New Yorkt $98,000
Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia..  102, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimore-  110, 000
Morgan Iron Works, New York..  141,000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford ----  125, 000
Allaire Iron Works, New York-  110, 000
Large sloop, Norfolk, 1,000-horsepower.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia $152, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford -—. $125, 000
Morgan Iron Works, New York -  142, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimore_  115, 000
Novelty Iron Works, New York-  100, 000  C. Reeder, Baltimoret -------—.   94, 000
Small sloop, Pensacola, (direct-action engines,) 750-horse power.
Reaney, Neafie &Co., Philadelphia $153, 000  Woodruff & Beach, Hartford..... $118, 000
James Murphy & Co., New York-  127, 000  Locomotive Works, Boston --- 11 115, 000
Morgan Iron Works, New York'-.  120, 000  Murray & Hazelhurst, Baltimoret  100, 000
West Point Foundry, New York.  118, 000
At this stage of the proceedings, before  the Secretary had passed
upon any of the bids, the following letter was sent by Colonel W. C.
Patterson, of Philadelphia, to the President:
PHILADELPHIA, September 13, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I venture to suggest to you the importance of awarding the contracts for
the machinery of the sloop, now building at the navy yard at this time, and if it can be
done without prejudice to the public service, to Merrick & Sons.  Theirs is the only
establishment in the first district which employs a large number of mechanics; at this
time, 390; when in full work, 450.
The managing partners (Mr. M., sr., being absent, in bad health,) are full of energy,
straining every nerve to keep their force during this depression, and, in so far as I know,
the only old whigs of any influence in that district who are in favor of the re-election of
Colonel Florence.
I know, from former experience, the value of that influence, and feel persuaded that it
is the interest of the democratic party to increase it.
The first district will, I hope, be carried in any event, but with that shop at work, full
handed, two weeks prior to the election, the result would, I think, be placed beyond all
doubt.
With much respect,
W. C. PATTERSON.
The PRESIDENT.
This letter was sent to the Secretary of the Navy by the President
with this endorsement:
SEPTEMBER 15, 1858.
"The enclosed letter from  Colonel Patterson, of Philadelphia, is submitted to the
attention of the Secretary of the Navy.                                   J. B."
The undersigned regard this as a serious offence. It is the duty
of the Secretary to determine which of the bidders was the  "lowest
responsible bidder," and to award to him the contract.  It is a judicial
act. The rights of parties under the law, and the rights of the government, were  involved in  the  award.  Any suggestions of fact or
motive, except those which would enable the Secretary to adjudge
which of the competing bidders was the lowest responsible one, was
improper.  The Secretary was the subordinate of the President, holdAccepted bid.      t Lowest bid.




80           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
ing office at his pleasure, naturally controlled by his will; and by law
he is frequently required to award and adjudge without regard to the
President.-(Decatur vs. Paulding,. 14 Pet., 515; 6 How., 101-2.)
Under these circumstances the President suggested to the Secretary,
and in writing called his attention to the importance of awarding
one of the contracts for machinery to Merrick & Sons, in order to
secure the potent political influence of that firm in favor of the reelection of Colonel Florence, and thus place the result of the election
in his district beyond doubt, and generally to increase the influence
of that firm, that it might be exercised in favor of the democratic
party.
If the President had suggested to a judge of the United States
courts that he render a judgment in favor of one of the parties litigant
in a cause pending before him, because that judgment would aid in
the election of a party favorite, or would contribute to the success of
the democratic party, the general voice of the people would demand
his impeachment. Is it a less serious offence when this suggestion is
made by the President to the Secretary of the Navy? The judge is
beyond the power of the President; the Secretary is within his power.
Each is required to perform judicial functions. The suggestion by
the President of corrupt motives to either is equally dangerous, and
is more likely to succeed with an officer whose tenure of office is the
will of the President.
The terms of the note of the President could not be misunderstood
by a subordinate.  No one can read the letter and note without a
conviction that the inducement in the letter was regarded by the
President as a proper one to be submitted and to require the attention
of the Secretary. Thus endorsed, the corrupt motive suggested would
decide the award without regard to cost, unless the Secretary evinced
a higher sense of public duty than his superior.
Should it be said that the letter did not influence the award, the
reply is, that the offence is in submitting a corrupt motive to the
consideration of the Secretary.  But the award was made to Merrick
& Sons.  How far it influenced the award can only be inferred from
the proceedings in the case.
On the 20th of September, 1858, the Secretary appointed an
advisory Board of Engineers to examine the proposals, and each
member of the board was required to report which proposal in his
opinion should be accepted.  The board was composed of Samuel
Archbold, engineer-in-chief of the United States navy; W. W.
W. Wood, Henry Hunt, and Daniel B. Martin, chief engineers.
Martin was the patentee of Martin's vertical tubular boiler, and previous to the proposals had made arrangement with some of the
bidders that he was to receive a specific sum, varying in amount
from $750 to $1,000 for the privilege of using his boiler. There was
nothing in the specifications advising bidders that the adoption of
Martin's boilers was a requisite to success.  It was not generally
adopted, except in government vessels.  The horizontal tubular
boiler was generally used in marine engines.  The drawings exhibited the details of the machinery, and the Board of Engineers




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  81
would necessarily know  whether Martin's boiler was included in
the bid.  Merrick &  Sons specified Martin's patent in their proposals, although they  did not use it in other marine vessels.
One of the firm testified that one motive for including that boiler
was they had supposed that they would, perhaps, be more likely
to succeed in their proposals if they adopted that form of boiler.
They therefore previously agreed upon a stipulated price with
Martin for the use of his boiler and embodied it in their plans.  The
specifications required that:
"The offers must be for a specific sum  for putting the whole in
successful operation; must include all patent fees; and the department will require a release from  the proprietors of any patented
article or arrangements used in or about the machinery," &c.
This would necessarily involve a previous agreement of Martin
with those parties who included his boilers in their plans, and would
make him  directly interested to the extent of his patent right, in
accepting the bids of those who would pay him for its use, and rejecting those who preferred another boiler.
It is clear this was known to the Secretary. It had been the subject of complaint previously. Martin had placed on the record a
release to the government for the right to use his boiler on government vessels while he remained engineer-in-chief of the United
States, but he was removed in 1857 because of his interest in patents.
Martin testifies that he told the Secretary of his interest, and on that
ground asked to be relieved from service on advisory boards. The
interest of Martin was also discussed between the Secretary and
Dickerson.
In deciding upon the proposals, no award was made except to those
whose drawings showed the Martin boiler.  The lowest bid for the
Norfolk sloop was by C. Reeder, of Baltimore, and was for $94, 000.
Two of the board, Messrs. Archbold and Hunt, were in favor of
accepting this bid.  All agreed that the engines were good; but
Messrs. Martin and Wood did not like the boilers.  In his answer,
Martin thus states his objection:
"Mr. Reeder's plan of engines is good and his price satisfactory, but his plan of boiler I
cannot recommend; if they were made satisfactory I would recommend him for the Norfolk
ship."
If the boiler had been "satisfactory" to Mr. Martin, it would have
secured a majority of the board in favor of this bid.  As, however,
the board was divided, a new advertisement was issued, new bids
were received, and the contract for the Norfolk ship was finally
awarded to Messrs. Murray & Hazelhurst, of Baltimore, for $131, 000,
or $37,000 more than Reeder's first bid.  It appears from the testimony of Martin that he prepares plans for bidders; that he receives
pay for such plans-in one case as high as $500; and that his fees
now as consulting engineer for private parties amount to more than
his salary as chief engineer in the navy.  In addition, his patent fees
for the boilers and valves used in the machinery of the five sloops,
awarded partly upon his opinion, is over $4,000.  He has now a
H. Rep. Cor. 184    6




82          NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
claim pending before Congress for $13,000 for the use of his patent
boiler in the vessels of the United States.
It is impossible for your committee or the House to ascertain whether
the action of the other members of the board was proper or not.
The rejected plans and drawings have been returned to the bidders.
The specifications were so drawn as to leave the whole matter to the
Secretary of the Navy. If in the specifications the details had been
prescribed, the only questions to determine would have been the
price and security. It is said that the mode adopted secured the
best engineering skill in the country; that engineers having the speed,
&c., desired, might seek to secure a contract by improvements on
existing plans.  What weight ought to be given to these considerations we are not prepared to say.  Upon the plan adopted
there is no check upon executive officers in awarding contracts.
Some real or fancied defect in the machinery, or any part of it,
such a suggestion as that of the President, political influence,
favoritism for certain bidders, or, as in Martin's case, a known or
concealed interest, might induce an award to a party whose bid is
many thousands higher than another responsible bidder.  The easy
answer to all complaints is, that the plans of the successful bidder
are better. Bidders of high character and ability, whose engines
have been successful in commercial vessels, finding their bids repeatedly rejected, and the higher bids of inexperienced parties, without
facilities or experience in constructing marine engines, accepted,
naturally attribute it to political or other improper influences, and
refuse again to incur the expense of preparing plans and drawings,
and the loss of reputation incurred by their rejection.  Thus the government work becomes monopolized by a few whose political relations
are right, and the government gets the poorest work at the highest
price; a competition for work for the government becomes a mere
scramble of partisans, decided, not by the highest skill and lowest
prices, but by political influence.
The Board of Engineers unanimously reported in favor of Merrick
& Sons for the Philadelphia ship, at $102,000. This was the house
described in the letter of Colonel Patterson.  The lowest bid was by
the Novelty Works, New York, perhaps the most extensive work of
the kind in the United States, at $98,500.
For the Pensacola sloop the board was divided; Archbold and Hunt
were in favor of the Boston Locomotive Works, at $115,000; Martin
and Wood were for the Morgan Iron Works, at $120,000. Martin had
previously engaged with the proprietors of the Morgan Works for the
use of his patent, at $1,000. The Secretary, without further proposals
or reference, awarded the contract to the Morgan Works.  The lowest bidder for the Pensacola sloop was Murray & Hazelhurst, at
$100,000.  They are marine engine builders of high character and
ample facilities.
For the Boston sloop Martin and Wood were in favor of the Boston
Locomotive Works, at $104,000; Archbold and Hunt were for other
bidders.  The Secretary awarded the contract, without further pro



NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 83
posals or reference, to the Boston Locomotive Works.  The lowest
bidder was the Allaire Works, New York, at $97, 000.
For the Portsmouth or Kittery sloop the board was unanimously in
favor of Woodruff & Beach, of Hartford, at $125, 000. The lowest bid
was that of the Novelty Iron Works, at $98,500.  It is proper to say
that Mr. Beach is remotely connected by marriage with the Secretary.
But the committee see nothing in the evidence to show that he was
favored on that account.
For the New York sloop, Archbold, Martin, and Wood reported in
favor of James Murphy & Co., at $130,000. The lowest bid was that
of the Allaire Works, of New York, one of the most extensive works
in the United States, at $105,000.  D. B. Allen, one of the proprietors of these works, made one of the written complaints which led to
this investigation. Their bid was low because of the general depression of the commercial marine, and their machinery such as has
been sanctioned by private enterprise. They have constructed more
marine engines than any other establishment in the country.
From the statement of the reports of the members of the board, it
appears that the vote of Martin prevailed in every instance. Upon
an equal division of the board his opinions were adopted by the Secretary in the case of the Pensacola and Boston sloops; and that upon
his objection to the boiler proposed for the Norfolk sloop a contract
was refused to Reeder, and was finally awarded to meet Martin's
views.
The aggregate difference between the lowest bids and the accepted
bids for the machinery in the sloops is $82,000.
THE GRIFFITH SHIP.
The struggle for the contract for the machinery of the smaller
sloop-of-war building in Philadelphia, known as the "Griffith ship,"
presents some features requiring notice.  Before the law of June 12,
1858, was passed, Mr. Norris, an engineer, who for some years had
retired from active business, desired, in connexion with John W.
Griffith, to build a vessel of light draught and great speed for the
navy of the United States. Upon the recommendation of Mr. Norris,
in June last, and in pursuance of a previous promise by the President to Mr. Norris, Mr. Griffith was appointed temporary naval constructor at Philadelphia. Mr. Griffith at once prepared his plans for
the ship, and sent them to the department. They were somewhat
peculiar, and designed to secure light draught and great speed, but
to have a heavy armament. Mr. Norris prepared his plans for the
machinery, and made a bid in September, 1858, to construct that
machinery for the government at $126,000. The two plans were designed, and the machinery and the vessel were intended for each
other.  When the bids were opened it was found that the machinery
of Mr. Norris was the only kind proposed that was adapted to the
peculiar model of the ship, and that he alone of the bidders had been
furnished with the midship sections, plans, and views of the vessel,
and knew that it was to have two propellers. Under these circum



8 L            NAVAL  CONTRACTS AND  EXPENDITURES.
stances, new proposals were very properly invited. Norris adhered
to his bid, and proposals were submitted by Reaney, Neafie & Co., of
Philadelphia, and the Allaire Works, of New  Yoik.  The contest,
however, was soon narrowed down to Norris and Reaney, Neafie &
Co. The bid of the latter was $139,000. A board of four engineers
of the navy was called to consider these bids, with the plans and
specifications of each. The board was equally divided in its report.
Each  party, without complaint from  the department, sought to
succeed by political influence. The singular spectacle was presented
of an ex-member, without knowledge of an engine, managing for one
party, while the other pressed his party services.
On the 2d of November, 1858, Norris urged the acceptance of his
proposals, in a letter to the Secretary, thus:
" On the score of politics, which I have never mentioned before, I have greater claims
upon the government than my competitors. Our shop, at Bush Hill, Philadelphia, was
the first institution in this country that raised the banner of Buchanan and Breckinridge.
The day after the nomination we raised the standard, with full length portraits of the
President and Vice President, and at the election our shop furnished 764 votes for them.
Notwithstanding the present monetary depression we gave 312 votes for the administration
at the last election. We have supported the party with material aid by thousands of
dollars, and worked hard, as any of the party in Philadelphia will testify."
On the 9th of November last Hon. James Landy, a member of this
House from Philadelphia, appeared before the Secretary of the Navy
to urge that the award be made to Reaney, Neafie & Co.  The same
firm  employed William  H. Witte, an ex-member of Congress, as their
agent, who at once established intimate social relations with some of
the officers in the Navy Department.
This agent was to receive for his services one-fourth of the profits
of the contract, in case it was awarded to Reaney, Neafie & Co. It
is to be remarked that he was employed by that firm only to secure
government contracts, and had been successful, in 1857, in securing
the contract for the Lancaster, for which he has received, as part of
his share of the profits, $5, 000. He knew nothing of machinery, and
was only employed, as he testifies, on account of his "character and
standing. "
On the 16th of November last Norris sent to the Secretary a letter
from  J. B. Baker, collector of Philadelphia, of which the following
is an extract:
" I have been intimately acquainted with the Messrs. Norris Brothers for many years,
and have had laige business transactions with them, and it may not be amiss to state that
they have always heartily advocated and sustained the democratic party.  In the
campaign of 1856 their establishment not only contributed many hundred votes to elect
our present Chief Magistrate, but, to my knowledge, contributed largely in other ways to
bring about that result."
Also, a letter from Hon. Henry M. Phillips, of this House, of which
the following is an extract:' Messrs Norris are good democrats, willing and faithful members of the party, who,'through weal and through woe,' have labored zealously for its success.
" Their fame as mechanics is world-wide, and they are men of high character, and it
will be to the fourth district a matter of essential service for them to succeed in their present application.
"Personally, mechanically, and politically meritorious, if their proposal is not extras
agant, I earnestly hope that it will be accepted."




NAVAL  CONTRACTS AND  EXPENDITURES.                           85
Also, a letter from John Hamilton, jr., of which the following is
an extract:
" I know no men better entitled to receive the attention of a democratic administration
than those composing this firm; with a world-wide celebrity as machinists of the first class,
they have also been known as democrats who have never faltered in their active and
earnest devotion to the cause; men who, amidst the very howling of the tempest raised
by the opposition, are more energetic and determined in their support. I trust that the
claims of these gentlemen, who are so well qualified to perform whatever they may undertake, and who are so deserving as democrats, will not be overlooked."
To counteract these letters, Reaney, Neafie &  Co. relied upon the
active interested agency of Mr. Witte, who pressed their claims as a
democratic firm.  He also procured from  Mr. Baker, the collector,
a letter, of which the following is an extract:'' A few weeks since I was requested by Mr. William Norris to state in a letter to you my
knowledge of the political character of the locomotive establishment of Messrs. R Norris &
Son, of Philadelphia, which I did; but I did not intend to convey the impression (as I learn
has been the case) that the marine engine works of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., were not
of the same political creed, whom I know by reputation, and it is proper to say, is of the
highest character."
Somewhat similar letters were  also written  to  the President and
referred to the Secretary.  Thus, in a letter under date of November
15, 1858, Mr. Phillips writes of Norris Brothers:
" They have been and are my very good friends, active, zealous and disinterested democrats
Their establishment is within my district, where they employ many hundreds of operatives,
who, under their exerted influence, were valuable members of our party during our last disastrous campaign."
Colonel Florence, a member of the House, in an interview with the
Secretary, recommended Mr. Norris.
These efforts to enlist political influence in awarding contracts were
received without objection or reproof, and were placed on the files of
the department, and, with the awards and other papers, were sent to
your committee.  A highly intelligent contractor testifies that within
two or three years it has been a common thing for bidders to satisfy
the department as to their political opinions. If jobs and contracts
become the recognized rewards for partisan services, and are disbursed and distributed without regard to the written law, as a mode
of refunding money contributed and spent in elections, and these
abuses are tolerated by the people, then may the money of the people be taken directly from the public treasury to corrupt or overthrow
the elective franchise. Yet these motives are strongly and confidently
urged by high officers of the government to the high officers charged
with a judicial duty, and also to the Chief Magistrate, whose duty it is
to execute the law.
On the 29th of November, 1858, the Secretary desired a board of civil
engineers, not of the navy, to examine the propositions of Mr. Norris,
and of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and to express in writing which of the two
was preferable. A majority of the board reported in favor of Mr. Norris' plan.  Thus the matter stood until December 21, 1858, Mr. Norris
supposing that the question was settled in his favor. At that date the
Secretary submitted to MIr. Norris a written proposition of guaranty
of speed, which, at the request of the Secretary, Mr. Norris copied




86            NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
and signed.  Norris was not informed that it would be considered as
a new offer, or as varying his former bid, but he signed it for the satisfaction of the Secretary, and in the words written by him. The
next day, if the date is correct, December 22, 1858, Witte, as the
agent of Reaney, Neafie & Co., submitted a written "explanation"
of their proposal, in which they stipulated for a somewhat higher
speed. Their guaranties were treated as new proposals, and were,
on the same day, referred to Archbold, the engineer-in-chief, who had
steadily opposed Norris' plans. Archbold on the same day reported
in favor of Reaney Neafie & Co., and the contract was awarded to
them.
The undersigned do not deem it necessary to pursue this controversy further. Charges of fraud, favoritism, and improper disclosure
of the plans of competing bidders were made.  The facts and the
claims of each party are fully shown in the testimony and documents
herewith submitted.
THE READING FORGE AND HON. J. GLANCY JONES.
As an incident to this branch of their inquiry, it became necessary
for your committee to examine a charge that Hon. J. Glancy Jones,
now a civil officer of the government, had, while he was a member of
this House, received money from the Reading Forge for his services
in obtaining for it contracts with the government.
Our attention was first called to this charge by the testimony of
Dr. Cockroft, giving a statement of James Murphy, a contractor for
the construction of the steam machinery for the United States steamship Brooklyn.   The purport of the statement was, that he was
obliged to let the forging for the vessel to the Reading Forge Company, understood to belong to Mr. Jones. An intimation was also
made to Mr. Quintard, of the Morgan Works, New York, the successful bidder for the Pensacola sloop, that if he got the forging work
done by the Reading Forge, it would be acceptable or satisfactory to
certain parties.
Hon. W. H. Keim, a member of this House, testified that he, as secretary and treasurer of the company, made an agreement with Mr.
Jones to the effect that, if he would get work for the forge to do, the
company would allow him five per cent. on the amount he obtained;
that the kind of work contemplated was forging shafts, &c., for vessels of the United States navy. The inducement to the company to
make the contract with Mr. Jones was the fact that he was a member
of Congress, and it was supposed that he would have facilities for
getting work that others would not.
Prior to this agreement, Mr. Jones wrote the following letter to
General Keim:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 18, 1854.
DEAn GENERAL: I received your letter this morning, and have just had an interview with
the Secretary of the Navy. He informs me that all the machinery will be given out on contract,
except, perhaps, what is made in Washington. The Secretary will advertise for bids, but
will not give it to the lowest bidder; he will contract with the offer which he thinks is best for
the government. Now, I think I can serve my town and constituents by securing a fair por



NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                  87
tion from those who want these contracts; with this the Secretary has nothing to do; but we
can do a great deal ourselves by being ready to meet these contractors. I will write you
again soon, and send you the notice when the Secretary advertises.
Truly yours,
J. GLANCY JONES.
General W. H. KEItM.
Under this agreement Mr. Jones did get work for the forge in
1854, for the steamer Wabash, amounting to $10,000 or $11,000, upon
which he was entitled to five per cent. The contract for the work
was made with Merrick & Sons.
General Keim ceased to be secretary and treasurer of the company
in the spring of 1855, and was succeeded by M. A. Bertolet. Mr. Bertolet testifies that the contract with Mr. Jones was frequently
spoken of in the meetings of the board, when the justness of paying
him what was agreed upon was spoken of. On two or three occasions
the witness met Mr. Jones and told him that he was very sorry that
the concern was in such a condition pecuniarily; that he did not see
how he could pay him any money then. He testifies he always understood that Mr. Jones was the agent of the company, and that the
company had either agreed with him or proposed within themselves
to give him a certain per centage for such work as should be procured
through his agency.  He testifies that Mr. Jones did get work for
them from the government in 1855, in the repair of the Minnesota,
the amount of which was $3,109 48, and that this sum was paid to
the forge company by the government. It also appears from the
books of the company that the forge company did work for the government in 1856, in the items amounting to $6,481 16, and for contracts
under the government for a large amount. Mr. Bertolet continued
in office but one year, and was succeeded by Charles McClenigan, who
is now in Rio Janeiro.
Peter McLaughlin became secretary on the 20th of September, 1858.
The company failed about three months afterwards.  During all this
time the forge did a large amount of work for the government and its
contractors.  Mr. McClenigan writes to the creditors of the company,
under the date of November 25, 1857, 6' our prospects for the future
are very flattering, as we have at this time positively secured the forging for three of the United States sloops, and a very fair chance for
the forging for the remaining two; also the government work, which
we at present are looking after."
The agency of Mr. Jones was known generally.  At New York
it was supposed to be an ownership of the forge.  Mr. Bartol, a
partner or agent of the firm of Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia, writes
under date of July 24, 1858, to the superintendent of the forge,
" Colonel Florence, who is just from Washington, says it is a settled
fact that two of the new sloops are to be built here." After suggesting that the Forge bid for the machinery of one of them, he inquires,
" will Mr. Jones support your proposition so as to get the job?" The
reply of the treasurer in due time declines the offer and says, " Mr.
Jones is also of opinion that it might seriously affect the interest of
the forge company."
No account was opened with Mr. Jones in the ledger of the Reading forge.  The check book of the company was not before your




88           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
committee.  How much he received for his services, how much is due
to him still on his contract, it is impossible to tell. In the expense
account items of money paid to Mr. Jones at various periods were
found as follows:
"October 2, 1854. Office expenses debtor to the Farmers' Bank for
check No. 523, drawn to pay J. Glancy Jones' expenses to Waslington city, $30.
" November 26, 1856. Office expenses debtor to Farmers' Bank for
this amount, check No. 858, sent to J. Glancy Jones for expenses in
procuring work for the Reading steam forge, $250.
"September 28, 1857. Office expenses for this amount borrowed
money of A. J. Nichols, to pay J. Glancy Jones, esq., expenses to
Washington on business for the company, and returned the same in
check No. 1038, $100."
The undersigned therefore report that Hon. J. Glancy Jones did,
while a member of this House, enter into a contract with the Reading
forge company by which he agreed to procure work for it from the
government, in consideration of which he was to receive five per cent.
commission; that he did procure contracts to be made between the
government and said Reading forge, in which he was interested to the
amount of said commission; and that he did receive money from said
company for said service.
The evil tendencies of such transactions are manifest.  If members
of Congress and other officers of the government may be employed
with money to solicit at the executive departments and bureaus for
contracts and jobs, it cannot be expected that their influence will be
resisted. The law will soon be disregarded, and offices, employments,
and contracts will be bartered and sold without regard to the public
service.
By the first section of the act of April 26, 1808, it is provided thus:
" No member of Congress shall, directly or indirectly, himself or
by any other person whatsoever, in trust for him, or for his use or
benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the
whole or in part, any contract or agreement hereafter to be made or
entered into with any officer of the United States, or with any person
authorized to make contracts on the part of the United States; and if
any member of Congress shall, directly or indirectly, himself or by
any person whatsoever, in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or
on his account, enter into, accept of, agree for, undertake, or execute
any such contract or agreement, in the whole or in part, every person
so offending shall for every such offence, upon conviction, &c., be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined three thousand dollars, and every such contract or agreement as aforesaid shall
be absolutely null and void."
By the third section of the same act it is provided"In every such contract or agreement to be made, or entered into,
or accepted, as aforesaid, there shall be inserted an express condition
that no member of Congress shall be admitted to any part of such
contract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise therefrom."




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 89
The interest of Mr. Jones in the contracts between the government
and the Reading Forge Company was certain, direct, and purely of a
pecuniary nature.
By the third section of the act of February 26, 1853, it is provided
that if any member of Congress shall, for compensation paid or to be
paid, either certain or contingent, act as agent or attorney for prosecuting any claim against the United States, or shall receive any share
or gratuity or interest in any claim, &c., he shall be liable to
indictment as for a misdemeanor; the penalty is a fine of $5,000 or
imprisonment, or both,,
The clear design of these laws was to prevent a member of Congress from having any pecuniary interest in a contract with any officer
of the government, or in any other claim against the government.
Whether a contract of agency to procure contracts from the government where the compensation is a per centage on the amount of the
contract is embraced in the language of the law might be a matter
of doubt; but it is clearly within the spirit of the law, and is most
pernicious and corrupting in its effects. In the one case an interest
in the contract would be disclosed by the contract itself; while in the
other case it may be more readily concealed or covered under the pretext'of local interest for constituents.
The undersigned recommend, in order to remove all doubt as to the
meaning of the act of April 20, 1808, the passage of a provision of
law to punish as a misdemeanor any member of Congress who, for
money, acts as an agent in pecuniary contracts with the government.
In conclusion, the undersigned recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy has, with the sanction of
the President, abused his discretionary power in the selection of a coal
agent and in the purchase of fuel for the government.
Resolved, That the contract made by the Secretary of the Navy,
under date of September 23, 1858, with W. C. N. Swift, for the delivery
of live-oak timber, was made in violation of law, and in a manner
unusual, improper, and injurious to the public service.
Resolved, That the distribution by the Secretary of the Navy of the
patronage in the navy yard among members of Congress was destructive of discipline, corrupting in its influence, and highly injurious to
the public service.
Resolved, That the President and Secretary of the Navy, by receiving
and considering the party relations of bidders for contracts with the
United States, and the effect of awarding contracts upon pending
elections, have set an example dangerous to the public safety and
deserving the reproof of this House.
Resolved, That the appointment by the Secretary of the Navy of
Daniel B. Martin, chief engineer, as a member of a board of engineers
to report upon proposals for constructing machinery for the United
States, the said Martin at the time being pecuniarily interested in
some of said proposals, is hereby censured by this House.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
JOHN SHERMAN.
DAVID RITCHIE.




90           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Communication from Hon. Isaac Toucey to the Committee.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
February 14, 1859.
SIR: I have received your letters of the 8th and 9th instant, with
copies of certain testimony, and an expression of the desire of the
committee over which you preside to receive from me any statement
or information in regard to it which I may wish to present. I now
comply with the request, and first with reference to the contracts for
live-oak timber, made under the advertisement of June 14, 1858.
No live-oak timber had been purchased by advertised contract for
the last sixteen years, excepting in these instances:
1st. A contract made September 12, 1848, for 11,000 cubic feet.
2d. A contract made in September, 1855, for the frames of six
large sloops-of-war, cut to moulds to replace that which had been
taken for the six large steam frigates built in 1855, of which two
have since been used for the sloops-of-war "Lancaster " and " Pensacola," authorized in 1857, and the other four can only be used for
ships of that class.
3d. The want of additional quantities of live oak having been repeatedly urged by the Bureau of Construction, the department, on
the 1st of July, 1857, authorized a contract to be made for such timber as would replace in part what had been taken from the complete
frames of ships-of-the line and frigates, which the wants of the
service had made it necessary to break in upon, and also to provide
cooked timber suitable for the repairs of vessels of the larger classes,
of which the supply was wholly insufficient.
For several years past the repairs on the sloops-of-war and smaller
vessels have been very great, and have gradually absorbed the best
and the most of the small size timber, and the want of that timber
was every day becoming more apparent.  Thus, this kind of timber
being absolutely wanted, it became advantageous and economical to
purchase that which had been refused on the existing contracts for
being below the contract size, rather than to cut the larger and more
valuable pieces that remained of the old stock, or that was then
coming in on the new contracts. So great was the want of this
smaller timber, that it had been used to a considerable extent in the
Norfolk and Kittery yards, in the latter to the amount of $3,972 47,
before authority was obtained in proper form to make the purchase,
the officers in those yards believing that the public interests warranted
that course. And so great was the deficiency of live-oak timber in
the navy yard at Pensacola, that there is not now a stick of that
kind in the yard which has not been purchased since.
While this deficiency of timber in the navy yard was known to
exist, reliable information was received in the month of May last, that
the British government had revived the pretended right of search, and




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 91
that the British cruisers were exercising it upon the merchant vessels
of the United States in the neighborhood of Cuba.  This information
created great excitement throughout the country. It is only necessary
to refer to the warlike debates in both Houses of Congress to appreciate its extent. To resist the exercise of this right, a fleet of twelve
war vessels was fitted out and despatched to the neighborhood of Cuba,
with instructions given them from time to time, between the 14th of
May and the 15th of June, to protect all vessels of the United States
against the exercise of the right of search on the high seas, in time of
peace, by the armed vessels of any other power. These instructions
would probably have produced a collision, had not the right been
abandoned by the British government.  While this was going on,
Congress, on the 12th of June, passed an act requiring the Secretary
of the Navy to cause to be constructed "as speedily as may be consistent with the public interests," eight war steamers of light draught,
"combining the heaviest armament and greatest speed compatible
with their character and tonnage."  On the 3d of July orders were
given to all the navy yards that they should be launched by the next
meeting of Congress, and that nothing should be permitted to prevent it.
By the same act Congress made an appropriation to defray the expenses and compensation of a special commissioner in execution of the
joint resolution passed on the 3d of June, authorizing the use of force
if necessary, "for the adjustment of difficulties with the republic of
Paraguay."  Independent of this resolution, the President determined
to act promptly, and measures were taken to increase the squadron
on the east coast of South America, so that it should consist of twenty
armed vessels, including two store ships, most of them to be fitted for
the purposes of the expedition.
In this threatening posture of affairs, with the public mind excited
by the revival of the pretended right of search, with no certainty
that the attempt to suppress it would not bring us into collision with
Great Britain, with a squadron of twelve ships in the vicinity of Cuba
to resist it, with a larger squadron of twenty ships to be prepared
and concentrated in the direction of Paraguay, and with eight war
steamers of the smaller classes to be constructed, according to the injunction of Congress, as speedily as might be consistent with the
public interests, I deemed it my duty, upon consultation with the
chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair, to meet the exigencies of the service by promptly directing, on the day of the adjournment of Congress, June 14, that an advertisement be issued calling
for a supply, in as short a time as practicable, of live-oak timber,
most of it of smaller dimensions than had been usually required, such
as was adapted to the construction of the smaller vessels just authorized by Congress, and to the extensive repairs both of large and small
vessels which the exigencies of the service would be likely to require.
I would have resigned my place before I would have failed to act with
the promptitude which the occasion seemed to demand. The list was
made out by the chief of the Bureau of Construction according to his
own judgment of what the interests and necessities of the service
required, without interference by me in its details, and the advertise



92          NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
ment was issued on the 14th of June, calling for one-half on the 1st
of September and the other half on the 1st of February following,
giving to bidders two and a half months' notice to make contingent
arrangements for the first delivery, and seven and a half months'
notice for the other. The time allowed in the advertisement for this
timber was sufficient for persons who were actual dealers in such
timber, and who in making offers intended to comply with them, or
were in any degree prepared, but was much too short for any speculator who had it in view to dispose of his contract to other parties.
These were the reasons which influenced the department in the exercise of its discretion in this particular case, and when the contracts
were executed, I was assured by the experienced officer in charge of
the Bureau of Construction and Repair that the measure had proved
highly economical and beneficial to the government, saving to it
probably about twenty-five thousand dollars beyond what could have
been accomplished by an open purchase.
After the contracts had been awarded to the lowest bidders, a
question arose to which I applied the principle of a decision I had
previously made, viz: that when the department advertised for a
contract upon certain terms, and one of the bidders applied to a subordinate officer and obtained assurances of more favorable terms at
variance with those advertised, and regulated his bid accordingly, the
department would enforce the advertisement and not the assurances
of the subordinate, and the assurances thus obtained would constitute
no ground of relief, because unfair to other bidders. When, therefore,
it appeared that those to whom the contracts were awarded had
neither performed them nor intended to perform them when they bid,
but had acted upon information or assurances obtained at the navy
yards from subordinate officers at, variance with the terms of the advertisement, the department set aside the forfeited contracts and
instead of purchasing or contracting in open market or of the next
highest bidder and charging the difference to the defaulting parties,
accepted a contract with Mr. Swift for the whole amount at the lowest
bid, which was much lower than the bids which he had made, thereby
saving the defaulting contractors from loss, securing the best terms
for the government, and requiring him to accept as low a price for
the timber to be delivered immediately as if time had been given to
go into the live-oak forests of Florida or Louisiana, to cut it.  The
department did not advise any one of the contractors as to the course
he should pursue, but apprised them, unequivocally, at all times, that
the time of delivery, as advertised would not be postponed, for the
reasons I have stated.
When I came into the department I found a system established
which commenced during the administration of Mr. Fillmore, of purchasing coal for the use of the navy by the instrumentality of two
coal agents, one for anthracite, the other for bituminous coal, with a
compensation of five per cent commission on the cost of purchase and
transportation contracted for by the agent.  There was also during
Mr. Fillmore's administration a special agency for supplying with
coal the East India and Pacific squadrons during the Japan Expedition. Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, of New York, were the special




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                 93
agents employed by Mr. Graham, Secretary of the Navy, under an
agreement of the date of April 3, 1852, by which they were allowed
ten per cent. commissions on the purchase money, cost of transportation, insurance, and other unavoidable expenses, deducting therefrom
the commissions allowed the agents for supplying coal within the
United States.  This agreement was modified by Mr. Dobbin on the
11th of August, 1853, by which, after the 1st of September following,
the agents were to ship not exceeding one thousand bushels per month,
the department agreeing to pay the cost of the coal, lighterage, cartage, freight, primage and demurrage, and a commission of six per
cent. on the cost of the coal, including freight or transportation.
Their commissions under this agency in the years 1852, 1853, and
1854, amounted to $50,975 86, while the commissions of all other
coal agents for supplying our steam vessels of war with coal during
the whole period from 1850 to the present time, amounted only to the
sum of $19,851 59, and for supplying the navy yards to the further
sum of $18,358 47. This special agency was abolished by Mr. Dobbin
in 1854. There has been no other change in the system except only
that, in pursuance of the policy expressed in the act of Congress of
September 28, 1850, of giving preference to American productions.
I have caused anthracite coal to be sent from Pennsylvania mines, by
American vessels chartered by the department, and without any special
agency, to the East Indias, Pacific, and all other foreign stations where
it could be delivered at no greater cost than that of foreign coal delivered at the same place.  This has caused an increase of purchases of
coal in this country, but it has proved most decidedly an economical and
beneficial improvement, as will appear by detailed returns which are
now probably before the committee, securing, without any increase of
cost to the government, what is deemed the best coal in the world for
war steamers-the anthracite coal of Pennsylvania.  No change has
been made in the bituminous coal agency, nor in that for anthracite,
except that the former agent, Mr. Tyson, at the end of four years
from  his appointment, was succeeded by Mr. Hunter, the present
agent, whom I appointed in May last upon the most reliable recommendations, leaving him to the discharge of his duty upon his own
responsibility. I was not aware until the present investigation, that
he had employed another person to aid him, allowing him to share in
his commissions as his predecessor had done, nor of any want of
attention on his part. It was well known to the department that the
navy was supplied with coal of the best kind and quality for naval
purposes at less cost than formerly, at what was deemed in the
bureaus reasonable prices, and that the bills passed under the inspection and required the approval of the most faithful and vigilant
officers of the government, who were in the constant practice of instituting inquiries into the reasonableness of prices, and of refusing payment when they were excessive. It is not now the opinion of the
bureaus, alter full inquiry, that the price paid, $3 85 per ton of the
best anthracite coal for steam puposes, screened, selected, and delivered at the vessel in Philadelphia, has been excessive or unreasonable.




94          NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
The department has at all times left both these agents for the purchase of coal perfectly free in the discharge of their duty upon their
own responsibility, with such assistance as they might choose to employ at their own expense, subject only to the checks which exist on
shipboard and at the naval stations, where it is the duty of the proper
officer to report any deficiency in quantity, or quality and also to the
constant supervision of the chiefs of the bureaus, under whose orders
the purchases are made, and by whom the bills must be examined and
approved before they can be passed. Both these high officers enjoy my
entire confidence; confidence not only in their capacity, but. in their
vigilance and uprightness.
I should be very willing to give full details of the action of the
department in reference to the navy yards and to the contracts for
steam machinery for vessels-of-war, but as no evidence has been
transmitted to me on those subjects, I shall content myself with a
brief general statement.
The system by which the navy yards are managed is the same
which I found established when I came into office, with some improvements. The commandant of the yard is responsible for its general
condition. It is his duty to correct or report any abuse which may
come to his knowledge. He receives all orders from the department,
and is authorized to use the proper means to execute them. If an
order is given that a vessel be built or repaired, or other work done,
he directs the employment of the men, and fixes the number to be employed, without interference by the department. He is authorized
and required to dismiss any workman, and to report any master for
neglect or misconduct.  When a master is thus reported to the
department, an investigation is ordered, he is notified, witnesses are
examined, and the testimony returned to the department for its action.
The master has the selection of the men, subject to the approval of
superior officers, and is held responsible for them and the work done
by them, under his charge, and has therefore, authority to dismiss
them. This system of responsibility is found to work well in the
navy yards generally, although there is greater difficulty and embarrassment in the Brooklyn yard from the superabundant population of
the great adjacent cities pressing for employment, and resorting to all
legitimate means to obtain it. This difficulty will not be obviated
by any system that can be adopted.  Men must be employed; they
must come from  the neighboring congressional districts; they
must be selected by some one; they should be selected by the
master workman, who is responsible for them, subject, indeed, to
proper restrictions and supervision; and this master workman must
always feel and have to contend with the presence of vast numbers
seeking employment and especially during periods of commercial
distress. He is also exposed to the accusations of dismissed and disappointed workmen, and to the scrutiny of vigilant competitors seeking
his place, and if there be any well founded charge against him, it is
quite sure to be made known to the officer whose duty it is to inquire.
There has been no report against any master workman of any of the
Atlantic navy yards since 1 have been in the department, except in
five cases; one for alleged misconduct several years ago, which was




NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.                95
fully investigated by my predecessor, one for intoxication which has
been investigated and followed by a new appointment; one for temporary insanity where the master was afterwards restored upon his
recovery and producing a certificate from his physician that it would
not be likely to recur, and the other two cases recently for neglect of
duty, which have been investigated and the returns having just come
in will soon be disposed of. These are the only instances of charges
presented to the department, and if there be any presented to
the committee which have not been preferred to the commandant
of the navy yard, and opportunity given to the parties implicated to defend themselves, it is at least very doubtful whether
such charges can be or ought to be sustained; at all events, neither
the department nor the officers of the yard have had any knowledge of them. There has been an increase of the number of men
employed, but it has taken place simultaneously in all the yards
and for the reasons already stated-the increased activity of the
service, the expedition to the neighborhood of Cuba, the expedition to
Paraguay, the construction of eight new steamers cas speedily as
might be consistent with the public interests," in obedience to the
injunctions of Congress. There is one instance where the bureau has
been induced to depart from the general rule of non-interference with
the number of men to be employed, and that was in the navy yard at
Philadelphia, to an inconsiderable extent in useful work, upon the
urgent plea of necessity, humanity, and utility, pressed by a gentleman of high and honorable character, incapable of falsehood.
The course of the department in reference to contracts for steam
machinery for vessels of war, has been to prescribe certain conditions, advertise for plans and proposals subject to such conditions,
and award the contracts according to the merits of such plans and
proposals, having due regard to price. They cannot, from the nature
of the case, be awarded to the lowest bidder, having reference to
the price only, because no two persons bid for the same thing, each
plan being different from the others, and it being the object of the
government to obtain the result of the highest skill. The bids are
given under seal; are not opened until the time for receiving them
has expired; and, of course, no one can know what they contain,
except the party himself and those to whom he may communicate it.
A board of engineers is appointed, and each is required to give his
individual opinion and his reasons for it. Often they are unanimous;
sometimes there is a single dissenting opinion; and sometimes they
are equally divided. I have in no case, that I am aware of, awarded
a contract in opposition to the opinion of a majority, although I
should feel at liberty to do so.  The contract given to Messrs. Merrick & Sons, of Philadelphia, in regard to which a letter from Colonel
Patterson to the President was by him in the usual course, without
an intimation of any wish on his part, referred to this department,
was awarded to them upon the merits of their plan and proposalsin accordance with the unanimous opinion of the board of engineerstheir bid being lower than those of the other bidders whose plans
were approved. The President did not in any manner interfere in




96           NAVAL CONTRACTS AND EXPENDITURES.
this case, nor has he in any other case of contract since I have been
in the department.  In all the contracts made under the act of the
last session, the department obtained an absolute guarantee of the
number of revolutions of the propeller in a minute; instead of the
usual number of about forty, the contractors guaranty eighty, and, in
one instance, a hundred. In one contract that for the vessel under
construction at Norfolk-awarded to Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst,
of Baltimore, there is a guarantee of the speed of fifteen statute miles
an hour, under a forfeiture of twelve thousand five hundred dollars,
to be deducted from the price if the speed fall to fourteen miles per
hour, and half that sum if it fall to fourteen and a half miles.
In the contract for the vessel at Philadelphia, awarded to Messrs.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., there is a guarantee, not only for one hundred
revolutions of the propeller per minute, but also for the speed of
sixteen statute miles per hour, under the forfeiture of fifteen thousand
dollars, to be deducted from the price if the speed fall to fifteen miles
per hour, and half that sum if it fall to fifteen and a half miles. A
more stringent and advantageous contract for the government has not
been made.
The awarding of this contract having been the subject of comment,
I will take the occasion to say, that the charge made against a very
competent and faithful officer, the engineer-in-chief, by an excited
and interested party was fully:.investigated by me and found to be
without the slightest foundation, except in a misapprehension of that
party, fully explained, and that the contract was awarded to the
lowest price, to the best guarantee, to the highest experience in the
construction of marine engines, against no experience at all, and in
accordance with the opinion of a majority of the engineers whom I
consulted on the subject.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC. TOU CEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Committee Investigation, &c..
House of Representatives.




JO U RNAL
THIRTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
IN THE tHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 18, 1859.
Whereas D. B. Allen, a citizen of the State of New York, specifically charges that certain officers in the Navy Department, in awarding
contracts for the construction of vesseis-of-war of the United States,
have been guilty of partiality, and of violation of law and their public duty; and whereas grave charges have been made that money
appropriated for navy yards and for the repair of vessels of the
United States has been expended for partisan purposes, and not for
the purpose prescribed by law: ThereforeResolved, That a committee of five members be appointed to
examine1st. Into the specifications and bids for, and the terms of, the contracts for the work and labor done or materials furnished for the
vessels of the United States constructed, or in the process of construction or repair, by the United States since the fourth day of March,
1857, and the mode and manner of awarding said contracts, and the
inducements and recommendations influencing said awards.
2d. Into the mode and manner in, and the purposes for, which the
money appropriated for the navy and dock yards, and for the repair
and increase of vessels, has been expended.
That said committee have power to send for persons and papers,
and have leave to report by bill or otherwise.
Attest:
J; C. ALLEN, Clerk.
JANUARY 20, 1859.
In pursuance of foregoing resolution, the following members were
designated this day by the Speaker to constitute the select committee:
Mr. Sherman, Ohio; Mr. Bocock, Virginia; Mr. Ritchie, Pennsylvania; Mr. Groesbeck, Ohio; Mr. Ready, Tennessee.
Attest:
J. C. ALLEN, Clerk.
THURSDAY, January 20, 1859.
The committee met upon call of its Chairman.  Present: Chairman,
Messrs. Bocock and Groesbeck.
The following order was adopted:
Ordered, That the House be requested to give leave to this committee to employ a stenographer, at a compensation not exceeding the
rate paid the reporters of the Congressional Globe; and that the comH. Rep. Corn. 184 —




gS~98                aJOURNAL.
mittee have leave to sit during the sessions of the House, and to report
at any time.
The following papers were laid before the committee, and ordered
to be spread upon its minutes:
NEW YORK, January 12, 1859.
MY DEAR SIR: This is to call your attention to sundry transactions
of the Navy Department relative to the giving out of the contracts
for the machinery of the steamers constructed under the late act of
Congress.
I am connected with the "Allaire Works" of this city, an establishment engaged in the business of constructing steam-engines; and I
have regarded it as due to the country that the misuse of the government funds, of which we have become cognizant, should be brought
to the notice of some member of Congress who may deem it his duty
to look to the protection of the public interests.
The Secretary of the Navy advertised for proposals, under certain
forms of specifications, to furnish engines, boilers, &c., for a steamer
at Porstmlouth, a steamer at New York, a steamer at Philadelphia,
a steamer at Gosport; and likewise (of a different class) a steamer at
Boston, a steamer at Philadelphia, and a steamer at Pensacola.
For the first named class the Allaire Works sent in proposals,
plans, and drawings, in accordance with the specifications, accompanied by a bid of $105,000 for the New York ship. The contract was
given to Mr. Murphy, as we are informed and believe, for $132,000.
For the second named class the Allaire Works sent in proposals,
plans, and drawings, in accordance with the specifications, accompanied by a bid of $97,000 each, for the Boston and Philadelphia ships.
After these bids had been sent in, in conformity with the advertised call, the Allaire Works were informed that the requirements for
the Philadelphia engines had been altered and enlarged; and, conformably to these alterations, the Allaire Works sent in a second bid.
It now appears that the Washington Board of Engineers could not
agree on the award of the Philadelphia contract, and an outside board
of engineers was called in to decide.  One of this outside board informs
us (accidentally, of course, for all these matters are expected to be
kept close, and no information is openly accessible to the outsider,)
that the only propositions submitted to them for the Philadelphia ship
were those of Neafie, of Philadelphia, and Merrick, of Philadelphia.
It had been a foregone conclusion that Philadelphia should have the
contract; but with those who formed that conclusion some meant
Neafie when they said Philadelphia, and some meant Merrick. Hence
the difficulty; Neafie and Merrick both being backed up by strong influences, unknown to the uniniatiated.
The Pensacola contract was obtained by the "Morgan Works" of
this city.  The engines and specifications for this vessel were precisely
the same as those for Philadelphia and Boston, above alluded to, for
which the Allaire Works bid $97,000; and for this Pensacola job the
Morgan Works got $120,000 as the price at New York, and $10,000
extra for putting up at Pensacola; in all $130,000.
As to the manner in which this contract was obtained    * * * we




JOURNAL.                            99
can get direct information through a gentleman of character and high
standing of this city, who does not wish to state what he knows upon
the subject unless it is sure to be properly investigated and exposed
in the right quarter and in the right way. He says he knows all
about the means by which this contract was secured; and further, that
he saw a letter written by President Buchanan to the Morgan Works,
requesting them to give the forging to the "Reading Forge," (a concern in which J Glancy Jones was at the time largely interested.)
In reference to the Washington Board of Engineers, who passed
upon the proposals, sent in under the advertisement of the Secretary
of the Navy, it may be well to note that Mr. Martin is one; that
this Martin, as we are informed, is the patentee of a boiler, the use of
which secures to him about one thousand dollars for each vessel; that
the best judges upon the matter would not have this boiler in a ship,
under any circumstances, even as a gift; but the government vessels,
in all cases, have these " Martin" boilers.  There is some mystery in
this.
In fact, the government specifications are so " got up" that it is
easily rendered impossible for any establishment that is outside of the' clique' to get a contract on any terms.
The Boston contract (of the second above named class) was given
to the " Boston Locomotive Works" for $104,000, and with a more
favorable allowance of room  to them  than was made in the advertised specifications.  This information we get from the man who made
the drawings of the engines for the Boston Works, and who is a New
Yorker, especially called in to perform this service.
The Allaire Works' bid for this same job was $97,000!
This subject should be investigated, if possible, before a committee
of the House, clothed with power to obtain the proper evidence. There
is no other way that it can properly be done.
You must recollect that all the information we get under the present
system has " leaked out."  Sufficient has thus leaked out to satisfy
us that there is corruption within; and the only way to lay this bare
is to have an investigating committee, and then the evidence will be
drawn out from parties who would not like to be known as volunteers.
Before such a committee, having power to compel the attendance of
witnesses, &c., further facts will be developed.
In the hope that what I have stated herein may serve to commend
the subject to your notice, I am, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
D. B. ALLEN.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Washington, D. C.
The following extract is from the " North American and United
States Gazette," of date January 13, 1859:'In September last Mr. Norris, of Philadelphia, engineer, offered
proposals for furnishing the steam machinery for a sloop-of-war now
building at the Philadelphia navy yard, in compliance with an advertisement of the Hon. Isaac Toucey.  He was infoimed, subse



100                           JOURNAL.
quently, that copies of his drawings had been sent to a competing
bidder, when he went to Washington, and asked an explanation from
the Secretary of the Navy.  Mr. Toucey assured Mr. Norris that so
disgraceful an act could not be perpetrated by any person in his department, and denied it emphatically.'~ Two boards of naval engineers were successively appointed to examine and report upon the plans submitted by Mr. Norris and his
competitors. Certain members of those boards were influenced by the
engineer-in-chief to vote against Mr. Norris, and the result was a tie
in both boards.
" Mr. Toucey then appointed a board of engineers, not in the navy,
who gave a clear and full majority in favor of' Mr. Norris.
" Mr. Toucey, however, for reasons best known to himself, delayed
the decision from  day to day, and finally, finding that Mr, Norris
could not be deprived of the contract by fair means, resorted to covert
means of a most questionable character, by raising a new issue.  He
told Mr. Norris that he desired him to add to his proposals a. schedule
of prices for relative speeds, and gave him the starting point in figures,
thus proposing a formula to suit himself. As soon as the Secretary
obtained this estimate from  Mr. Norris, the agent of his competitors
was informed of the rate, and their bids were regulated, accordingly,
a shade lower.  Upon this new point, thus made, and apparently for
the express purpose of inveigling Mr, Norris into a snare, the Secretary rendered a decision against him.
" Mr. Norris then entered a protest, by an affidavit setting forth
the existence of fraud and corruption in the Engineer Bureau.  The
President and Attorney General interposed in behalf of Mr. Norris,
and arrested further action on the part of the Navy Department.
Mr. Toucey assured Mr. Norris if he could substantiate the fact that
copies of his drawings had been furnished to his competitors from the
bureau, he would dismiss the engineer-in-chief, and see him righted.
"Upon this suggestion Mr. Norris addressed Mr. Toucey a letter,
requesting that certain officers attached to the corps of naval engineers should be permitted to testify. No reply was given to that
application.
"Mr. Norris then submitted various affidavits and letters substantiating the charge he had preferred.  After retaining this testimony
for three days, Mr. Toucey announced the following conclusion to Mr.
Morris, viz: That the  turnishing copies of his (MJr. Norris') plans and
drawings was of no momwent, inasmuch as he himsef had authorized the
engineer-in-chief to furnish them; or, in other words, to do the very
thing for which, if proved, he had previously threatened to dismiss
him!
"' Mr. Toucey also ignored the rest of the testimony, and gave his
final decision against Mr. Norris,  But before the award was issued
to  ir. Norris' competitors, the Attorney General and the President
interfered a second time to prevent the consummation of so flagrant
a wrong.
"The matter is now in the hands of the President, and, it is said,
he will order an inquiry, when some startling disclosures may be
expected.  If he should not do so Congress may assume that responsibility."




JOURNAL.                           101
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
January 12, 1859.
SIR: I shall give my vote in support of your motion that the naval
bill, reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, be referred to
the Committee on Naval Affairs.  And one reason why I am disposed
in this case to sanction the departure from the ordinary usage of the
House is, that I feel confident that the bill as reported contains appropriations some of which are altogether unnecessary, and several of
which will lead to profligate squander of the public money.
Within a year past my attention has been attracted to the mode in
which the moneys appropriated for the Brooklyn navy yard have been
expended, and I have become satisfied that abuses of the grossest
description exist in respect to the expenditures made at that place.
It is almost notorious that the privilege of laboring there is accorded
without special reference to the capabilities of the persons seeking
employment, and that the privilege has more or less the subject of
traffic. There are quite a number of persons employed in the yard
known by the name of master workmen who receive their appointments, not from the commandant of the yard, but from the Secretary
of the Navy.  That political considerations and personal influences
have controlled these appointments is a fact that will not be controverted.  This might hardly be a fair subject of complaint were it not
that the result has come about that the public service suffers from the
acts of the parties who have obtained those places as those of political
reward. I am assured that the Brooklyn navy yard was unreasonably
and unnecessarily stocked with laborers about the period of the last
November election; and that such undue employment must work an
injury to the public service, and tend to the demoralization of the
humbler classes of men residing in New York and its vicinity is a
matter too clear for doubt.
Some of these master workmen make sale of the privilege of working
in the yard.  Some exact from the laborers a share of their wages.
These practices-for, from the frequent instances which have been
brought to my notice, I think they may be so regarded-necessarily
induce the employment of persons unfit for labor, and to frauds upon
the treasury.
In view of these facts I would suggest to you that any appropriations
made for the Brooklyn navy yard should be so regarded that transfers
shall not be permitted from one object to another, and that stringent
inquiry as to the actual necessity should precede the making of any
general appropriations for repairs to be expended. at that yard.
While I am satisfied that the Committee of Ways and Means would
with entire unanimity condemn the practices to which I have referred,
I do not believe that they have the time to give the subject matter of
the navy yard appropriations that thorough scrutiny which I know
the public interests demand.
I take the liberty to suggest for your consideration the propriety of
the passage of a law which should confer upon the commandant of the
yard the appointment of the masters.  This would insure more appropriate appointments and aid in the decentralization of the navy yard




102                        JOURNAL.
patronage, which, in my judgment, is mischievously and wantonly
employed.
Your knowledge of the necessities of the naval service will enable
you to suggest such measures of legislation as will relieve. New York
and its vicinity from the evils which have already resulted from the
political profligacy which the patronage of the navy yard undergoes.
Our colleague, Hon. J. H. Wortendyke, has bestowed considerable
attention to the manner in which the money appropriated by Congress
for that yard has been expended, and may be able to give you such
information as will aid you in the preparation of a necessary bill.
For one I shall never vote for these navy yard appropriations until
some reasonable security shall have been by law provided for their
proper expenditure.
Yours, very respectfully,
H. F. CLARK.
lion. JOHN SHERMAN.
The undersigned charge Thomas O'Connor, foreman of sawyers
in the navy yard, Brooklyn, with the following offences and misdemeanors:
First. That on or about the 2d day of June, 1854, the said Thomas
O' Connor, then being foreman of sawyers, as aforesaid, fraudulently
contracted with Mlaurice Fitzgerald that he, the said foreman, Thomas
O'Connor, should give employment in the navy yard aforesaid to ones
Edward Fitzgerald, brother of the said Maurice, if he, the said Edward, would give fifty cents a day to him, the said Thomas O'Connor,
in consideration of such employment.
Second. That, in pursuance of such contract, the said Edward Fitzgerald was employed and went to work in the navy yard aforesaid;
the standing wages of the government, $2 a day; and that, from the
period between the 2d day of June, 1854, until the 22d day of December, 1854, the said Thomas O'Connor exacted and took from the said
Edward Fitzgerald, through the hands of the said Maurice, the sum of'
fifty cents per day for every cay that Edward worked, although the
said Edward was permitted, in order to cover the fraud, to draw the
full amount, then refund, through his brother, the portion of his day's
earnings.
Third. That when the said Edward, who was in necessitous circumstances at the time of the first agreement, began to object to the continued allowance and deduction from his earnings, perceived a great
disfavor on the part of the said Thomas O'Connor; and at length,
when the said Edward would no longer submit to the imposition and
exaction aforesaid, he, the said O'Connor, discharged the said Edward from the employment of the government of the United States
without any other cause than that of refusing an allowance of fifty
cents per day.
Fourth. That the said Thomas O'Connor, about three weeks afterwards, called upon Maurice Fitzgerald while at work in the navy yard
aforesaid, and then and there proposed to re-employ the said Edward
if he, the said Edward, would give him, the said Thomas O'Connor,
the sum of twenty-five cents per day for such employment; that he
then and there employed him on these terms.




JOURNAL.                         103
Fifth. That the said Thomas O'Connor was paid and received in
all the sum of $125 28 out of the earnings of the said Edward Fitzgerald.
Sixth. That the said Thomas O' Connor permitted and sanctioned
the drawing of moneys from  the department which were not justly
due to the parties drawing.
Seventh. That the said Thomas O'Connor proposed to Maurice
Fitzgerald to return him for full time, although the said Maurice was
absent, on condition that he, the said Maurice, should pay to him
one-half of the amount so received for lost time.
Eiygth. That the said Thomas 0' Connor actually was paid and did
receive one-half of such lost time.
Wherefore, the undersigned pray that the said Thomas O' Connor
may be examined and dealt with according to law and the rules and
regulations of the navy of the United States.
Sworn to before me, this 4th day of January, 1859, a commissioner
of deeds of the city and county of New York.
MAURICE FITZGERALD.
JAMES SCARMELL.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of January, 1859.
E. S. McPHERSON,
Commissioner of Deeds.
STATE OF NEW YORK, City of New York, to wit:
Patrick Owens, beiig duly sworn according to law, saith: That he
has worked in the Brooklyn navy yard for several years as a sawyer,
and was discharged; that during the building of the Niagara he did
apply for work to the said Thomas 0' Connor, as sawyer in said yard,
and that after he paid the said O'Connor the sum of $20 he, the
said Owens, was again set to work.
PATRICK OWENS.
Duly sworn before me, this 4th day of January, 1859, a commissioner of deeds, of the city and county of New York.
E. S. McPHIRSON,
Commissioner of Deeds.
CITY OF NEW YORK, January 4, 1859.
This is to certify that I, Michael Gillian, was employed as a laborer
in the Brooklyn navy yard on or about the month of August, 1855,
and continued on until about the month of June, 1856, when I was
employed as a sawyer in said Brooklyn navy yard by Thomas 0' Connor, then master sawyer, and that I have never worked a day before
at sawing; and, also, that the said Thomas O' Connor did exact and
receive the sum of fifty cents per day of my wages as a consideration
for such employment; and, further, that he returned me as an operator
in said yard for time that I did not work, as I was out of the yard
doing his, the said Thomas 0' Connor' s, business.
MICHAEL GILLIAN.
In the presence ofF. D. MULFORD.




104                          JOURNAL
STATE OF NEW YORK, City of New York, to wit:
Thomas Kerrigan, being duly sworn according to law, saith: That,
during the administration of President Pierce, Thomas O' Connor was
master sawyer of the Brooklyn navy yard, and that he did allow
Rodger McCormick, who was then working as a sawyer in the said
yard, to go out of said yard after answering to his name on the 8th,
9th, and 10th, and one-half of the 14th, days of May, 1856, on business other than that of the government.  And that the said Rodger
McCormick did receive full pay for the above mentioned time, by and
with the sanction of the said Thomas O' Connor.
Duly sworn this 4th day of January, 1859, before me, a commissioner of deeds of the city and county of New York.
THOMAS KERRIGAN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of January, 1859.
E. S. McPHERSON, Commissioner of Deeds.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow at 111 o'clock a. m.
JOHN  SHERMAN, Chlairmano
FRIDAY, January 21. 1859,
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Bocock, Ritchie, and Ready. The following was adopted:
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Navy be furnished with a copy
of the resolutions constituting this committee.
That he be requested to furnish it, as soon as practicable, the
originals, copies, or duplicates of the following papers:
1. The specifications and advertisements for bids for the engines
and other work let by contract for the sloops-of-war authorized by
acts of March 3, 185[, and June 12, 1858.
2. The several bids made for said engines and other work and
materials.
3. The action of the department, together with the proceedings
and names of any agent or board thereon.
4. The contracts made thereon.
5. The correspondence of the department, or any agent thereof,
with any bidder or contractor for said work.
6. All papers and evidence on file in the department charging
employes in the Brooklyn navy yard with selling offices or employmnents in said yard, or with illegal or corrupt practices in employing
officers or workmen, or in contracting for work or materials, or in
disbursing money for said yard.
7. The correspondence of Commodore Lawrence Kearney with the
department in regard to his removal from the Brooklyn navy yard,
and that between him and the Hon. George Taylor, if communicated
to the department,
8. The number of men employed in the Brooklyn navy yard on the
1st and 15th days of each of the months of October, November, De



JOURNAL.                          105
cember, 1858, and January, 1859, and the causes of the increase or
diminution.
9. The number and pay of each class of officers, foremen, master
workmen, and laborers connected with the navy yard at Brooklyn, by
whom appointed, and their powers and duties.
10. The mode of appointment and the number and pay of master
workmen prior to and since the 4th of March, 1857, and the reasons
for the change...
11. All correspondence with members of Congress since the 4th of
March, 1857, relating to the change or the appointment of master
workmen.
12. What new offices or employments have been made in the Brooklyn navy yard since the 4th of March, 1857, and the pay of each.
13. And such other information on the files of the department as in
the opinion of the Secretary would aid the committee in complying
with the resolution of the House.
Ordered, further, That the Secretary of the Navy be also requested
to inform the committee:
1. Upon what vessels of the United States repairs have been made
at each of the navy yards, and the amount and character of expenditure upon ea'ch since the 4th of March, 1857.
2. What portion, if any, of the work now done at the navy yard
could be'done by contract with advantage to the service.
3. The cost for each year of the government expenditures in the
navy yards, and the increase and repairs of vessels, and for employes
connected therewith, arranged in tabular form, and showing, as far
as practicable, each class of said expenditures in separate columns.
The following letter from the chairman of the select committee was
transmitted with the foregoing:
WASHINGTON, January 21, 1859.
SIR: In compliance with the order of the special committee of the
House of Representatives on naval contracts and expenditures, I
have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the resolutions under
which they are acting, and a series of resolutions calling for information from the Navy Department, as it is the desire of the committee
to progress with their duties as rapidly as possible.  I am instructed
to request that you furnish each branch of the information as soon as
practicable, without waiting for the completion of the whole.  The
committee propose to commence the examination of witnesses, at their
room in the Capitol, on Monday next at 10 o'clock a. m., and I am
instructed to express the desire of the committee that you co-operate
with it in executing the resolutions of the House.  For that purpose
its members respectfully invite your attendance at any or all of its
sessions.
If practicable, we desire to have the information stated in the first
five clauses by Monday next.
Very respectfully,
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman.
Hon. ISAAC ToucEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




106                        JOURNAL.
On motion, it was
Ordered, That the sergeant-at-arms be directed to subpoena, forthwith, the following witnesses: D. B. Allen, William  Cockroft,
Lawrence Kearney, Alexander Ward, B. Donelly, of New York;
Frederick Saunders, William  N. Brady, William  Norris, of Philadelphia.
Ordered, That William  Blair Lord be appointed stenographer, in
case the House allows one; and that he be directed to procure from
the postmaster suitable stationery for the committee, and a room in
which to hold its sossions.
Adjourned to meet on Monday next at 10 o'clock a. m.
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman.
MONDAY, January 24, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The following witness was examined:
No. 1. Frederick Saunders, New York:
The Chairman laid before the committee sundry letters and communications received by him in relation to the investigation by this
committee.
Ordered, That the following persons be summoned to appear and
testify before this committee:
Patrick Fitzgerald, 1
Lewis M. Berry,    {
Thomas Berry,      ) Brooklyn navy yard.
Michael Riley, 
William Merrifield, J
Myers Carrell, engineer Morgan Works, New York.
Lawrence Cohane, New York.
Commodore S. S. Lee, navy yard, Philadelphia.
Commodore Thomas R. Roozes, Norfolk, Virginia.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman.
TUESDAY, January 25, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The Chairman laid before the committee a communication from the
Navy Department, transmitting certain papers in relation to building
the sloop-of-war Brooklyn.
By order of the committee, the Chairman addressed the following
letter to the Secretary of the Navy:




JOURNAL.                          107
WASHINGTON CITY, D. C.,
Tuesday, January 25, 1859.
SIR: The special committee on naval contracts and expenditures
desire, for the present, to limit the information called for in the first
five points of their inquiry of the 21st instant to the engines for the
sloop-of-war built under the act of June 12, 1858.
I am also directed to request that the information called for in
classes No. 7, No. 9, and No. 10 of said inquiry be furnished as soon
as practicable.
Very respectfully, yours,
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10- o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
WEDNESDAY, January 26, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chairman, Messrs. Bocock, Ritchie, and Groesbeck.
The following witnesses were called and examined:
No. 2. William Cockcroft, New York.
No. 3. Thomas R. Rootes, United States navy, Norfolk.
By order of the committee the Chairman addressed the following
letter to the Secretary of the Navy:
WASHINGTON, January 26, 1859.
SIR: I have been directed by the special committee upon naval contracts and expenditures to request that copies be furnished them of
the correspondence between Commodore T. R. Rootes, (acting commandant;) Commodore Joseph Smith, of the Navy Department, and
Mr. C. K. Graham, (naval constructor,) of Brooklyn navy yard, in
the year 1858; which correspondence is now on file in the Navy
Department and the Brooklyn navy yard.
Very respectfully, yours,
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 101 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
THURSDAY, January 27, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.  All the members
present.
The following witnesses were called and examined:
No. 3. Thomas R. Rootes, (recalled.)
No. 4. William N. Brady, New York.
No. 5. Jacob R. Wortendyke, M. C., from New Jersey.
No. 6. W. W. Keim, M. C., from Pennsylvania.




108                        JOURNAL.
No. 7. Bernard Donelly, Staten Island, New York.
The Chairman laid before the committee sundry documents received
from the Navy Department, in response to call of the committee of
the 21st instant.
The following persons were ordered to be summoned to ap"pear before
the committee: J. Vaughn Merrick, Philadelphia; Frederick E.
Sickles, New York; George W  Quintard, New York.
Committee adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
FRIDAY, January 28, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 7. Bernard Donelly, (recalled.)
No. 8. Patrick Fitzgerald, New York.
No. 9. Alexander Wood, New York.
No. 10. Lewis W. Berry, Brooklyn.
No. 11. Michael Reilly, Brooklyn.
Ordered, That the following persons be summoned to appear before
the committee:
Joseph Smith, Navy Department; John Lenthall, Navy Department; W. E. Everett, New York city; J. R. Whipple, Philadelphia.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
SATURDAY, January 29, 1859.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 12. Joseph Smith, Navy Department.
No. 13. Myers Coryell, New York.
No. 14. John Lenthall, Navy Department.
Adjourned to meet on Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
MONDAY, January 31, 1859.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 11. Michael Reilly, (recalled )
No. 10. Lewis W. Berry, (recalled.)
No. 15. Lawrence Cohane, New York.
No. 16. Frederick E. Sickles, New York.
No. 17. Wm. Merrifield, New York.
No. 18. Maybury A. Bartelett, Reading, Pennsylvania.
No. 19. Geo. A. Quintard, New York.
No. 20. John A. Searing, House of Representatives.
No. 21. John J. McElhone, Washington.
The following were summoned to appear before the committee:
General Charles H. Hunter, J. Lawrence Getz,        McLaughlin,
Reading, Pennsylvania; John F. Smith, Geo. P. Nevins, John P.




JOURNAL.                          109
Repplier, Henry S. Crabb, Overton Carr, Philadelphia, Penn.; Joseph
Simmons, John White, Daniel B. Martin, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Richard
Tiller, Anson Herrick, C. A. Secor, Geo. N. Saunders, New York;
Samuel Archbold, Navy Department; John J. McElhone, Washington.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
TUESDAY, February 1, 1859.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment.  All the members present.
The following persons were examined:
No. 19. Geo. A. Quintard, (recalled.)
No. 22. W. E. Everett, New York.
No. 23. William Norris, Philadelphia.
No. 24. J. Vaughn Merrick, Philadelphia.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
WEDNESDAY, February 2, 1859.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 15. Lawrence Cohane.
No. 17. William  Merrifield.
No. 23. William Norris.
No. 24. J. Vaughn Merrick.
No. 25. J. P. Whipple, Philadelphia.
No. 26. Charles H. Hunter, Reading, Pennsylvania.
No. 27. J. Lawrence Getz, Reading, Pennsylvania.
No. 28. J. F. Smith, Philadelphia.
No. 29. C. Nichols Beach, Philadelphia.
Adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
THURSDAY, February 3, 1859.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 29. C. Nichols Beach, (recalled.)
No. 22. W. E.  Everett, (recalled.)
No. 30. Samuel Archbold, Navy Department.
No. 31. Henry S. Crabbe, Philadelphia navy yard.
No. 32. Overton Carr, Philadelphia navy yard.
No. 33. John G. Repplier, Philadelphia.
No. 34. George P. Nevin, Philadelphia.
The Chairman was instructed to report the following resolution to
the House, and ask its adoption:
"Resolved, That the committee on naval contracts and expend"tures have leave to print the testimony taken before it as it progresses."
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.




110                         JOURNAL.
FRIDAY, February 4, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 35. George Plitt, Philadelphia.
No. 36. Joseph Grice, New York.
No. 37. Henry G. Beach, Baldwinsville, New York.
No. 38. James Landy, House of Representatives.
No. 39. John Cochrane, House of Representatives.
No. 40. John L. White, Brooklyn navy yard.
No. 41. John B. Haskin, House of Representatives.
No. 42. Samuel P. Brown, Orland, Maine.
It was ordered that a copy of the depositions of Charles H. Hunter, J. Lawrence Getz, John F. Smith, C. Nichols Beach, George R.
Nevin, S. P. Brown, George Plitt, Joseph Grice, and H. G. Beach,
be furnished to the President of the United States and to the Secretary
of the Navy, and that they be notified that the committee will, at any
time next week, hear them or any witnesses they may desire to have
examined.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman,
SATURDAY, February 5, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.  All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 3. Thomas R. Rootes, (recalled.)
No. 14. John Lenthall, (recalled.)
No. 36. Joseph Grice, (recalled.)
No. 43. Peter McLaughlin, Reading, Pennsylvania.
Adjourned to meet on Monday morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman.
MONDAY, February 7, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 43. Peter McLaughlin, (recalled.)
No. 44. Richard H. Teller, New York.
No. 45. Anson Herrick, New York.
No. 46. Lawrence Kearny, United States navy.
No. 47. S. S. Lee, United States navy.
No. 48. C. W. Welsh, Navy Department.
No. 49. H. F. Clark, House of Representatives.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow at 11 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMKAN, CAairman.




JOURNAL.                          11
TUESDAY, February 8, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 45. Anson Herrick, (recalled.)
No. 50. Samuel B. Grice, Philadelphia.
No. 51. Daniel B. Martin, New York.
No. 52. James Bigler, New York.
No. 53. John W. Griffiths, Philadelphia.
The following letter was addressed by the Chairman, in pursuance
of the order of the committee of February 4, to the President and to
the Secretary of the Navy:
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 8, 1859.
SIR: I am directed by the special committee of the House of Representatives on naval contracts and expenditures, to furnish you copies
of certain testimony, and to express their desire to receive at any time
during this week any statement or information you wish to make in
regard to the testimony, and to invite you to name any witnesses you
wish examined. In compliance with this order, I now have the
honor to furnish you the depositions of Charles H. Hunter, J. Lawrence
Getz, C. Nichols Beach, John F. Smith, John G. Repplier, and G. P.
Irvin.  The remaining testimony relates to live-oak contracts, and
copies will be furnished you as soon as practicable.
I am, very respectfully, yours,
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
The PRESIDENT,
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
The following persons were ordered to be summoned as witnesses:
B. A. Springer, Geo. F. Tyler, W. W. W. Wood, Charles P.
Hayes, J. G. Tell, Diller Luther, Charles Sinnickson, Philadelphia;
Eugene Borda, Woodside, Pa.; W. W. Pierce, Boston navy yard;
Benj. F. Delano, Charles K. Graham, Artemas Jones, John L.
Crawford, John Vandervoort, Brooklyn navy yard; John Appleton,
Washington, State Department.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
WEDNESDAY, February 9, 1859.
The commIittee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 52. James Bigler, (recalled.)
No. 53. John W. Griffith, (recalled.)
No. 54. Henry M. McGill, Washington.
No. 55. Edward A. Barnett, Philadelphia, United States-navy.




112                           JOURNAL.
No. 56. John Appleton, Washington, State Department.
No. 57. D. B. Allen, New York
No. 58. Samuel Spinney, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
No. 59. Samuel A. Trefethem, Rye, New Hampshire.
No. 60. Jedediah Rand, Rye, New Hampshire.
No. 61. Nathaniel M. Rand, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
No. 62. George Taylor, House of Representatives.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman.
TiURSDAY, February 10, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.  All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 29. C. Nichols Beach, (recalled.)
No. 52. James Bigler, (recalled.)
No. 57. D. B. Allen, (recalled.)
No. 63. Charles Hastings, New York.
INo. 64. W. W. W. Wood, Philadelphia, United States navy.
No. 65. George F. Tyler, Philadelphia.
No. 66. Diller Luther, Philadelphia.
No. 67. Charles P. Hayes, Philadelphia.
No. 68. Charles Sinnickson, Philadelphia.
No. 69. R. S. Swackhamer, White House, New Jersey.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow mnorning at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman.
FRIDAY, February 11, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.  All the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 65. George F. Tyler, (recalled.)
No. 66. Diller Luther, (recalled.)
No. 68. C. Sinnickson, (recalled.)
No. 69. R. S. Swackhamer, (recalled.)
No. 70. W. C. N. Swift, New Bedford, Massachusetts.
N'o. 71. Geo. N. Sanders, New York.
No. 72.   m. D. Kennedy, New York.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
JO}HN SHERMAN, Chairman.
SATURDAY, February 12, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.  All the members
present.
It was ordered, unanimously, That the investigation in relation to
the navy yard at Porstmouth, New Hampshire, be pursued no iurther
by this committee, and, in ccnsequence of this determination, that the




JOURNAL.                        113
testimony already taken in respect to that matter, that of 58, Samuel
Spinney, 59, Samuel A. Trefethen, 60, Jedediah Rand, and 61, Nathaniel M. Rand, be not published.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 73. Eugene Borda, Woodside, Pennsylvania..
No. 74. William Turner, Brooklyn, New York.'
No. 75. Benjamin H. Springer, Philadelphia.
No. 76. Edward N. Dickerson, New York.
No. 77. John Kelly, New York.
Adjourned to meet on Monday morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
MONDAY, February 14, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 75. B. H-. Springer, (recalled.)
No. 14. John Lenthall, (recalled.)
No. 74. William Turner, (recalled.)
No. 78. W. H. Witte, Philadelphia.
No. 79. Chas. K. Graham, New York.
No. 80. Wm. W. Pierce, Boston.
No. 81. Benj. F. Delano, Brooklyn navy yard.
No. 82. Thomas B. Florence, House of Representatives.
No. 83. Artemus Jones, Brooklyn navy yard.
No. 84. John S. Crawford, Brooklyn navy yard.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
TUESDAY, February 15, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 79. Charles K. Graham, (recalled.)
No. 85. John Van Dervoort, Brooklyn navy yard.
No. 86. Henry Hunt, Washington navy yard.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
WEDNESDAY, February 16, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 87. Francis Grice, Philadelphia.
No. 88. James Murphy, New York.
No. 89. Henry B. Beach, Hartford, Connecticut.
No. 90. James B. Maclay, House of Representatives..
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
H. Rep. Corn. 184 —-8




114                         JOURNAL.
THURSDAY, February 17, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 91. Samuel T. Hartt, Norfolk, Virginia.
No. 92. Robert Leigh, Brooklyn navy yard.
The committee proceeded to consider a statement of facts in regard
to the coal agency. After discussion, a vote was taken as follows:
Yeas-The Chairman, Messrs. Ritchie and Ready.
Navs —Messrs. Bocock and Groesbeck.
Resolutions upon the same subject, submitted by Mr. Sherman,
were approved by Messrs. Sherman and Ritchie, and not approved
by Messrs. Ready, Bocock, and Groesbeck.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
FRIDAY, February 18, 1859.
The conmmittee met pursuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
The following witnesses were examined:
No. 93. Simeon Chapman, Brooklyn navy yard.
No. 94. George A. Blood, New York.
The committee proceeded to consider a statement in relation to
live-oak contracts and management of the navy yards of the United
States; without concluding, the further consideration of the subjeet.s
were postponed until to-morrow.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at I1 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, CUwhirman.
SATURDAY, February 19, 1859.
The committee met persuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
The Chairman submitted a statement of the general results of the
investigation, concluding with the following resolutions:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy has, with the sanction of
the President, abused his discretionary power in the selection of a
coal agent, and in the purchase of fuel for the government.
Resolved, That the contract made by the Secretary of the Navy,
under date of September 23, 1858, with W. C. N. Swift, for the
delivery of live-oak timber, was made in violation of law, and in a
manner unusual, improper, and injurious to the public service.
Resolved, That the distribution by the Secretary of the Navy of
the patronage in the navy yards among members of Congress was
destructive of discipline, corrupting in its influence., and highly injurious to the public service.
Rssovred, That the President and the Secretary of the Navy, by




JOURNAL.                          115
receiving and considering the party relations of bidders for contracts
with the United States, and the effect of awarding contracts upon
pending elections, have set an example dangerous to the public safety,
and deserving the reproof of this House.
Resolved, That the appointment by the Secretary of the Navy of
Daniel B. Martin, chief engineer, as a member of a board of engineers to report upon proposals for constructing machinery for the
United States, the said Martin at the time being pecuniarily interested
in some of said proposals, is hereby censured by this House.
Mr. Bocock, without submitting any general statement of the facts,
proposed the following as a substitute for the foregoing resolutions:
Resolved, That the testimony taken in this investigation discloses
the existence of glaring abuses in the Brooklyn navy yard, such as
require the interposition of legislative reform; but justice requires us
to say that these abuses have been slowly and gradually growing up
during a long course of years, and that no particular administration
should bear the entire blame therefor.
Resolved, That it is disclosed by the testimony in this case that the
agency for the purchase of anthracite coal for the use of the Navy Department has been for some time past in the hands of a person wholly
inefficient and grossly incompetent, and that reform is needed in the
regulations which exist on that subject; but there is no proof which
traces any knowledge of such incompetency and inefficiency to the
responsible authorities in Washington, nor any which shows that the
need of reform grows especially out of any act of theirs; on the contrary, it is expressly proven that the supply of coal for the navy service
has been purchased during this administration upon terms relatively
as favorable as ever before.
Resolved, That while we could never sanction or approve any
arrangement on the part of an officer of the government which, under
pretence of making contracts for supplies, was designed to confer
especial and exclusive favors, yet, in the contract entered into in September, 1858, between the Secretary of the Navy and W. C. N. Swift,
for the supply of live-oak to the Navy Department, it is already proven
by the testimony that if the Secretary did contemplate any favor to
said Swift he did not intend to do so to the detriment of the government; but that in all he did in this matter he kept always in view the
good of the public and the interests of the service.
Resolved, That in the letting of the contracts for the construction
of the steam machinery for the vessels of the navy during the present
administration nothing has been shown which calls for the interposition of the Congress of the United States, but it is manifest that the
present head of the Navy Department has displayed a very laudable
zeal to secure the greatest amount of speed and efficiency attainable
in said vessels.
The question being taken, the substitute was agreed to as follows 
Yeas-Messrs. Bocock, Groesbeck, and Ready.
Nays-The Chairman and Mr. Ritchie.
Mr. Bocock moved that the committee adjourn until Monday morning at 10 o'clock, in order to give the majority an opportunity to




116                         JOURNAL.
draw up such a statement as they might desire to accompany the resolutions.
The motion was agreed to, and accordinglyThe committee adjourned until Monday morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
MONDAY, February 21, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chairman, Messrs. Ritchie and Ready.
Adjourned to meet on Wednesday morning, at 10 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
WEDNESDAY, February 23, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. Present: the Chairman, Messrs. Ritchie & Ready.
At 11 a. m. there was a general understanding upon the part of
the members present that, at their next meeting, some final action
should be had in relation to reporting to the House the result of the
examination.
Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 102 o'clock.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman.
THURSDAY, February 24, 1859.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment; all the members
present.
Mr. Bocock submitted a report, which he moved be adopted without
being read; which was agreed to, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Bocock, Groesbeck, and Ready.
Nays-The Chairman and Mr. Ritchie.
Mr. Bocock offered the following resolution, in addition to those
submitted by him the other day:
Resolved, That nothing has been proven in this investigation which
impeaches in any way the personal or official integrity of the Secretary of the Navy.
The resolution was agreed to, as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Bocock, Groesbeck, and Ready.
Nays-The Chairman and Mr. Ritchie.
The Chairman submitted a draft of a bill, entitled " An act reguating navy yards and for other purposes."
The bill is as follows:
AN ACT regulating navy yards and for other purposes.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the commanding officer at each of the navy yards shall appoint the master
workmen of the yard; each master workman, before his appointment,
shall be examined by one civil or two naval officers of the yard, to be
detailed for that purpose by the commanding officer, and found suitably qualified to discharge the duties of master workman. The master




JOURNAL.                          117
workmen shall hold their places three years, unless removed by the
commanding officer for good cause, to be reported to the Bureau of
Yards and Docks, and shall be subject to roll-call in the same manner
as other workmen.  Each master workman shall select the workmen
under him, subject to the approval of the commanding officer.  The
number of master workmen and of employes under them shall be fixed
by the naval constructor and constructing engineer, each for his
department, and shall be increased or diminished upon their written
requisitions, approved by the commanding officer.
SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That no master workman or
employe in the yard shall be appointed who is recommended by any
member of Congress or officer of the government, whose duty is not
within the yard; and employes shall be discharged only for misconduct, inefficiency, or want of work.
SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That materials for the navy,
except as is provided by law, shall not be purchased by open purchase,
unless the article needed is not embraced in an existing contract, and
time will not permit of delay; and in such case it shall be purchased
upon the requisition of the naval constructor or constructing engineer,
approved by the commanding officer, and a master workman detailed
for each purchase by the commanding officer, and in accordance with
the regulations of the department.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That a naval storekeeper shall
be appointed for each yard, in the same manner, and for the same
time, as the navy agent, at a salary of $1,700 a year, who shall give
bond, and perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Navy Department. He shall, in connexion with an officer or inspector detailed
for this duty by the commanding officer, inspect all articles purchased
for the government, both as to quality and price.  He shall make to
the proper bureau a monthly statement of all articles purchased on
open purchase, with the price paid and the fair market price.
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That no officer or employe in
the yard shall, during his term  of office, be engaged in any other
employment than his duty in the yard.
SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the commanding officer
shall, at the end of each fiscal year, cause a detailed inventory to be
taken of all materials and stores on hand, and of the amount received
and expended during the year, and report the same to the proper
bureau.
SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Navy
is authorized and required to prepare and enforce a code of regulations for the government of the navy yards, consistent with existing
laws.
SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That all coal for the use of the
navy shall hereafter be furnished by contract, by the lowest bidder;
the contract to be made in the mode prescribed by law for the supply
of other materials for the navy. The Secretary of the Navy shall
annually appoint a person skilled as a coal dealer an inspector of coal,
who shall reside in Philadelphia, and, during his term of office, shall
not purchase coal on his own account, or for others, and shall receive
a compensation not exceeding $2,000 per annum. He shall cause to




118                          JOURNAL.
be weighed and measured, at the expense of the contractor, all coal
for the government, and shall carefully inspect and reject all that is
not of the quality prescribed by the contract.  He shall, under the
direction of the Secretary of the Navy, contract for the transportation
of coal to the ports in places where needed for the public service, and
shall make monthly reports of his proceedings to the Bureau of
Construction, Equipment, and Repairs.
SECTION 9. And be itfurther enacted, That if any member of Congress
shall directly or indirectly procure, or aid in procuring for any person
or persons, or company, any contract with, or work for the United
States, made, or to be made with any person authorized to make contracts on the part of the United States, and shall receive or contract
to receive, directly or indirectly, any money or property for any interest
or share in said contracts, or the proceeds or profits thereof, every
member so offending shall, upon conviction thereof, be adjudged
guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined, and be
imprisoned not to exceed, or both, at the discretion
of the court.
Without expressing an opinion upon the merits of the bill, the
committee authorized the Chairman to report it to the House, without
asking that body to take any action upon it.
On motion, it was
Ordered, That the House be asked to print 5,000 additional copies
of the report and testimony in this case.
It was also
Ordered, That a report be made to the House this morning of the
testimony, &c., in this investigation.
Adjourned sine die.
JOHN SHERMAN, Chairma~n.




CIRRESPONDENCE OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT
WITH THE COMMITTEE.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, Jactcuary 27, 1859.
SIR: Your letter of the 25th instant has been received.
Referring to my letter to you of the 24th instant, I now have the
honor to transmit herewith the remainder of the information called
for in the first five clauses of the resolution of the committee.  The
contracts for the machinery for the 13-feet draught sloop building at
Norfolk and the 10-feet draught sloop building at Philadelphia have
not yet been signed.  The forms in which the contracts have been
sent to the parties for signature are herewith transmitted.
I also enclose the information called for in the 7th and 9th clauses
of the resolution.  The answers to the other clauses will be furnished
as soon as possible.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
HoIn. JOHN SHERMAN,
Cqha'irmtan;Special (Coin.ittee, (.tc., d(c.,
I-oai.se of Re.prsesentatives.
NAvY DEPARTMENT, January 28, 1859.
SIR: Will you be kind enough to inform  me from what date the
committee desires the information called for in the following clause of
its order upon this department, viz:   The cost for each year of the
government expenditures in the navy yards, and the increase and
repairs of vessels, and the employes connected therewith, arranged
in tabular form, and showing, as far as practicable, each class of said
expenditures in separate columns?"
If this inquiry should extend back many years, it would be impossible to comply with the request of the committee before the adjournrment of Congress.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hen.. JOHN SHBRMAN,
Cqaitrman Special CoImmittee, &.,
Hcuse of Repre.enfatc~e&.




120                    CORRESPONDENCE,
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 1, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of a contract
between the department and Messrs. Dickerson & Sickles, whiclh
should have accompanied the papers sent to you a few days since.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
CiafirDaw  Special Committee,
Houise of Representattives.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith copy of a report of the
1st instant, from  the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in
answer to the 8th clause of the order of the special committee, dated
the 21st ultimo.
The causes of the "increase and diminution" in the number of
men employed in the Brooklyn yard, as stated in the letter from the
chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks of the 27th ultimo, to which
he refers in the accompanying report, were presumed to have been
from the "necessities of the service in the preparation and despatch
of the Paraguay expedition, the hastening the completion of the new
sloops, and equipping the Niagara, St. Louis, San Jacinto, and storeships."
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Special Committee, &cd.,
House of Represezntatives.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 1, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report from the chief
of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in answer to the 10th, 11th, and
12th clauses of the order of the committee of 21st January on this
department.
It is stated in the report, as you will perceive, that no correspondence has taken place between the bureau and members of Congress
since 4th March, 1857, in relation to the change or appointment of
master workmen.  Such as may be on file in this office on that subject
will be furnished as soon as copies can be made, in compliance with
the request of the committee.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Special Committee,
House of Representatives.




CORRESPONDENCE                         121
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 4, 1859.
SIR: In reply to the second interrogatory of the second series propounded by the investigating committee of which you are the chairman, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a communication
from the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in whose views I
concur.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman of the Special Committee, cec., House of Rep' s.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, Jtanuary 24, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 21st instant, transmitting a copy of the resolution under which
the special committee of which you are the chairman is acting, and
a series of resolutions adopted by the committee, calling for information from this department.
In compliance with your request, I will furnish each branch of the
information as soon as practicable, without waiting for the completion
of the whole, and especially that embraced in the first five clauses
of the resolution of the committee.
I have now the honor to transmit herewith the information therein
called for in relation to the first of the series of contracts made under
the acts of March 3, 1857, and June 12, 1858, for the construction
of the steam  sloop-of-war Brooklyn, and to state that the whole
available force of the office has been called into requisition since the
receipt of your letter at noon of Saturday, but it has not been able
to make copies of all the papers relating to the other bids, contracts,
&c., under the above named acts.
The committee may rely upon the ready co-operation of the department in the accomplishment of its business, and the information it
desires will be afforded as promptly as practicable.
I am, very respectfully, &c.,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman of the Special Committee, cc., c:c., H. B.
H. Rep. Con. 184~9




122                    CORRESPONDENCE.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 12, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, in compliance with the
eleventh clause of the order of the special committee, of the 21st ultimo,
a part of the correspondence (copies) on file in the department'' with
members of Congress since March 4, 1857, relating to the change or
to the appointment of master workmen."
The residue will be transmitted as soon as it can be copied.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERiMAN,
Chairman Special Committee, &c., House of Representatives.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 9, 1859.
SIR: In compliance with your letter of the 26th ultimo, I have the
honor to transmit herewith copies of letters from the Bureau of Yards
and Docks to the commandant of the Brooklyn navy yard, during the
year 1858, marked A; copies of letters to the Bureau of Yards and
Docks from Commander Rootes and Civil Engineer Graham, during
the year 1858, marked B; and copies of the correspondence between
Commander Rootes and Civil Engineer Graham, obtained from  the
files of the Brooklyn navy yard, for the year 1858, marked C; also
a copy of an explanatory letter from the chief of the Bureau of Yards
and Docks to this department, dated the 8th instant.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Special Committee, &c., &ic., House of Rep's.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 16, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report from the chief
of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and accompanying papers, in
answer to the sixth clause of the order of the special committee, &c.,
dated the 21st ultimo, upon this department.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Special Committee c&c., House of Rep's.




INDEX.
Page.
Report of the Majority -.            ------ --— _ —            --                                    1
Ieport of the Minority... —----—. —----  ---—. — --—. —-.-. —-—.-. —----                      55
Communication from  the Secretary of the Navy to the Committee --------                            90
Journal of the Committee ------------- -—. —.-                                                    97
Correspondence with the Navy Department ---- -- --------- -------------—,                         119








PART I.
TESTIMONY
IN RELATION TO
THE APPOINTMENT OF A COAL AGENT,
AND
THE PURCHASE OF COAL
FOR THIE
NAVAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.
lA








COAL AGENCY.
No. 14.-TESTIMONY OF JOHN LENTHALL, NAVY DEPARTMENT.
JANUARY 29, 1859.
JOHN LENTHALL called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. I am  chief of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment,
and Repairs, in the Navy Department.
Question. What is your department of business?  Of what have
you charge?
Answer. The building and construction of vessels.
Question. What is included in the word "equipment?"
Answer. "Equipment" technically includes the rigging and fitting
of a ship, sails, cables, anchors, water-tanks, &c.
Question. Does it include the coal?
Answer. That is apart of the stores of a vessel.
Question. What is the total amount estimated for your department
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1860, according to the printed estimates?
Answer. Under the  head  of general appropriation  there is
$3,100,000; and then there is a sum of $674,000, to finish the seven
sloops-of-war and the one side-wheel steamer now in process of construction, and ordered by Congress at its last session; making in all
$3,764,000.
Question. Is there any public document showing the detail of the
estimates for construction and repairs?
Answer. No, sir: with that estimate there is a report made to the
Secretary, but that does not show all the details.
Question. How do you get at the estimates in your bureau?
Answer. We base them  upon the actual amount expended from
year to year in aigreat measure.  They are of such a nature that you
cannot define all the points.




4                         COAL AGENCY.
Question. What portion of this sum is for coal?
Answer. I cannot remember that; I think we estimated for 56,000
tons, and I think that we estimated that the average cost all around,
including foreign and domestic freight and everything, would be fifteen dollars a ton.
Question. Where is your coal purchased?
Answer. From coal agents specially appointed by the department.
Question. Where are these coal agents stationed?
Answer. One of them, I think, is in Reading, Pennsylvania; the
other one, I think, is in Baltimore. One is for the purchase of anthracite coal, and the other for the purchase of bituminous coal.
Question. Are there any other agents but these two?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How do these agents purchase the coal?
Answer. On open purchase; I merely give orders to have so much
coal purchased and delivered at a certain point-Philadelphia, for
instance-for shipping.
Question. Who is the agent at Reading?
Answer. Mr. Hunter.
Question. Who was the previous agent?
Answer. A gentleman who lived there-a Mr. Tyson.
Question. What connexion has Mr. Beach with furnishing this coal?
Answer. I do not know that he has any connexion with it, more
than the coal agent appears to purchase of him as other coal agents
purchase of dealers.
Questioni. Does he not sell to this coal agent all the coal that he
purchases?
Answer. I think that many of the bills are in his name.
Question. Are not all?
Answer. I do not know that.  I think that other parties sell to
him.
Question. Have you not had formal complaints made to you by coal
agents in Philadelphia that all the coal is supplied by Mr. Beach?
Answer. No, sir; not that I know of.  No such complaints have
been made to the bureau.
Question. Do you know any of the firms whose names are attached
to this paper?
PHILADELPHIA, January 21, 1859.
SIR: The undersigned, regularly engaged in the mining and selling
coal, beg leave to represent to your committee that immediately after
the accession of Mr. Toucey to the Navy Department he directed
that all the anthracite coal for the navy should be procured in this
city, and that, although the regulation has been carried out, yet it
has all been purchased from one firm. That, by so doing, all competition in supplies of coal has been cut off, to the injury of the department, who have now no means of knowing the market value.
We invite inquiry into this matter, and beg that your committee will




COAL AGENCY.                          5
recommend to Congress that they enact a law that coal, like other
supplies, shall be advertised for in due form.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
ROMMELL, POTTS & CO.
DAVIS, PE  RSON & CO.
NOBLE, HAMMACK & CALDWELL.
NEVIN, SAWYER & CO.
C. A. PACKER & CO.
LEWIS RUTRAMEL.
VAN DUSEN, NORTON & CO.
CAIN, HACKER & COOK.
HARRY CONRAD,
President of Buck Mountain Coal Co.
BLAKISTON & COX.
ANDENNIA & CO.
CHARLES MILLER & CO.
HAYES & GODSHALL.
BAUM, OGLE & CO.
REPPLIER & BRO.
W. STURTEVANT & CO.
JAMES COX,
President of Lehigh Coal and Navigation Co.
JONES & COLE.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman of Committee of Congress
for Investigating Naval Contracts, &dc.
Answer. No, sir; I do not know any of them.
Question. Then none of these gentlemen, so far as you know, have
furnished coal to the department?
Answer. No, sir; I do not recognize their names?
Question. What is the name of Mr. Beach?
Answer. It is not Mr. Beach; the company is Tyler, Stone & Co.
I think Mr. Beach is one of the firm.
Question. Are you sure that he is one of the firm?
Answer. No, sir; except that I have seen his name on letters.
Question. What is the amount of coal furnished by him at Philadelphia?
Answer. Nearly all that is used by the bureau in which I am; which
is nearly all anthracite.
Question. Do you not also use bituminous coal?
Answer. We use a small quantity of bituminous coal.
Question. What relation does Mr. Beach bear to the Secretary of
the Navy?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Have you seen Mr. Beach?
Answer. Yes, sir; off and on.
Question. Is he not said to be a relation of the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. He is said to be?




6                        COAL AGENCY.
Question. Is he recognized by the Secretary as a nephew?
Answer. I have understood that he is a relation, but I do not know
that he is.
Question. Do you know what he gets for purchasing this coal?
Answer. He gets five per cent.
Question. Who gets it?
Answer. The coal agent.
Question. Do you know anything about the arrangements between
the coal agent and Mr. Beach?
Answer., I do not.
Question. Do you know any reason why Mr. Beach was not appointed
coal agent directly.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How old a man is this Mr. Beach?
Answer. I should think he was about 30; quite a young man.
Question. Is he a married man?
Answer. I think he is.
Question. How long has he resided in Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did you know him before March, 1857?
Answer. No, sir; I never saw him until his connexion with this
coal business.
Question. How long previous to March, 1857, have you been in
your bureau?
Answer. I have been there since 1854.
Question. Who furnished coal before that time?
Answer. Various parties, coal dealers in Philadelphia.
Question. Name some of them?
Answer. Repplier furnished some, I think; I have seen bills in his
name.
Question. Up to March, 1857, was not the coal purchased by contract from different parties?
Answer. No, sir, I think not.  I have never known any other way,
except by orders from the coal agent.
Question. Do you know whether he advertised for bids prior to the
last year or two?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. What restraint is there upon the coal agent as to price?
Answer. None, but that one of the bureau shall be satisfied that it
is a fair market price?
Question. Are they instructed by the bureau to furnish the best
quality for a fair market price?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were there any other instructions to tie agent but those
you have named?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Has he any bond to the bureau?
Answer. I think he has with the Navy Department.  I do not
know.




COAL AGENCY.                           7
Question. What is his compensation?
Answer. A commission of five per cent. upon the cost of the coal,
and five per cent. upon the freight to Pensacola, Boston, or any where
within the United States.
Question. Has any complaint been made to you that this per centage is divided, or arranged or compounded, directly or indirectly,
between the agent and the contractor?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have no such complaints been made?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What is the aggregate amount of coal purchased by this
agent in Reading.
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question. As near as you can get to it?
Answer. I do not think I could say from recollection.  It would be
very easy for me to ascertain the amount and to furnish it.
Question. You will please furnish this committee with the precise
amount of coal purchased by the agent in Reading?
Answer. [See Appendix "A" to this deposition.]
Question. What is the amount of per centage to this agent? What
does he get in the course of a year?
Answer. I think that last year it was as much as $7,000 or $8,000.
Question. Not more than that?
Answer. I think not; that is the amount of the bills I have approved.
Question. How can it be that his compensation does not exceed
$7,000 or $8,000, when he gets five per cent. upon the cost of the
coal, and your bureau have estimated that your bureau will need
$800,000 and over for coal during the next fiscal year?
Answer. The greater amount of this estimate is for freight on this
coal.  For example, in sending coal to China we pay $10, $11, and
$12 per ton freight. Upon that the coal agent gets no commission.
Question. Then in this cost of $15 a ton which you stated you estimated for the coal you estimate all the freight?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who fixes the rate of compensation of this coal agent?
Answer. The department.
Question. Is there any law authorizing the Secretary of the Navy
to appoint these coal agents?
Answer. I think there is a law authorizing him to purchase coal in
open market, and I suppose that would carry with it the means of
executing that law. I am pretty sure there is a law authorizing the
purchase of coal by the Secretary of the Navy, the mode and manner
of which is left to him.
Question. Do you know any law or provision of law specially authorizing the appointment of coal agents?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Is there any mode pointed out by law by which the coal
shall be purchased? Does the law limit it to open purchase?
Answer. I do not know that it is.




8                        COAL AGENCY,
Question. How long has this mode been continued?
Answer. It was practiced in the department before I went there.
Question. Who fixes this rate of compensation?
Answer. It has been so since I have been there.
Question. Does the amount of coal used under the Navy Department increase continually?
Answer. Yes, sir; every year as the steam navy increases, the
amount of coal required also increases.
Question. Do you know what this coal costs the government at the
coal yard in Philadelphia?
Answer. I think the coal is charged to us at $3 85 per ton.
Question. Is this coal delivered by Mr. Beach directly to the government?
Answer. It is delivered, in the name of the coal agent, to the government, and the coal agent forwards to us the bill.
Question. Does the coal agent live in Philadelphia?
Answer. I presume he lives in Reading.
Question. How is this coal inspected?
Answer. By the coal agent.
Question. Is there any inspection except by the coal agent?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Has he an office in Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not know; we address him at Reading.
Question. How far is Reading from Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not know; it may be 100 miles; it is a day's journey.
Question. Does Mr. Beach quarry this coal himself, or does he
buy it?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Do you know where he gets it?
Answer. I do not know, except that he is a coal dealer.
Question. Do you know any of this firm, Tyler, Stone & Co., of
which Mr. Beach is a member?
Answer. No, sir. Upon one occasion, while passing through Philadelphia, I stopped at Mr. Tyler's office to see Mr. Tyler. We were
shipping some coal from Baltimore for the Paraguay expedition, and
I stopped there to see if it had gone on.
Question. Were your business transactions all with Mr. Beach?
Answer. No, sir; with the coal agent.
Question. Was not Mr. Beach at the department frequently?
Answer. Yes, sir; he came in there, but I had no official communication with him.
Question. When was this coal agent appointed?
Answer. I do not know; nine months ago, probably.
Question. Upon whose recommendation?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. When was Mr. Beach employed by the coal agent?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Do you know what contract there is between Mr. Beach
and the coal agent?




COAL AGENCY.                          9
Answer. I do not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How does the price of coal under Mr. Toucey's administration compare with the price of it under the former administration?
Answer. I do not remember what our previous bills were, but I
can easily ascertain it. Our present bills are $3 85 the long ton.
Question. Then you do not remember what it was previously?
Answer. No, sir; so many bills pass through my bureau that I
cannot keep them all in my mind.
Question. Whenever the law authorizes articles to be purchased
in open market, what is the plan of the department?  I mean, what
is the instrumentality they use for the purchase of articles that are
purchased in open market?
Answer. The commandant of the yard makes a requisition upon
the navy agent.
Question. That is in regard to articles needed in the navy yard.
Is an agent necessary whenever an article is to be purchased in open
market?  You speak of a law authorizing the Secretary of the Navy
to purchase coal in open market. Is it necessary to have an agent to
do that?
Answer. I should think an agent could do it better than it could
be done without one.
Question. Do you purchase American water-rotted hemp in open
market?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you a hemp agent?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. For what other articles do you have agents?
Answer. There is nothing in my bureau that I have to purchase
but hemp and coal for which there is an agent.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. When you have to lay in a large amount of articles, such
as coal and hemp, is it usual to have an agent appointed?
Answer. Yes, sir, for hemp and coal it is.
Question. How long has this been the practice in the department?
Answer. It was so in 1854, when I went there.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How many coal agents are there?
Answer. There are two of them.
Question. You have mentioned Mr. Hunter, of Reading; where is
the other one?
Answer. In Baltimore.
Question. What is his name?
Answer. Mr. Polk.
Question. Does not a compensation of five per cent. on the price
of the coal make it to the interest of the coal agent to put the price
as high as he can?
Answer. Not if he is an honest and upright man.




10                        COAL AGENCY.
Question. What check is there upon it?
Answer. Nothing, except that we can ascertain what the market
price is?
Question. Do you inspect the bills when they come?
Answer. They all come to me.
Question. Suppose that you find a bill that you consider too high?
Answer. I would stop it, and refer it to the Secretary of the Navy.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you ever stop any bills of this kind?
Answer. No, sir; I never stopped any coal bills. So far as I could
judge, $3 85 a ton seemed to me to be a pretty fair price.
Question. You will please furnish a statement of the amount of coal
purchased by your bureau since the 4th of March, 1857; the name of
the agent purchasing it; when, where, and from whom purchased by
the agent; the per centage and compensation allowed the agent; the
cost of the coal at the place where delivered to the government, and
the aggregate cost for each year when consumed by the government.
Answer. [See Appendix "A" to this deposition.]
Question. How is this coal transported to the place of consumption?
Answer. For the domestic ports the coal agent charters vessels to
take it.
Question. You mean by that the coal used within our own limits?
Answer. Yes, sir; it is housed in the navy yard ready to be used
on board ships.  We generally have a thousand tons at each yard
when it would be likely to be called for.
Question. Then for the purpose of carrying this coal to these yards
the coal agent charters the vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you any restraints upon his charter contracts for
carrying this coal?
Answer. No, sir; we have to take his certificate.
Question. What is the proportion of coal used within the jurisdiction of the United States and that used beyond it?
Answer. The table will show.
Question. Who charters the vessel when the coal is to be carried
abroad to be consumed?
Answer. I do that.
Question. How?
Answer. I ascertain from merchants the rates of freight. I write
on to Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, or wherever we can get
the vessels, and get the best terms we can get them upon. Upon
those charters the coal agent has no commission.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I would ask whether, in the purchase of coal, in any case,
more than the market price has been paid?
Answer. I think all the coal has been at $3 85 per ton that I have
seen bills for, and that did not strike me as being over the market
price.
Question. You consider the price reasonable?




COAL AGENCY.                         1
Answer. I thought so; it seemed to be so to the best of my judg
ment.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you take any steps to ascertain the market price of
coal?
Answer. Only from noticing it in the newspapers.  I know, for
example, what coal costs here which I get for my own use.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you consider it necessary to have any further check
in the purchase of coal than you have already in your department?  Do you think there are enough checks upon abuses?
Answer. I think there are enough at present.
Question. Would you correct the arrangement in any way by which
you would procure coal? I ask you as an expert in the matter.
Answer. I think, as to the price, we have the power to correct it
now.
Question. Then you would'make no alterations?
Answer. No, sir; not in that.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What power have you over abuses that might be committed by this coal agent as regarding these charter matters?
Answer. If it was something that was prominent and striking, I
would stop his bill immediately; it would not be paid, like any other
bill that would come to us.
By the Chairman:
Question. I would call your attention to the following provision of
the act of Congress of March 3, 1843:
"'All provisions and clothing, hemp, and other materials, of every
name and nature, for the use of the navy, and the transportation
thereof, when time will permit, shall hereafter be furnished by contract by the lowest bidder, as follows," &c.
Why is not that provision observed in regard to coal?
Answer. I think there is a special law in relation to that, as well
as to hemp.
Question. Under date of September 28, 1850, there is a provision
of law, as follows:
"The Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed, in making contracts and purchases of articles for naval purposes, to give the preference, all other things (including price and quality) being equal, to
those articles of the growth, production, and manufacture of the
United States; and in the article of fuel for the navy, or naval stations and yards, the Secretary of the Navy shall have power to discriminate and purchase, in such manner as he may deem proper, that
kind of fuel which is best adapted to the purpose for which it is to
be used."
Is that the law to which you refer?
Answer. Yes, sir, I think it is.
Question. Where do you get your live-oak?
Answer. That is obtained on contract.




12                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Who is the contractor for the delivery of live-oak?
Answer. The present contractor is Mr. Swift.
Question. Of what place?
Answer. I think of New Bedford; we address him there.
Question. Was that arrangement made with him by open contract
or by public advertisement?
Answer. By public advertisement.
Question. You are sure of that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When was it that the contract was given to Mr. Swift?
Answer. There was one contract under the advertisement in 1857
and another under the advertisement of 1858.  I do not remember
the exact dates.  The contractor who made the lowest bid failed to
comply with his bid, and then the live-oak was contracted to Mr.
Swift.
Question. Was there a new advertisement then?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How was it let to Mr. Swift?
Answer. At the rate proposed by the lowest bidder, who failed to
comply with the contract.
Question. Are the papers in relation to the live-oak contracts
published in any document?
Answer. They are reported in the report from the Navy Department up to June, 1858.
Question. What has been the amount of the disbursements during
the last fiscal year for live-oak?
Answer. I cannot give you the amount, for the contract is not yet
completed.
Question. Please prepare a statement of the amount of live-oak
furnished since the 4th of March, 1857.
Answer. [See Appendix "B" to this deposition.]
Question. Under what head of appropriations is live-oak included?
Answer. Increase and repairs.
Question. What was the amount of the appropriation of last year
in one item for increase and repairs?
Answer. I cannot remember; I suppose it may be found in the
printed papers.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What do you mean by "increase" in that connexion?
Answer. It is a term that Congress has adopted and directed to be
used.
Question. It does not authorize you to increase the number of
vessels?
Answer. No, sir; it is merely a term used. It includes armaments
also, with which I have nothing to do.
Question. Is there any document in your bureau showing the
details of these expenditures?
Answer. No, sir; but this committee have called for a list of the
ships repaired and the amount of work done, and we are preparing
that now.




COAL AGENCY.                        13
Question. Is there any document showing the details of the expenditures?
Answer. No, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. What other heads of expenditure are contained under
this item of increase and repairs?
Answer. None; this appropriation is for maintaining and keeping
up the vessels afloat.
Question. Are you an officer of the navy?
Answer. No, sir; I am a ship builder by profession, and employed
as such.
Question. Can you tell whether the vessels of the United States
built ten years ago are suitable for modern service of the navy?
Answer. Yes, sir; we have many vessels built ten years ago that
are now in service.
Question. How many of them?
Answer. Nearly all our sailing frigates and a number of our sailing
sloops-of-war. Some of our ships are much older than that.
Question. Does any document show when each vessel was built?
Answer. The Navy Register gives the date of the construction of
the vessels.
Question. How many master workmen are there in the Brooklyn
navy yard under the charge of the Bureau of Repairs, Increase, &c.?
Answer. I have nothing to do with that.
Question. In the repair of the vessels there do you not have the
control of the workmen engaged upon them?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Where are the vessels of the government repaired?
Answer. In the navy yards.
Question. Have you any supervision over the men engaged there?
Answer. No, sir; my directions go to the commodore, who commands them, and the naval constructor, who carries them out. My
instructions are all technical and mechanical.
Question. Does the naval constructor expend the money for that
purpose?
Answer. It is expended under the orders of the commodore. We
estimate for the money in our appropriation with which to pay it.
Question. Who disburses this money?
Answer. The purser, on the regular pay-roll.
Question. Has the navy agent anything to do with it?
Answer. Nothing.
Question. Who disburses the money for the coal and the live-oak?
Answer. All those bills are paid by the navy agent.
Question. Can you state the aggregate of the money paid by the
navy agents in the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir, so far as they have drawn upon this bureau.
Question. Does the navy agent disburse for different bureaus?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Does not the whole of these two heads of appropriation




14                       COAL AGENCY.
for the navy yard, for construction and for repairs, pass through the
hands of the navy agent?
Answer. All bills are paid by him, except bills for labor.
Question. Who pays the bills for labor?
Answer. The purser, who draws the money from the department.
Question. Does the purser in each yard pay the men at work in
the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; at least it was so when I was in a navy yard,
and I was there for many years.
Question. The navy agents, then, pay for everything, except for
daily labor?
Answer. Yes, sir; the pay-rolls for labor are filed in the Treasury
Department, and they constitute the vouchers for the purser.
Question. Why cannot the navy agent purchase coal as well as
other materials?
Answer. I suppose he could.
Question. Is there anything, except the direction of the Secretary
of the Navy, to prevent him from doing it?
Answer. There was one period when the navy agent did purchase
the coal, but that practice was abandoned. I do not know why.
Question. Do you know any law changing the mode of purchasing,
or requiring the special agent to pay for coal, or hemp, except the
construction you place upon that law of 1850?
Answer. No, sir; that is all.
Question. What is the amount of hemp supplied for the navy of
the United States?
Answer. I think we use about 800 tons.
Question. What is the cost of hemp?
Answer. American hemp costs us $280, $290, and $300 a ton.
Question. Who purchases the hemp?
Answer. It is purchased in open market in Boston, except the
American hemp, which is purchased by a special agent.
Question. Who is this special agent?
Answer. Mr. Sanders.
Question. Where does he reside?
Answer. In Lexington, Kentucky.
Question. By whom is he appointed?
Answer. By the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. What is his compensation?
Answer. A thousand dollars a year.
Question. Do you know the reason why a different mode of compensation was adopted for the coal agent?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Who is the agent at Boston who purchases the foreign
hemp?
Answer. It is purchased there by the commandant of the yard,
under the direction of the bureau.
Question. Who pays the bills?
Answer. The navy agent.




COAL AGENCY.                        15
Question. Is it purchased in the same manner as other materials for
the navy yard are purchased?
Answer. Yes, sir, by open purchase.
Question. Do you make any discrimination in favor of domestic
hemp?
Answer. We are paying a higher price, although by law, I think,
it is required to be the same. However, it really costs us more.
Question. Who fixes the price?
Answer. It is graduated by the price for Russian hemp, and that
varies.
Question. Is there any limitation upon the price to be paid by the
agent at Lexington?
Answer. Yes, sir; he is limited in the price he is to pay for the
hemp he purchases.
Question. What proportion of this appropriation under this head
is paid out for labor, and what proportion for repairs, &c.?
Answer. I cannot say; about one-half of it, I should think. Generally, in the repairs of ships, the labor approximates the cost of the
materials.
Question. Is there any other article than live-oak purchased under
your bureau by contract?
Answer. All articles that we can enumerate we purchase by contract.
Question. What proportion is that?
Answer. I cannot say. We try to contract for all we can. There
are some things that we cannot embody in a schedule.
Question. How are they purchased?
Answer. In open market.
Question. By whom?
Answer. The navy agent.
Question. Have any complaints been filed in your department
against the navy agents for giving too high prices, or for not allowing
a fair competition?
Answer. I do not think I have any such complaints on our records.
Question. Have any complaints been made against the navy agent
of New York?
Answer. No, sir, not by individuals.
Question. By anybody?
Answer. I think not. I do not recollect of any such complaints.
I sometimes stop bills myself for examination.
Question. What is usually done in such cases?
Answer. If they are rated too high we make them alter the bills.
Question. Have they ever altered a bill?
Answer. I think they have.
Question. What ones?
Answer. I cannot call to mind any particular ones; but I have that
impression.
Question. Did you send these bills back to the navy agent?
Answer. I sent them back to the navy agent, or to the commandant
of the yard, to know why such a price was paid. Sometimes they
can give a fair explanation of it.




16                         COAL AGENCY.
Question. Were there cases where the market price was lower than
that paid?
Answer. I think so..Question. And where the bill was altered to that lower price?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who made the negotiation upon the part of the government to get the price lowered?
Answer. I suppose that transaction would be between the navy
agent and the party from whom he purchased the articles.
Question. How frequently would such cases occur?
Answer. I think they were not of frequent occurrence.
Question. In what navy yards have these cases occurred?
Answer. In New York and, I think, in Philadelphia.
FEBRUARY 5, 1859.
JOHN LENTHALL recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. I wish to have you furnish information in response to
the following interrogatories:
Who was the first agent appointed by the Navy Department for
the purchase of coal; when and by whom was he appointed; and
what was the rate and amount of his compensation?
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
What is the name or what are the names of agents since that time,
and their yearly compensation for each fiscal year?
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
When was the rate and mode of compensation fixed, and what
regulations prescribe the duties of the agent?
[See the Appendix to this deposition.]
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You will also please state whether there has been any
change since the system of coal agents was established under the law
of 1850.
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You will also furnish information as to whether there
have been any changes made in the manner of supplying coal to
vessels upon foreign stations; the character of the coal required there,
and all other information that relates to that subject.
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
The witness subsequently presented the following questions and
answers, embraced in the interrogatories of to-day, (February 5:)
Question. Who was the first coal agent?
Answer. The records of the Bureau of Construction show that Mr.
Springer and Mr. Jameson were the first coal agents.
Question. When and by whom appointed?
Answer. Mr. Graham, the Secretary of the Navy, appointed Mr.
Springer, January 15, 1851, and Mr. Jameson was appointed January
30, 1851.  On the 3d of April, 1852, Mr. Graham, the Secretary of




COAL AGENCY                          17
the Navy, appointed Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall agents for the
furnishing of coal for the use of the United States squadron in the
East India and China seas and Pacific ocean.
Question. What kind of compensation?
Answer. Mr. Springer and Mr, Jameson were to receive a commission of five per centum on the amount of all purchases made by them,
to cover all expenses of selecting, purchasing, and shipping the coal.
Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall were to receive a commission of ten
per centum upon the given amount of the purchase money, cost of
transportation incurred, and unavoidable expenses, deducting therefrom the commission allowed the agents of the department for supplying coal within the United States.  On the 11th August, 1853,
the Navy Department entered into a new agreement with Messrs.
Howland & Aspinwall, by which they were to receive a commission
of six per centum on the cost of the coal and the freight; by this
agreement they were to give a bond to the amount of one hundred
thousand dollars.
Question. Name or names of agents since?
Answer. By a letter from the department of July 29, 1853, and of
October 3, 1853, the services of Mr. Springer and Mr. Jameson were
dispensed with, and the navy agents at Philadelphia, Baltimore, and
Washington, were directed to purchase the coal. By letters of
May 22 and July 3, 1854, Mr. Tyson and Mr. Polk were appointed
coal agents; and by a letter of May 22, 1858, Mr. Hunter, the present
agent for the purchase of anthracite coal, was appointed to succeed
Mr. Tyson.
Question. The yearly compensation for each fiscal year?
Answer. The statement herewith handed in shows the amount of
commissions to coal agent for each fiscal year.
Question. When was the ratio of compensation fixed?
Answer. It was fixed in the letters of appointmentherewith handed in.
Question. Has it been altered, and what regulation of the Navy
Department, if any, prescribes his duty?
Answer. Except with regard to the agreement with Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, the rates have not been altered. Their duties are
prescribed in the letters of appointment.
Question. Has any change been made since the system of coal
agents was established in 1850?
Answer. The agents for the shipment of coal to foreign ports have
been discontinued, also the purchase of coal by the navy agents, and
the first system of agents has been returned to.
Question. Has any change been made in the manner of shipping
coal to foreign stations and the character of the coal required there?
Answer. The coal to foreign stations was shipped by Howland &
Aspinwall, who received a commission on the freight, by the vessels for
the transportion of coal to foreign stations, are now taken by the department, and no commission is paid on the freight, but only on the
hundred weight of coal purchased by the coal agents.  The coal agent
for the purchase of anthracite coal has claimed commission on these
2A




18                       COAL AGENCY.
foreign freights, but it was not allowed by the department. The coal
for steamers' use, both at home and abroad, should be of the very best
quality, and free from dirt and impurities-the storage in the steamer
being a matter of great importance, besides the better results obtained.
The freight coal is generally of an inferior quality.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
JOHN LENTHALL recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How  far does your position as chief of the Bureau
of Construction connect you with the purchase of coal?
Answer. I give orders for its purchase and provide for the payment
of the bills when rendered by the coal agent.
Question. For what particular department of the navy do you
superintend the purchases?
Answer. For the ships afloat only.
Question. State the price of coal during the time you have been
connected with the department?
Answer. [See table in the Appendix to this deposition.]
Question. What is the cause of the great fluctuation in the price?
Answer. In some years we made our purchases in New York, where
the rates were higher than at Philadelphia, and sometimes abroad.
There has also been a variation in the market price.
Question. Can you state how the coal turned out with regard to
price and quality while the coal agency was suspended, and the purchases were made by the navy agents.
Answer. My best recollection is that complaints were made of it.
Some was delivered at the Philadelphia yard which was much complained of.
Question. Has any change been made in your system of supplying
coal upon foreign stations within the last two or three years?
Answer. None, excepting that the supplies are obtained by the
department, and that no commission is paid.
Question. How long did Howland & Aspinwall send out coal?
Answer. About three years.
Question. Do you not send out more coal than you formerly did?
Do you not more frequently buy your coal at the foreign stations?
Answer. We do, sir.
Question. What has been the result of this change in the plan of
purchase of the coal at foreign stations?
Answer. The government saves all the expense of commissions.
Question. State the price of coal at foreign stations under the forner system and under the present system?
Answer. [See tabular statement in the Appendix to this deposition.]
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What is the propriety of procuring the coal here for
foreign stations; can it be done as economically, or can we get a better
material than we could obtain at foreign points?
Answer. At foreign stations we have to buy coal from merchants




COAL AGENCY.                         19
and other persons who have shipped it there for sale, and we must
buy such as the market affords.  We can have no assurance that we
can obtain the best coal.  Our anthracite is a better article than we
can buy elsewhere; and if we can continue to obtain that in good
quality, I think it will be best to send it to our foreign stations as we
have done.
Question. What are the advantages of the anthracite over the bituminous coal?
AnsWer. It occupies less space, is less liable to spontaneous combustion, wastes less in the handling, and is more cleanly and will
better bear exposure to the weather.
Question. What is the advantage of having a good article of coal
over an inferior article, with reference to economy of space?
Answer. It is a great point in a ship to economize room; and one
of the greatest difficulties we have in making a steamship efficient is
the want of room.  Any improvement in machinery, boilers, or fuel,
which will give us more room is very desirable.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you a judge of steam machinery?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think I am.  It is not in the line of my
profession, strictly.
Question. Were you appointed by the Secretary of the Navy and
Mr. Archbold to give an opinion as to the award to be made to the
competing bidders of the Lancaster?
Answer. I was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy with Mr.
Archbold to examine certain reports made by the engineers.
Question. In order to make a recommendation?
Answer. Yes, sir; to make a recommendation of the award which
would be most advantageous to the government to make.
Question. How were you able, as chief of the Bureau of Construction, to understand these reports of the engineers upon machinery,
and to make recommendations in relation to them?
Answer. I could judge in respect to the weights, for example; for
I should judge that the smallest weight would be best for the ship.
Then as to the price, I should judge that the lowest price was preferable. These gentlemen wrote out their opinions, and I could take
them as any other non-professional man could take them, with merely
a general knowledge of the matter.
Question. Do you remember your opinion in that case?
Answer. I think it was in favor of the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Please to furnish the order that the new sloops should be
launched by the meeting of the present Congress?
Answer. [See appendix to this deposition.]
Question. Please to furnish a list of the work done at the navy yards
at New York and Philadelphia in the summer and fall of 1858?
Answer. [See appendix to this deposition.]
Question. Is not the number of men employed in the different navy
yards a matter somewhat under your control?
Answer. No, sir; I have no control over the number of men, their
wages, or anything in relation to that.




20                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. While engaged in building vessels, does not that subject
belong to the Bureau of Construction?
Answer. I draw the money from which the men are paid, but I
have no direct connexion with the men. That lays with the Bureau
of Docks and Yards.
Question. Are you able to say that it would not be more to the interest of the government to have a smaller number of men employed?
Answer. No, sir; for I have no specific knowledge as to the actual
number employed. It is a matter of judgment to a great degree, depending upon the opinion of the person having charge of the work.
Question. What is your knowledge of the different systems of shipbuilding under different governments? Are you acquainted with the
French and English systems?
Answer. I have been a good deal in their dock yards, but I was
then a young man seeking mechanical and scientific information, and
professional knowledge connected with the line of my business rather
than information with regard to their manner of conducting the yards.
Question. Are you able to state wherein their systems differ from
ours? Please to state any important particulars of difference.
Answer. I think we approximate more nearly to the English system
ia our employment of civil officers. In France the organization is more
military; men educated in the Polytechnic School go into the docky.ards to be instructed as ship builders, and they correspond with the
m'avna construction in our navy yards.
Question. How many yards have they in England?
Answer. Seven; at Pembroke, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Chatham,
Woolwich, and Deptford.
Question. Have they a smaller number of building yards in proportion to their navy than we have?
Answer. Yes, sir; much smaller.
Question. Are their yards larger or smaller than ours?
Answer. I think they are generally larger.
Question. What iis the comparative expense of building a steam
vessel in that country and in this?
Answer. I think it is:much greater here.
Question. To what would you attribute that greater cost?
Answer. To the higher price of labor and of some of our material.
Question. Do not the men employed in their yards work more faithfuRy and do more work than they do here?
Aimswer. I do not think they do.  I see complaints in the English
pap.er that they did not work:so well there as individuals working
out (of the yard.
Quaestion. How does the system of discipline and drill compare with
oser.   do not            ey hae any for mechanics in England.
A&n~swer. I do not think they have any for mechanics in England.
The mechanics in France are under the military system, liable to a
aind,of conscription.
Queston. Do you mean to say that a mechanic in the English yard
eaan go AoB upon his own business?




COAL AGENCY.                        21
Answer. He is not compelled to work for the government as in
France.
Question. If he does not work is he not turned out?
Answer. I presume so, sir.
Question. What is their system of management with a view to have
good work in the yards?
Answer. When a man has served a certain length of time he is
allowed to retire on a pension, or superanuation. This is a great inducement to the men and master workmen to endeavor to give satisfaction. Their employment is constant, depending on their conduct.
Question. Does your experience enable you to suggest any plan of
reform by which we could have our building and repairs of vessels
executed at much less cost than at present?
Answer. The economy of this work depends in a great measure
upon the honesty, the uprightness, and the ability of the men employed to superintend and to direct it. I do not see how we can in
any other way secure that.  A greater degree of individual responsibility in the different branches would tend to this result.
Question. Do you know whether the contract system  is employed
in England?
Answer. They never build the ships for their navy by contract in
England, except in time of war, when very much pressed; and they
make great complaints of the ships which have been built for them
by contract, as I learn from their journals upon ship building.  In
the French navy, where they have tried the contract system, they
have made the same complaints.
Question. Can you state how the contract system works in this
country?
Answer. Several ships have been built that have not turned out
very well. There was a vessel built by contract in Baltimore, a few
years since. It was a very inferior vessel, and soon condemned.
There is a ship now just finished by contract. I do not know how
that will turn out.
Question. Who built that?
Answer. Mr. Westervelt, of New York.
Question. In what respect is the contract system liable to put bad
work upon the government?
Answer. It is the direct interest of the contractor to make as much
money as he can upon the ship; so that he or his men would be
tempted not to use the best workmanship or materials. That is the
complaint made in England and France.
Question. Can the contractor use bad materials upon the vessel
without it being discovered?
Answer. Yes, sir. There are so many places where it can be
covered up that it would be almost impossible to prevent it if the
builder were not an honest, upright man.
uestion. Of what material were the frames of these seven new
sloops last year?
Answer. A portion of white-oak and a portion of live-oak; I cannot
say how much of each.




22                        COAL AGENCY,
Question. A portion of each vessel; or were some entirely of whiteoak and others entirely of live-oak?
Answer. A portion of each vessel; the bottom timbers were of
white-oak and the upper portion of the vessel was built of live-oak,
which lasts longer.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Why were not the bottoms of the vessels built of liveoak, if it lasts longer?
Answer. The white-oak is lighter, as well as cheaper.  The lightness would affect the draught a little.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was it not important to have the most durable timber
for the bottom of the vessel?
Answer. In this case lightness was one of our objects.  We had a
number of crooked knees in the yard which it was thought could be
worked up, and I presume they were used as far as they could be.
Question. How long does the frame work of a ship probably last?
Answer. In about fifteen or sixteen years the expenses of repairing
one of our ships-of-war equals the original cost.
Question. Are most of the timbers of the vessel renewed in that
time?
Answer. The upper timbers, but not so much the bottom.
Question. When did the item in the appropriation bills for " increase
and repairs" commence in the appropriation bills; under what circumstances, and how has that money been applied?
Answer. It was directed to have that name in the naval appropriation bill for 1840, but there had been appropriations with that name
many years before; when the appropriation was first made it was
intended to accumulate live-oak timber and other materials not considered perishable-copper, for instance. We have used that live-oak
in building the last steam frigates, and it has been from that accumulation of live-oak that we have derived the timber we now have on
hand, excepting what we have received under the contracts of the
last two or three years.
Question. Has the department the right under that appropriation
to build a new vessel?
Answer. No, sir, I think not; and I do not consider it would be
done.
Question. Did they not originally intend by that to appropriate so
much money every year in order to allow the department to increase
the number of ships in the navy?
Answer. I cannot say.  I do not consider it as authority to build
new vessels. Special acts have been passed for the building of all
the new vessels that have been built.
Question. I understand it then to apply simply to the repairs
necessary to be made to vessels in existence, and to the accumulation
of material for any new vessels which may be ordered?
Answer. No, sir; it is for repairs of the vessels to maintain them
in a sea-worthy condition.  It is not for accumulating materials for




COAL AGENCY.                        23
new ships, because we must get authority and have a new appropriation for that.
Question. Was not this live-oak in the yards used in building some
of the vessels lately ordered?
Answer. It was used; but it should be replaced from the appropriation for the six frigates; it was borrowed; Congress appropriated
money enough to pay for those vessels.
By the Chairman:
Question. Please furnish a table showing the annual expenditures
of your bureau for construction and repairs, prior to its organization?
Answer. [See appendix to this deposition.]
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Have not the English, besides their navy yards, a great
many repairing stations?
Answer. No, sir; I think not.
Question. Have they not repairing stations all around the globe?
Answer. They have depots at Malta, Bermuda, &c. Their ships
are all built in England, but they can make slight repairs at any of
these points. They could not, as far as I know, rebuild a ship there.
Question. Is the Navy Department, so far as you know, conducted
and managed now upon the same system as heretofore?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think it is. The course I have pursued has
continued the same ever since I have been employed there.
Question. Have any changes been made in the management during
the present administration?
Answer. I presume not. I have pursued the same course as heretofore. A great deal is left to my judgment and discretion in professional matters, which the Secretary never interferes with, although
all those things are made known to him.
Question. When are the great bulk of the purchases made for the
navy yards? Are they made by the navy agent or by the department?
Answer. The great bulk of the purchases not under contract are
made by the navy agent. There are very few made by the bureaus.
I limit them as much as possible.
Question. Are the purchases made by your direction made through
the navy agent, or through master workmen or other persons employed
in the navy yards?
Answer. The purchases made under my direction are made directly
from the dealer, without the intervention of any other party. Sometimes I direct the navy agent to go to such a person and obtain such
an article, informing him what it is for. The commandants are sometimes directed to make purchases, and those bills are marked, the price
having been fixed; but the navy agent pays all the bills. The bureau
has no communication with the master workmen or persons employed
in the yard, except the commandant, on the subject of bills.
Question. You pursue both courses?
Answer. Yes, sir. I think I most generally order the articles from
the manufacturers. These cases are very rare.
Question. State the average cost of labor in the French, English,
and American yards?




24                        COAL AGENCY.
Answer. I have noticed in the most recent reports on the French
navy that they state the average pay of labor was 2.41 francs per
day, and the pay in the British dock yards at the same time was 5.33
francs, or more than double. The wages of a first class ship carpenter
is give in the British dock yards as 48. 6d. per day. In the United
States navy yards the carpenters' wages are $2 50 and sometimes more.
The average pay of labor for the past year has been $1 81 in the navy
yards.
JOHN LENTHALL.
Extract from a letter addressed to the several navy yards, dated
July 3, 1858, from the Bureau of Construction to the commandants of
the yards.
"It must be kept in view that the department insists on the draft
of water named.  The drawings, &c., will be forwarded by you to the
bureau as early as practicable, that the work may be commenced, as it
is the instruction from the department that the vessel be launched by
the time Congress next meets, and nothing must interfere to prevent
this."
[Memoranda.]
NEW YORK.
Work in progress in the fall of 1858 was frigates Sabine, Niagara,
new steam sloop-of-war, Harriet Lane, store-ship Supply, store-ship
Release, steamers Atalanta, Caledonia, WVesternport, Memphis, San
Jacinto, sloop St. Louis; besides work on the receiving-ship, and preparing stores for foreign stations.
PIILADELPHIIA.
Work in progress during the fall of 1858 was the Lancaster, two
steam screw sloops-of-war, frigate Congress, steamer M. W. Chapin,
for Paraguay, and the merchant steamer "City of Richmond," on all
of which a great number of men could be employed, and the season of
the year has advantages for work.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
January 15, 1851.
SIR: You are hereby appointed the agent of the Navy Department
for the purchase of anthracite coal for the use of the navy.




COAL AGENCY.                         25
You will receive a commission of five per cent. on the amount of all
purchases made by you in this capacity, which commission is to cover
all expenses of selecting, purchasing, and shipping the coal.
Your duty will be to select anthracite coal, under the direction of
this department and its bureaus, of the best quality adapted to the
purpose for which it is to be used, and to ship it to such points as may
be indicated.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILL. A. GRAHAM.
B. H. SPRINGER, Esq.,
Philadelpha, Pennsylvania.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, January 30, 1851.
SIR: You are hereby appointed the agent of the Navy Department
for the purchase of bituminous coal for the use of the navy.
You will receive a commission of five per cent. on the amount of
all purchases made by you in this capacity, which commission is to
cover all expenses of selecting, purchasing, and shipping the coal.
Your duty will be to select bituminous coal, under the direction of
this department and its bureaus, of the best quality adapted to the
purpose for which it is to be used, and to ship it to such points as may
be indicated.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILL.. A  GRAHAM.
Mr. JOHN JAMISON, Washington, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 23, 1852.
SIR: You will receive, enclosed herewith, copies of the appointment
of Howland & Aspinwall, New York, the agents of this department
for furnishing coal for the use of the United States squadron in the
East India and China seas and Pacific ocean, and of their acceptance
of the same.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILL. A. GRAHAM.
Commodore WILLIAM B. SHUBRICK,
Chief of the Bureau of Construction, cc.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, April 3, 1852.
GENTLEMEN: You are hereby appointed the agents of this department for furnishing coal for the use of the United States squadron in
the East India and China seas and Pacific ocean.
The coal is to be delivered at such times and places and in such
kinds and quantities as shall be required by the department, or the
commanders of the squadrons before mentioned. The coal of each
kind is to be of the best description and quality for the use of war




26                        COAL AGENCY.
steamers, and to be in all respects satisfactory to the officers who may
order or require the supply.
For the coal furnished and delivered you will be paid the purchase
money, cost of transportation, insurance, and unavoidable expenses
attending the same, and for your services as agents under this appointment you will be allowed and paid a commission of ten per cent.
upon the gross amount of supplies, including the above mentioned
expenses, provided that for all American coal shipped from the United
States on this account there shall be deducted from  tLe above commission of ten per cent. the commission allowed the agents of the
department for supplying coal within the United States.
Satisfactory evidence will be required that the accounts for the coal
supplied are fairly stated and that no over charge appears, and payment will be made by the navy agent in New York on the presentation of said accounts, (including the commission of ten per cent. upon
the gross amount, less the home agents commission,) duly certified as
to quality and cost by the commander of the squadron for which the
coal shall have been furnished, and approved by the chief of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment and Repair.
It is to be distinctly understood that the commission of ten per
cent., herein referred to as compensation for services, is declared and
agreed to be in full for all demands on the part of the agents holding
and accepting this appointment against the Navy Department for
the transaction in any business in relation to purchasing or supplying
coal for the squadron in the East India and China seas and Pacific
ocean.
This arrangement will extend to the delivery of three thousand
tons of coal, and may be further continued for an additional quantity
or for a definite time at the option of the parties, respectively.
Be pleased to signify your acceptance or refusal of this appointment
and the terms herein stated.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILL. A. GRAHAM.
Messrs. HOWLAND & ASPINWALL, Nezew York.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, September 8, 1853,
SIR: Transmitted herewith is a copy of a contract entered into with
Messrs. Howland & Aspinwall, under date of August 11, 1853, by the
terms of which you will be governed in the settlement of their accounts
originating after the I st instant.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
J. HART, Esq.,
Chief of Bureau Construction, Equipment, andRepair.




COAL AGENCY.                          27
NAVY DEPARTMENT, August 11, 1853.
GENTLEMEN: The act of Congress making appropriations for the
naval service, approved September 28, 1850, provides that " in the
article of fuel for the navy or naval stations and yards, the Secretary
of the Navy shall have power to discriminate and purchase, in such
manner as he may deem proper, that kind of fuel which is best adapted
to the purpose for which it is to be used."
Under this provision of law, you were, on the 3d of April, 1852,
appointed the agents for furnishing for the use of the United States
squadrons in the East India and China seas and Pacific ocean;" and
for the coal furnished and delivered by you, it was stipulated that you
should " be paid the purchase money, cost oftransportation, insurance,
and unavoidable expenses attending the same; and for your services
as agents under this appointment you will be allowed a commission
of tei. per centum upon the gross amount of supplies, including the
above mentioned expenses, provided that for all American coal shipped
from the United States on this account there shall be deducted from
the above commission of ten per centum the commission allowed to
the agents of the department for supplying coal within the United
States."
The department, in consequence of the discontinuance of the agencies
for supplying coal within the United States, and for other gcod and
sufficient reasons, deems it proper to annul and revoke, and hereby
does annul and revoke, the appointment held by you under the letter
of appointment dated April 3, 1852, from and after the 31st day of
August, 1853, and instead thereof proposes the following:
You are hereby appointed the agents of the Navy Department for
procuring and supplying coals for the use of the squadrons of the
United States in the East India and China seas and Pacific ocean,
from and after the 1st day of' September, 1853, under the following
stipulations, viz:
A supply of bituminous and anthracite coals, to be regulated by the
Navy Department, (for the present not exceeding one thousand tons
per month) is to be procured by you, shipped and delivered at your
risk at Macao or Shanghai, in China, or such other port or ports in
the East India or China seas or Pacific ocean as may be designated
by the Secretary of the Navy. Such deliveries to be made within
reach of the ships' tackles. The coal thus procured, shipped, and
delivered, must be of the best quality for war steamers, and to be in all
respects satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy at the time of shipment, or the commanding naval officer present at the port of delivery,
or in the absence of such naval officer, to be approved and certified by
the naval storekeeper at such port of delivery; and for the coals so
procured, shipped, and delivered, the Secretary of the Navy agrees to
reimburse you for the following expenditures, viz:
1st. For the cost of the coal, which is to be of the best quality,
bought for cash on the most reasonable terms, also for the cost of
lighterage or cartage;
2d. For the cost of freight and primage or transportation of the
coal; and




28                        COAL AGENCY
3d. For the detention of vessels, or demurrage, when such detention or demurrage is caused by any act of the Navy Department or its
authorized officers or agents.
And it is further agreed on the part of the said Secretary of the
Navy that for your services as agents of the Navy Department under
the appointment now proposed, (if accepted by you,) after the delivery
of any portion of the said coals, agreeably to the instructions which
may be given by the Secretary of the Navy, and upon the production
of bills duly certified and approved by the commanding naval officer
present, or the naval storekeeper, at the port of delivery, a commission of 6 (six) per cent. upon the cost of the coals delivered, including
the freight or transportation. It is expressly declared and understood
that the Secretary of the Navy is in nowise responsible for any loss,
and assumes no risk or liability for losses arising from the dangers of
the seas or from any other cause whatever attending the shipment and
transportation of said coals, and that payment in full will be made
only upon actual and bona fide deliveries made, and upon bills duly
certified and approved; but upon satisfactory evidence being furnished
to the Secretary of the Navy of any shipment of coal under this arrangement he will authorize an advance to be made to the said agents
not exceeding the first cost of the coals embraced in said shipment.
And it is further stipulated and declared that the commission of 6
(six) per cent., as herein provided for as compensation for your services, shall be in full of all risks and demands for services rendered
on the part of the agents holding and accepting this appointment in
relation to purchasing, shipping, or delivering coals for the use of the
squadrons of the United States in the East India and China seas and
the Pacific ocean. A bond accompanies this letter of appointment and
agreement, to be executed by the agent herein named with two or
more sureties, in the penalty of one hundred thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of all the conditions and stipulations of this agreement, and well and truly to pay over and refund
such sums of money as may have been advanced to them by the said
Secretary of the Navy aforesaid, in the event that they shall fail to
procure, ship, and deliver said coals as herein provided; the sufficiency
of said sureties to be approved by the judge or attorney of the United
States of the district in which said agents now reside   This arrangement to continue until revoked or annulled by the Secretary of the
Navy, after a notice of sixty days.
Be pleased to signify your acceptance or refusal of this appointment and the terms herein stated.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
Messrs. HOWLAND & ASPINWALL, New York.
NEW YORK, August 15, 1853.
We hereby agree to and accept of the propositions contained in the
foregoing letter for the supply of coals to the squadron of the United
States in the China seas or elsewhere, as we may be ordered by the




COAL AGENCY.                        29
department, our services under this agreement to commence on the 1st
day of September proximo, and to terminate as mentioned in the preceeding letter.  We understand that our compensation of six per
centum commission is to be computed on the items 1st and 2d, as
specified in the said letter, and in the event of demurrage being incurred we will pay the same, and only recover from the Navy Department the net amount paid, without charge of commission on the same.
HOWLAND & ASPINWALL.
NEW YORK, August 18, 1853.
It is also hereby further understood and agreed that the demurrage
alluded to in our within acceptance of the foregoing propositions is to
arise only in the manner stipulated. in the foregoing letter, and be
payable only when such detention of vessels or demurrage is caused
by any act of the Navy Department or its authorized officers or agents..  OWLAND & ASPINWALL.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1853.
SIR: The coal agents of this department, Messrs. Jamison and
Springer, have been notified that no further orders for the supply of
coal for naval purposes will be given to them after this date.
They are directed to complete the orders now on hand, and to render their accounts to the proper bureau for final settlement.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
SAMUEL HART, Esq.,
Chief of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment, and Repair.
Hereafter when purchases of coal under the direction of the bureau
become necessary, the department will instruct you as to the manner
in which they are to be made.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, October 3, 1853.
SIR: Be pleased to instruct the navy agent at Philadelphia to purchase
on the best terms possible, and to ship at the earliest day practicable,
500 tons anthracite coal, to be delivered at the navy yard, Portsmouth,
New Hampshire; 300 tons anthracite coal, to be delivered at the navy
yard, Boston, Massachusetts; 300 tons anthracite coal to be delivered
at the navy yard, Philadelphia.
You will instruct the navy agent at Baltimore to purchase in the
same manner 500 tons anthracite coal, to be delivered at the navy yard,
Norfolk; 300 tons anthracite coal, to be delivered at the navy yard,
Pensacola.
You will also instruct the navy agent at Washington to purchase in
the same manner 300 tons anthracite coal, to be delivered at the navy
yard at that place. Each of the above deliveries to be subject to the
test and inspection of the proper officers at the points of delivery.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
CIIEF OF BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, &C.




30                        COAL AGENCY.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, May 22, 1854.
SIR: You are hereby appointed the agent of the Navy Department
for the purchase of the anthracite coal for the use of the navy, from
time to time, as specially ordered by the department and its bureaus.
Your duty will be to select anthracite coal under the direction of
the department and its bureaus, of the best quality, adapted to the
purpose for which it is to be used, and to ship it to such points as may
be indicated.
You will receive a commission of five per cent. on the aggregate
amount of the cost of the coal, its transportation and freight, which
commission is to cover all your expenses of selecting, purchasing, and
shipping the coal.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
BENJ. TYSON, Esq.,
Washington, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, May 22, 1858.
SIR: You are hereby appointed the agent of the Navy Department
for the purchase of anthracite coal for the use of the navy from time
to time, as specially ordered by the Navy Department or its bureaus.
Your duty will be to select anthracite coal, under the direction of
the department and its bureaus, of the best quality, adapted to the
purpose for which it is to be used, and to ship it to such points as may
be indicated.
You will receive a commission of five per cent. on the aggregate
amount of the cost of the coal, its transportation, and freight engaged
by you, which commission is to cover all your expenses of selecting,
purchasing, and shipping the coal.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
CHAS. H. HUNTER, Esq.,
Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 3, 1854.
SIR: Mr. James Polk, of Baltimore, Maryland, has been appointed
agent of the department for the purchase of bituminous coal for the
use of the navy, as may be specially directed by the bureau. He
to receive a commission of five per centum on the aggregate amount
of the cost of the coal, its transportation and freight, which commission is to cover all expenses of selecting, purchasing, and shipping
the coal.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,
Chief of the Bureau of Construction, d&c., &c.




Commissions paid to the several coal agents by the Bureau of Construction, S'c., during each fiscal year, since their first appointment in 181.
Names.                  To June 3,   To         e,   To Jne 30,   To Je 30,   To June 30, To Ju ne 30, T   o Ju ne 30, T   o June 30, To   ec. 3,            Total
1851.           1852.           1853.            1854.           1855.            1856.           1857.            1858.      1858,6 months.
B. H. Springer................             115 09           292 31           74 23       $2,100 37         $214 00..............................................        2,996 00
ohn Jamison....................            234 45        1,041 36           94 24           690 17           346 67.................................................          3236 89
Benjamin Tyson....  1........................                            1,02  13       $1,244 30        e1,404 29       $5,633 78..............           9,304 50
C. H. Hunter.............................................................................................................            319  21      $5,80774            6 126  95
James Polk............................................................................               227  02           90  47         201  26.............          79  06           597  81
349 54        1,333 67        1,198 47        2,790 54         1,809 82        1,334 77         1,605 55        5,952 99         5,886 80         22,262 15
Howland & Aspinwall*...........1..........                1 78517         22,030 73       27,159 96.............................................................                50,975 86 
* This amount was paid to Messrs. Itowland & Aspinwall, who acted for that time as the special agents of the department for the procurement of coal and freighting it for the Japan 
expedition, they purchasing the coal and paying the freight bills out of their own funds, and, upon settlement with the bureau, receivi g a per centage upon the gross amount.  -
Statement of the amount of  commissions paid  to the several coal agents, for purchases under the cognizance of the Bureau of  Yards and Docks, during each fiscal year since                                 t
their first appointment in 1851.
To June 33,   To June 30,   To June 30,   To June 30,   To June 30,   To June 30,   To June 30,   To June 30,   To Dec. 31,                           Total.
lb51.           1852.           1853.            1854.           1855.            1856.           1857.            1858.      1858 6 months.
-  —..                   _            _....
John Jamison...................           $213 30         $872 35           936 05          $66 79......................................................................                   $2,088 49
B. H. Springer...................           58 21          550 08          840 90        1,020 52........................................................  2469 01
James Polk........................................................................                      $1,949 75  $1,994 22  $1,761 46  $2,434 70  $1,866 21  10,006 34
Benjamin Tyson.....................................................................                        1 363 34          687 95         1,373 72        1709 67.............             5,134 68
C. Hl. Hunter..................................................................................................................................  1645 18            1645 18
271 51        1,422 43        1,776 25         1,087 31        3,313 09        2,682 17         3,135 18        4,144 37         3,511 39         21,343 70
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.                                                                                                                                             JOS. SMITH, Chief of Bureau.




32                                   COAL AGENCY.
Abstract statement showitng coal purchased  abroad  semi-annually from
January 1, 1850, to December 31, 1857.
Dates.                     No. of tons.    Average         Total cost.
cost per ton.
1850. First half of 1850-   i —....  1, 331           $8 75           $11,634 05
Second half of 1850 -----      -- -          493           8 28             4,084 01
1851. First half of 1851-.-,- ----        -       1 1,364         7 33             9,998 00
Second half of 1851 ----- ---         -    1,938           7 06            13,693 12
1852. Firsthalf of 1852 --—...........-          1,414           7 68            10,864 25
Second half of 1852 ----      -- -         1,875           8 65            16,223 40
1853. First halfof 1853 —.-. —-..,. —-    5,354                13 61            72,878 12
Second half of 1853 —------ -                 974          7 67             7,466 69
1854. First half of 1854 — - ------               1,803          11 22            20,236 45
Second half of 1854 —--       -----        1,731          12 73            22,031 39
1855. First half of 1855 ---        --- --        1,882          11 24            21,150 76
Second half of 1855 -----------              892          11 13             9,928 23
1856. First half of 1856 ---       ------         1,210          11 98            14,495 28
Second half of 1856 —------                  648           8 21             5,320 18
1857. First half of 1857 --- -        -----          592          5 09             3,012 81
Second half of 1857 —..-     -.     1,337           5 51             7,362 11
All the coal purchased abroad is believed to be foreign or English coal, except the purchases December 13, 1854, January 5, 1856, and December 31, 1857.




uoae purclased onjoreign stations.
Dates.                  Where purchased.                     No. of tons.   Cost per ton.       Total cost.                     For what vessel.
1850.
March   2   Mediterranean                                            150             $7 40            $1,110 00   Mississippi.
April   15        Do            --                                    308             7 20             2,217 00        Do.
May    26   Gulf of Mexico --.           -115                              8 00               920 00   Saranac.
30       Do.-..             -------                  -       133             8 00             1,064 00        Do.
June    11   Mediterranean   ---- ---- -- -390                                        8 00             3,120 00   Mississippi.
17   Pacific —--     - -----          —.-           -       235            13 63             3,203 05   Massachusetts.
Aug.   20   Mediterranean. -           ------ -----                   160             8 64             1,382 40   Mississippi.
Sept.  5          Do                            -— 233                                8 17             1,903 61    Do.
6    Do. —.... —--                  -,, —..    100                      7 98               798 00    Do.
1851.
March   3   Gulf of Mexico -151                                                       8 00             1,208 00   Saranac.
15    Do —-                                          -    101                9 50               960 20    Do.
31       Do ---... -           -------        -              58~            8 00               468 00        Do.
April   30   Mediterranean.-        --—. — -----                     175             7 00             1,225 00   Mississippi.
May  10    Do  --— 358                                                                7 00             2,506 00    Do. 
22       Do...-   -....-........... —.                      267             6 80             1,845 62        Do.
June      6   Gulf of Mexico - - - -50                                                9 25               469 44   Vixen.
21   Mediterranean -.- -203                                          6 48             1,315 74   Mississippi.
July  16    Do-                   -        -.                 162             6 50             1,053 00   Do.
Aug.      7       Do. —               --       -------               511              7 00             3,577 00        Do.
Sept.   1    Do -... —       -.    304                6 50             1,976 00    Do.
22 Gulf of Mexico -.- -... —                  3 30            9 25                277 50 Vixen.
30   Mediterranean.........-.... -..                300              6 45o            1,935 50   Msisissippi.
30   Gulf of Mexico.................                      256              8 00             2,048 00   Saranac.
Oct.    11   Mediterranean.............                    226              7 00             1,652 00   Mississippi.
20       Do..............                   149             7 88             1,174 12        Do.
1852.
Feb.   10   Gulf of Mexico...........................                 12            16 00               192 00   Saranac.
10 Do..._ -                 -                -                19  15 00   283 50 Do.
23       Do......                                             25             5 00               125 00        Do.
March   4         ~X...................................             399              850              3,39150         Do.
15arch    4     )o-,.......,,,,,.                                399              8 50            3,391 50         Do.
15       Oa....-............ v........o.s.   56  7 50      420 00  Fulton.




STATE MENT-Continued'.
Date.                    When purchased.                     No. of tons.   Cost per ton.       Total cost.                     For what vessel.
1852.
April    3   Gulf of Mexico. —--                     -. --------       66            $7 50              $495 00   Saranac.
7   Mediterranean........-  -    -...... —-....       160              4 25               680 00   San Jacinto.
May    18   Gulf of Mexico......................                      941            7 00                663 25   Saranac.
27       Do —-......... —-  -.        44i           15 00                667 50       Do.
29   Mediterranean..-..-..-....  ---  --          200             7 52             1,504 00   San Jacinto.
June      4   Gulf of Mexico............ —-             175.9.          7 00             1,231 25   Saranac.
26  Mediterranean.......................                   161~            7 50             1,211 25   San Jacinto.
July    10        Do.....-.............. —.-.-.-. —  273-  8 00       2,185 00        Do.
Aug.   10         Do..-.....        30             6 00                180 00   Mississippi.
12       Do.. -—.... — —.                                  135             6 461              872 77   San Jacinto.                                           o
18       Do..,...                                         117             5 00               585 00   Mississippi.
28       Do                                                   75             6 664              499 88   San Jacinto.
28       Do........                   75             5 94               448 50        Do.
Sept.   15        Do.....                                             169-            7 10~            1,206 23        Do.
Oct.    22   Gulf of Mexico..............-. —..             20             6 50               130 00   Fulton.
Nov.    8   Brazil..-.................         128            12 23             1,566 58   Saranac.
8   Mediterranean...-...............          1791             7 33             1,316 77   San Jacinto.
19   Brazil...                                            107~            20 06             2,146 42   Saranac.
Dec.   14   Port Mahon.................... —..          95             7 50'              712 50   San Jacinto.
15   Madeira...............................           440        10 & 9 30              4, 073 75   Mississippi.
1   Mediterranean.... ~~.........         ~........        30             10 00               300 00   Fulton.
1853.
Jan.      5   Rio de Janeiro.......................                 366~             9 45             3,458 70   Saranac.
11   St. Helena. —.- -. —---.......... —....... 124          25 20             3,124 80   Mississippi.
12   Genoa...          -......            664-           6 58               436 16   San Jacinto.
27   Barbadoes —               ------       ------            431-          12 66               544 67   Saranac.
Feb.      2   Cape Town. --           --       —, —-------          145             17 50             2,537 50   Mississippi.
2       Do. —---------       ---------- -                  450            20 00             9,000 00         Do.
2       Do —--         --------------------                100             19 00             1,900 00        Do.
4   Marseilles-                                            186              6 58             1, 223 80   San Jacinto.
17       Do --------— 148                                                    6 20               918 19        Do.
22   St. Thomas. —---------                      -.-          76             9 00               684 00   Water Witch.




24   Mauritius- -----            -------------                208            24 00              4, 992 00   Mississppi.
March   7   East indies —---------------------------                    13            10 00
Do —-. —----        --------------- ---     -           563&        9 12              5,951 75   Powhatan.
II Denmarra —   -84 —---                                                     12 00              1,009 00 Water
14   Point de Galle, Ceylon  ----             --— 250                         7 50                     00 iW e  Wc.
Do —---------------------— 6-.15.13 6                                                 15 875 00   Mississippi.
31   Brazil —------—.... -... —--------—.                   109            11 19              1,220 43   Saranac.
April    6         Do. —--—. --     ~       ---------— ~-              66-           20 00              1,330 00   WaterWitch.Ea.s.Indies-..-.-. — -.. 200  36 45      7,290 00  Powhata
12 Naples- - - 133-    7 33                978 38 San Jacinto.
16   Pernambuco ---        --—... --                          90             9 06                816 08   Water Witch
28   Rio de Janeiro --- -. —----         --- --               80            18 98              1,514 40         Do.
East Indies-~                       ~ ----------—....  100             20 CO             2,000 00   Powhatan.
May       2   Alexandria --—.. —  --.-..-. —------          188,             6 58             1,240 38   San Jacinto.
6   Montevideo. ---------      -—..-.. -.....               92             35 16             3, 234 72   Water Witch
16   East Indies —-........ —----—.. —  7          27 09                189 67   Mississippi.
18   Malta-. —-..-.... —                      -—. —          187             5 67              1,060 29   San Jacinto,
26   East Indies~ ---.- -----  -      ---- -  _ —         15            25 50                382 50   Powhatan.
27   Genoa —. —.~. —--------------—......   125                9 02              1, 128 00   San Jacinto
June      4   Gibraltar ---        ------—. —         -               187              7 60             1,421 20         Do.
9 H-avan- - -80                                                              9 00                720 00 Vixen.
13   Fayal.i- ~-~~~ —-~-.-.~ —-— ~ —                         250             12 00              3,000 00   San Jacinto,
19   East Indies —------ --- -----—.                         287            11 50              3,300 50   Powhatan.20        Do.-         - --- ------—. —----                  250            17 50              4,396 00         Do.
Do. —---------—.                 ------              2            10 50
August  10   Halifax      ~-      ----------—......-                   46              5 20               239 20   Princeton,
Sept..    2        West Indies —---- ---------                          85              2 40               204 00   Fulton.
6       Do~.............. —-     -~-..~.-. —..-.             79             3 001               237 60        Do.
9 Sydney~-              ------            -..    100                 3 12                312 00 Princeton.
Nov.    8   Brazil — ~ -~ ------- ----...j-       1431             6 70               958 14   Saranac.
Dec.      9   Fayal ----. —-- -~~~ —                - -.              193            12 00              2,316 00         Do.
17   Gibraltar —---- -- —. -- - -                 --         160             8 50              1,360 00        Do.
31   St. Thomas. — ----                       --    -         167-1          11 00              1,839 75   Fulton.
1854.
Jan..14   Naples.. —--               -        -...........          221^            8 30              1,837 16   Saranac.
Feb.   23   Messina -- -----.~~~. —--                     -           1981             9 12             1,812 60         Do.
Montevideo. —~ ~~ - - -. —. — -          4            16 00                 64 00'Water Witch.,
March  11   Genoa —------ — ~ —--------             -—. —             218k           10 05              2,195 93   Saranac.
April         H. av  a —- --. —------ -------- ----                   115            10 00              1,150 00   Princeton.




STATEMENT-Continued.
Dates.                   Where purchased.                     No. of tons.  Cost per ton.         Total cost.                     For what vessel.
1854.
April    7   Gulf of Mexico.. —-                                      50            $8 00               $400 00   Fulton.
Do........ —--—.. —- -                  129            11 00              1,419 00         Do.
May       2   Naples   ---       ------—..          --------          151            12 59              1,912 04   Saranac.
Havana —             ------                    -         61             15 00                922 50   Princeton.
22   Smyrna       ----           -- -------         -          48~           15 04                729 44   Saranac.
25        Do —--   ----------- -------- -                     175            15 04              2,632 00         Do.
Gulf of Mexico - ---               ----------           153             11 00             2,013 00   Fulton.
June   23   East Indies —----------------------                          9            27 90                255 77   Misssissippi.
29   Genoa --------------------------— 239                                   12 10              2,893 01   Saranac.
July    29         Do ----------------------------—.                  223            12 03o20i          2,683 13         Do.
Sept.   27   East Indies  -------- -----------------                   230              7 99-            1,839 25   San Jacinto.
Oct.    27   Genoa.    --        ----------------              -       346              9 82             3,297 72   Saranac.
Nov.    6   East Indies --------------               ----     -        100              7 30j              730 50   San Jacinto.
9   Havana -----                                            100             10 00              1,000 00   Princeton.
16   Montevideo —--                                   -        18            11 00                198 00   Water Witch.
Dec.      2   Havana.. ——.. —...... —-----           115            10 00              1,150 00   Princeton.
13   Acapulco   ---------------           ---- ---            158            40 00              6,320 00   Susquehanna.
14   Havana                                ---— 121                          14 00              1,694 00   Princeton.
16   Brazil                                ----     -          25            10 00                250 00   Water Witch.
Do —--                                                4            14 00                  56 00   Do.
18   Genoa    ---      ----       -----           ---         136i           10 151             1,387 79   Saranac.
East Indies. —-       -—..... —------               150              9 50             1,425 00   San Jacinto.
1855.
Jan.   27   Gulf of Mexico                   ---      --------         177~           10 00              1,950 66   Fulton.
March  16   Montevideo -—.. —-... —             --------      -        90            15 00              1,350 00   Water Witch.
17   Gulf of Mexico                          ---- -           1961           12 00              2,360 00   Fulton.
April   27   Naples  ----.... ——. —---------—..             223j           14 56              3,247 00   Saranac.
29 Havana            ------                                    88            10 00                880 00 Princeton.
May       1   Mediterranean          ---- ----             -210                       10 00              2,100 00   San Jacinto.
20   East Indies                          ---— 118k                            9 00             1,063 30   John Hancock.
23   Gibraltar.........               ---           -         110              9 50             1,045 00   Saranae.
Do. —... — ---                               104             9 00                936 00        Do.




June    2  Havania            ----—.. —. —.-..                189           10 00            1,890 00  Princeton.
9  Brazil —--                                           40            15 00              600 00   Water Witch
11  Gibraltar.                                          120            10 00            1,200 00  Saranac.
July     7  Marseilles —- -                                       63           11 66              741 42       Do.
Do.           -------                           69-            9 97              694 56       Do.
28  Naples- ---------- ------                  --         82           13 32k           1,092 82       Do.
Sept.    8  Pacific                              -— 6                          20 00              120 00  John Hancock.
Do —----—. —        -----       --              4gi-         18 00               75 60       Do.
Oct.     5  Genoa                             --— 276                           8 84            2,439 84  Saranac.
8  Brazil                            --- -42                          16 00              672 00  Water Witch.
Do ---                     --          --       47           14 50               681 00       Do.
18  Naples                  -- -           -— 80                        9 21~             739 96  Saranac.
Nov.    6  Pireons                    ------------ -             146           12 92k           1,887 05       Do.
26  Constantinople,.. —-—. —---—..... —-.-             84           13 16            1,105 44       Do.
Dec.   15  Alexandria..-.-       ------       ----      -        98           11 75            1,151 50       Do.
31  Naples. ------------------               ---        109             9 68~           1,055 34       Do.
1856.
Jan.:   5  San Juan del Norte -—...             -     -          80           14 00            1,120 00   Fulton
19  Brazil —--                                          116            13 00            1,514 50  Water Witch.
MSarch   5       Do. —---                                         80           13 04            1,043 20       Do.
7  Genoa        ---- -          --------               165k          10 524           1,739 05  Saranac.
20  Brazil.......... —- -            63-           17 22           1,095 19  Water Witch. 
April  8    Do-. -                                  -             75            8 00              600 00   Do. 
18       Do —.-       ----—. ----,-           70             9 50              665 00       Do.
30       Do —----—..-.         - -.-   -                 68           10 00              680 00       Do.
May    21  Genoa- -—..... —---   -. —---—. —---                92           12 22            1,124 24  Saranac.
31  Gibraltar...-.....-.         -           180             9 70            1,746 00       Do.
June   10  Fayal    -         -      ---------        --         220           14 40            3,168 00       Do.
Oct.   19  Southampton -.-.               ----         -----     268            6 26            1,677 68  Merrimack.
Dec.    2  Lisbon ---........ —-—. —--—..       230            8 50            1,955 00       Do.
28  Cadiz -       --          -          --— 150                       11 25            1,687 50       Do.
1857.
Jan.    3  Havana,-... ---—.. — ---                            320j           5 29i           1,698 75  Wabash.
May    29  England. - - ------     ---- --          271               4 8          1,314 06  Niagara.
July    22       Do. —,.. — -- ----------                       652            4 41            2,875 32       Do.
August  1        Do -          ----------------                   55            4 84              266 20       Do.
Oct.   31        Do...-                       -- -             293            4 16            1,218 88       Do.
Nov.    4        Do. —-... —---       ---                       187            4 84              751 71       Do.
Dec.   31  Aspinwall -. —-        -—. —--—. —-------           150           15 00            2,250 00  Wabash.




38                                  COAL AGENCY.
Abstract statement showing coal  urchased and shipped to foreign stations,
semianually, from  January 1, 1852, to September 30, 1858.
Dates.                    No. of tons.  Averagecost per   Total cost.
ton, including
freight.
First half year of 1852 —-       ----- -             2,407        $13 04         $29,233 78
Second half year of 1852  _-        -            5, 91613          18 70         110,620 80
First halfyear of 1853 -....-...... 4, 936 4            16 93          83,548 18
Second half year of 1853     -                   8,279}-l           19 89        164, 745 05
First half year of 1854 -— _.-       -         12,07619            21 05         254,312 15
Second half year of 1854 --      - -               416             14 73            6,131 15
1855, none.
1856, none.
First half year of 1857 ------                   2, 7596            14 223        39,249 10
Second half year of 1857 —,         -           13, 676-            14 32        195,881 13
First half year of 1858, none.
Second halfyear of 1858,to September 30          4,474             12 70          57,834 80




Account of coalpurch7ased and shipped toforeign stations from  January 1, 1852, to September 30, 1858.
Dates.             Where purchased.              No. of tons. Cost per  Freight per           Shipped to-                    Name of vessel.
ton.       ton.
1852.   By Hlowland & Aspinwall1May 12         In United States —----          -      200        $3 50       $10 00  Shanghai                       C iterd
DoMay  12 —-— In —— D-         346-        3 60         10 00-assiterides.
25               Do. -------           -         704         3 65        10 00    Macao. —._-           - -_   Lebanon
June 11         In Cardiff, England —-...-...          550         2 07         9 53    Shanghai -- --               Whampoa.
25               Do.-.. — --.-4 —-- -         440         2 07          9 27    Macao.   Henrietta Elizabeth Susanna.
Jlly   9               Do. —-2.-5.-...-. —---          1         9   2 07       9 29   --— do -                     President Van Son.
22        In United States    -,...             116        13 55         1500  
22               Do. —----------                 570         3 70         15 00    Honolulu-                   Philomela.
22               Do. —       ----         -      604-.-      360          15 00   -— do    -----            -  Tangier.
31               Do. —----- -                    343-        3 70         14 00   —..-do ---        -     -- Jacqueline and Elise,
31               Do.                           1, 005-0      3 70         10 00    Macao..  Gertrude,
Aug. 9                 Do -—.. —----- -.              3420        3 70          900      Shh
Do. —--.-          —.        212-1        3 95         9 00   Shanghi            -         Rai.
Oct. 21                Do. —---— 116.         -                    3 70        10 00    Mao
Do.- — 2~-  3- 50 10 20001|                 3 80                         |    j Macao ----- ---- -  Talbot.
25  Do. —----------             1152 —      3 70        10 00.
25           Do. --—. —------—.            11592       3 80        14 50       r auritius  ---           Singapore.
Do. —--------------- -19-                  3 80         14:50
25        In Cardiff, England           -        550         4 92        12 91    Shanghai -          --       Security.
Nov. 20                Do.                             282         3 76        12 30   -— do —----           -       Ulidea.
1853.
Jan.  3                Do.-,-         -, —         262         2 66        14 15    Macao -~       -- --       - Vlashandel.
11               Do. -        ---        -       729         2 64        14 08   -. —do                        Aristides.
22               Do. -      ---—.               986        14 16  F't included. -.-do ------           -----  Pieter C. Hooft
28               Do... —-.- -                637        14 17  --— do --- -do -              ---         - Philip Lang.
Feb. 19                Do. —-, —---                    191         5 56        15 92    Shanghai —--           -    Cambula.
25               Do.-' —-—.                     313        14 17  F't included..do -~ --   Clara Anna Maria.
Mar. 12                Do. —-----                      100         5 59        16 00   -..do — ~        -- --- Prues Secher Adler.
19               Do.-.~ -.                       287         5 73        16 00    Hong Kong.-           -.-   New Margaret.
31        In United States —-------- ---         537-4       4 35        15 00    Shanghai -..-.~. —-. —  Bay State.
May  13         In Cardiff, England-,....-            894        19 78  F't included. — do --- -William de Erst.




ACCOUNT OF COAL-Continued.
Date.             Where purchased.            No. of tons. Cost per  Freight per          Shipped to-                    Name of vessel.
ton.       ton.
1853.   By Howland & AspinwallJuly  S         In United States —-----------        558        $4 00        14 00   ShanghaiBeverly.
Do. —------     -------       383         325         14 00
Aug.  6                Do. —--   -       ---         827~        3 80        16 00   Mauritius —----       --- Annie Bucknam.
8               Do. -.. —-------         3511       3 80        14 00   Hong Kong - ------- Sea Witch.
Sep. 24                Do -—....... —     --         654j       4 00        14 00   Macao —---   Roebuck
Do. --- -                        t 12414- 3 60        14 00                                 oe
28 jDo. —-             -662-      -                   3 2415      14 00   Shanghai — -                 Rose Standish. 
Do. --------------             662j       3 25        14 00                                                                      O
Nov. 7                 Do. —      --------           300        7 00        16 00   Singapore      ---           Fenelon.                              {>
25        In Cardiff, England     -----         484       18 41  F't included. Hong Kong ---— l. —-. Johanna.
28        In United States --------—.          7161o   4 50           18 00   -—.do —--                   Medford.
Dec.  2         In Cardiff, England. —---            377        21 06  F't included. Shanghai ---     -- -  Flora.
7        In United States   -----           1, 385-       4 50        17 00   --— do  ---          --   Ellen Foster. 
21               Do. —---        -—.-          663 8      4 50        15 00   Hong Kong ------—.    Josiah Quincey.                             O
1854. 
Jan.  1         In Cardiff, England ---       -       360k      19 38  F't included --  do -------                Loopuyt.
6               Do  ----------------           550       19 32      --- d    o     do --—. ——.-          Vander Palm.
16        In United States —--                1,212        5 05        15 00   --- do -- ------         -  Cape Cod.
Feb. 16               Do —---- -----                 484         5 05        11 00   Rio de Janeiro ------    Amelia.
17               Do —-----           ----       750        5 05        15 00   HIong Kong — -          --  Cygnet.
17               Do —-----                      200        5 05        15 00   Valparaiso —-------    Emilie.
22        Pacific Mail Steamship Company-       600       26 00  Delivered at  Panamaed of Pacfic  ail Steamship
22               Do —--------           -       400       30 00 --- do —---- Benicia. -Compy —-             P                        
22               Do -------        ---          300       26 00 -—. do —-. Acapulco           - 
3        In Cardiff, England —---------        697       19 26  F't included Hong Kong  ---         --    Johanna Marinus.
s18        n United States —---—. —---         360        4 80        11 00   Rio de Janeiro —-- -    Jorgan Beck.
Mirch.          In Cardiff, England. —.        503        15 37  F't included -— do —------                 Carin Cecelia.
liar.  9              Do --          ------          337         3 25        12 33        - do —----------        Progress.
15               Do -. —.-.   1,000              5 05        18 00   Valparaiso —---— _           George Raynes.
Apr. 13               Do. -— 600              4 50        15 00   Hong Kongo,-.                Shooting Star.




M    ^y 10             Do.-                           600         4 50        22 50    Valparaiso.    * -     -      James Edlwards.
June  9                Do-                           1,150         3 31        17 07      -do    ----                 Ben Looman.
9               Do   -"... —-----              539        20 86  F't included Hong Kong —-           ----   Naragana.
20               Do —                    --      692        29 12  --- do —-—. Honolulu —--- Mercedes.
20               Do                              741i       19 51 ---..do —---- Hong Kong —----                Soolo.
Sept. 12               Do       ---       -----        416        14 7 3   -.do  ----— do ---           ------— Nile.
1857.
June  17        New York                               6921       14 78 --— do-.., St. Helena.   Palestine.
20               Do-                             998        13 72  -- -do.....- Straits of Sunda, —---   Harry of the West.
24               Do-..         1, 068S-     14 19    - do-  --- Cape of Good Hope.... Game Cock.
July 21         Philadelphia-                          779-        4 40          6 00    Rio de Janeiro -. —   Fanny Holmes.
Aug. 22                Do.. —-                      1,100         4 25         11 00    Panama                       Morning Light.
25               Do                              612         4 25         10 00    Valparaiso ---      ------ William.
Sept. 22               Do                            2,052         4 95          5 90    Hong Kong-         _      - Norway.
Oct. 14                Do.               573         4 95          9 10    Shanghai -            --     Tartar.
21               Do -1,219                                   4 25          8 00    Callao                       William Cummings.
29               Do -- -------------             825          4 25        10 00    Cape of Good Hope — ~  Fleetwood.
Nov. 6                 Do -                          1, 523        4 25    12 00  Hong Kong ---— Orpheus.
10               Do — 814                                    4 25         12 00    Mauritius -Nestorian.
Dec.  8                Do --------— 1,786                          4 25         12 50    Singapore and Hong Kong  Flying Mist.
11               Do                            1,071         4 25         12 50    Hong Kong... -              Hippogriffe.
19               Do -          ----------    1,322           425          10 00   Panama.-_-__ —-              John Trucks.
Aug. 24                Do                              471            85       12 00    Rosario                       Pathfinder.
25               Do -750                                      3 85         8 00    St. Catharine's-             Messenger.
25               Do                              451          3 85        12 00    Rosario -------------— Bion Bradbury.
27               Do      --                      397          3 85         9 00    Pernambuco -------        - Chase.
27               Do.                  353         3 85         9 00   -.do. —            --. Marion.
Sept. 8                  o ------------------          675          3 85         7 00    Rio de Janeiro —- -          Howard.
22               Do -----— 346                                3 85        12 00    Rosario —------ ----    Frederick Lenning.
23               Do —---                         300          3 85         6 00    Barbadoes —         --       Ocean Wave.
24               Do-400                                      3 85          6 00   - — do —------------    Ocean Bride.
25              "Do ----    ----                  331         3 85         6 00   -— do —---------------- New Era.
P. S.-Inland freigdh to be added to shipments of 1858, varying from 70 cents to $1 40 per ton.




Statement of  coalpurchased by Bureau of  Construction, -'c., since the 4th of  March, 1857.
Dat.        lBy whom  purchased.                 From whom purchased.             Number of Cost of coal.    Home              Foreign       Aggregate   Commis. to            Where sent.
tons.                                                      cost.    coal agent....
1857.
April  5~3  Benjamin Tyson......... Repplier & Brother...........                     80          $320 00 [       100 80.441 84..1 04  Gosport, Va.
24          Do...............................do......................  157           65~8 00        141 30.....         807 76          38 46   Philadelphia, Pa.
27          Do............................. do..............    114           456 00         114 00.....         508 50          5~8 50   Gosport.
25          Do...............................do......................  1514.        606 00         121 20.....         783 56          38 36   Philadelphia.
29          Do...............................do......................  1814          726 00         145 20.....         914 76          43 56      Do.
May   4             Do....... do...................    78                31-2 00        93 60......4..5 88                         t0 5~8 Gosport.
4          Do........................do......................  160           640 00        1528 00..............       806 40         38 40   Philadelphia.
5          Do................                 do......................  110           440 00        132 00.........           600 60         58 60  Norfolk.
6          Do..............................do.....                              130           55~0 00       156 00..............        70780          3380        Do.
29   Purser of Niagara..............  In England..........5~.........            271         1,314 06.5,314 06.....................a131
June    6   Benjamin Tyson...........  Tyler, Stone & Co..            172           731 00        5~75 50...........    1,056 57             50 31  Boston.
July   36           Do..............................do...................     85           340 00          93 50.........          455 17         51 67   Norfolk.
22   Purser of Niagara............England..          655         5,875 32.....................,875 3...               Niagara.
24   Benjamin Tyson.....               Del. & Hudson Canal Co., N. Y.   799 4-20            3,516 48..,795                               8,487 50        175 82  Rio de Janeiro.
4,~~~ 795 20
9~5         Do...................     Tyler, Stone & Co........     105           45~0 00        115 50.....         562 27          26 77   Norfolk.
5~5         Do............................do.....................   100           400 00        110 00..............        55 50            5 50       Do.
25          Do..........epplier & Brother..           419         1,676 00        712 30...         5, 507 7I        119 42  Boston.                           q
30          Do.............     Tyler, Stone & Co.........              95           380 00        104 5O.........             508 73        05~4 5~3  Norfolk.                         tAug.   1  Purser of Niagara..........England.............            55           5~6 5~0......5~........                    66 5~0...       "11Niagara."I
17   Benjamin Tyson...............   Repplier & Brother..        236           944 00        413 00...          1,454 85         67 85   Boston.
32          Do....................     Tyler, Stone & Co.............         140           560 00         154 00                        749 70          35 70   Norfolk.
5~5~        Do...................      do....         1C            4,675 00.......      12,1          17,008 75          33 75   Panama.
Ps5         Do........... do,..          615~    2,601 00.... 6,150 00  8,851 05    130 05 Valparaiso.
5~6         Do..............................    do.....................        386         1,678 10..........................     1,679 10          83 95   Saranac.
Sept.  1~           Do...............  Repplier & Brother.......3......      30         1,353 00        495 00..............    1,940 40           92 40   Boston.
29          Do......................    Tyler, Stone & Co..        205          10157 40...........             1,593 80    ~2,559 07         507 87   Hong Kong.
5~9         Do.............     Itepplier & Brother.......             310         1,571 00        387 50.....      1,741 43          82~ 92~  Boston.
Oct.   2           Do......................    Tyler, Stone & Co.............. 40 196-5~40             174 34                                       183.05.8.............  183 00  1   71   Saranac.
2    5      Do.........................     do.....................573          2,816 35........,6154 008,593 56              141 81   Shanahai.
1           D~o............................... do......................  3 8619              5,180 75............          3,563 50    15191 79
5~1  Do~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~do                  1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~19, 752~ 00                                               5~903C-l
5~9         Do............................. do......................            85~5        3,506 25~5...........,      *,320 12    11,931 56            175I31   Cape of Good Hope.
8,~ 350 00S
31   Purser of Niagara..........England.............                               ~93        1,5~18 88............                   1,5~18 88..........."16Niagara."~
Nov.   4            Do............       England.............                     187           751 71..............751 71......,.Do.
5   Benjamin       o...............Tyn.  Repplier & Brother.............        530          943 00        402 50..............   1,415~ 77            67  7     o ton.
6          Do.............   Tyler, Stone & Co.....                            4   3         6,475~ 75.......        18,5~76 00    5~5,075~ 38      323 63  Hong Kong.
10          Do.............................. do......................           814         3,459 50............       *2,716 25    13,400 477 B716tos                           uto.
10,582 00    1
16          Do...do...115                   488 75   138 00........                     658 09    31 33 Gosport.
18          Do.............................. do..          160           689 00        1935~0..............         915 60         43 60       Do.
i8          Do............................ do.....................                 0                50 [04 CIO.784..........  5 7285'45 33                           Do.




18           Do..........................  do......................                     105            446 25           126 00..............            68600            2861          Do.
00           Do............do.......................69                                       2935             8 80..............             39485             1880         Do.
Dec.    8             Do..............................do......................    1,786                             7,59050..           *1,438..       30,29502            379 52   Singapore & Hong Kong.
11           Do............................ do......................    1,071                              4,551 75............           13,387 50    18,166 34              227 58   Hong Kong.
19           Do................................ do.1,32                                                    5,61850.....................,   59 00                              28092   Panama.
2 213,020 00    19,      42
23           Do........................... do...do..                                          624          2,402 40           75881............               3,319  6          158 06   Booklyn.
24           Do.............................do......................                           37          1,007 25           331 80..............    1,339 05                  66 95   Norfolk.
31   Purserof Wabash.............  Home Squadron...............                               150,250 00..........................    2,250 00...........    Wabash."
4,397 63
Deduct for coal short...             40 94
4,356 69
1858..                      _____   _____
Jan.   23   Benjamin Tyson...............  Tyler, Stone &  Co.............                            335           1,289 35          418 75.............    1,793 92                   85 42   Brooklyn.
28           Do.............................do......................                         264          1,016 40           330 00..............    1413 72                  67 3-3        Do.
30           Do..............................do.....                     258           1,09650           32050..............    1.49875                    7095   Gosport.
Feb.    I             Do...........................do......................                        170             722 50         212 50..981 75                         46 75         Do.
2           Do.......... do......................   136                                                  578 CO    170 00..78540                                            3740   Do.
4           Do... do...................                             226             960 50          28250..............   130515                       6215    Do.
6           Do...      do...................               193             743 05    234125..............1,03350                              4921  Brooklyn.                               0
10           Do... do............                                   315           1,338 75   1,10250............    256331    12 06 Key West.
13           Do...........................-..do......................                         316          1,343 00        1,106 00..............    2,571 45                 122 45         Do.
Mar.  20              Do..................do..... T                r do.....................           151            64175            45300..............           1,14948            5473          Do.
23           Do........................... do.............d........                         367          1,55975         1,10100..............    2,79378                   13303   Pensacola.
24           Do... do...............8....                                   1,194 25           84300..............  213911                      10186  KeyWest.
26           Do..........                 do......................           272          1,047'20          258 40.........1,370 88                             65 28 Brooklyn.
27           Do.........'................... do.............d.........                       300          1,155 00           285 00..........              1,51200             7200         Do. 
27           Do............................do.....................                           375          1,593 75        1,12500..............    2,854 69                  135 94   Pensacola.
Do ~~~~............do.................... do                                                            2t2.............. 0
29           Do............     do......................                 1,304 75           921 00..............          2,33704           111 27   KeyWest.
30           Do..............................do.....................                         226            870 10          214 70..............    1,139 04                  54 24   Brooklyn.
May       4           Do..............................do......................                         380          1,463 00        1,045 00..............    2,633 40                 125 40   Pensacola.
June    7             Do............................. do.............d.........                       300          1,155 00           825 00......        2,07900             9900         Do.
May   29   C. H. Hunter......................... do......................                               73            281 05          219 00..............             525 05           25 00   Key West.
31           Do....................... do......................              61            234 85           18300..............             43874            2089          Do.
June    3             Do........'................. do.....................                370          1,424 50        1,110 00..............,661 23          12673          Do.
23           Do...........................do......................                            428          1,647 80        1,284 00......                  3,078 39          146 59         Do.
July    15            Do............................do......................                          455          1,751 75        1,365 00............             3,272 59          155 84         Do.
21           Do..............do....................       400          1,540 00,20............,877 00          137 00   Pensacola.
26           Do..........................do......................                           300          1,155 00'210 00............            1,433 25            68 25   Brooklyn.
27           Do..........do......................                                     396          1,524 60        1,188 00.............    2,848 23                 135 63   Key West.
27           Do..........................do...........       129            496 65           387 00..............              927 83           44 18   Warrington, Fla.
31           Do............                        do...........       367          1,412 95        1,192 75.............    2,735 99                 130 29   Key West.
31           Do..'........'............do......................                             155            596 75           147 25..............            781 20           37 20   Gosport.
Aug.    4             Do........................do......................                         207            796 95           16560..............    1,010 68                  48 13   Washington.
6           Do..........................do......................                         170             654 50          11900..............              812 18           38 68   Brooklyn.
24           Do........................do.....................                               471          1,813 35           329 70          5,65200         7,795 05          107 15   Rosario, S. A.
04           Do.....  do....................                 300          1,155 00           420 00..............    1,653 76                  78 76   Portsmouth, N. H.
25           Do.......   1. ".. 1........do......................                            451          1,736 35          315 70          5,412 00         7,464 05          102 6C   Rosario.
* Expenses of landing.




STATEMENT-Continued.
Date.             By whom  purchased.                    From  whom purchased.                Number of  Cost of coal.    Home                   Foreign         Aggregate   Commis. to                 Where sent.
tons.                         freight.         freight.           cost.       coal agents.
1858.
Aug. 25   C.H. Hunter.......Tyler, Stone &  Co.............                                            750        $2,887 50          $525 00           6,000 00    $9,412 50            $170 63   St. Catharines, Brazil.
26           Do......................                   00........do.....................    195            750 75           16088..............             95721             4558   Washington.
27  Do..............................do...............       397          1,528 45           297 75  4    3,^             1-0}6,518 63           91 31   Pernambuco.
27           Do.............................. do......................                     353          1 31,359 05       264 75           3,177 00        5,983 84            81 19        Do.
208          Do............................. do......................                      139             535 15          132 05..............            756 00            33 36   Norfolk.
31           Do.............................. do...................                     175             673 75          131 25...........               845 25            40 25   Brooklyn.
Sept.    4            Do.............................. do......................                     319          1,228 15           303 05..............    1,607 76                  76 56   Norfolk.
8           Do'............................ do.....................                  675           2,598 75.....          4,725 00        7,323 75           129 94   Rio de Janeiro.
8           Do......................do......................                        645          2, 479 40         48300..............    3,11052           148 12   Brooklyn.
13           Do.'.'......................... do......................                  376          1,447 60           507 60..............          2,052 96            97 76   Portsmouth, N. H.
13           Do............................. do......2...............                    2320            893 20           92 56..............    1,140 05                  54 29   Washington.
17           Do50.200....do......................                                                          96250          20000..............,220 63           58 13   Norfolk.
2  Do..do.69   650 65    126 75.............   816 27                             38 87 Brooklyn.
22           Do.............................do......................                       346          1,332 10............        4.152 00        5,484 16           66 61   Rosario.
23           Do..............................do......................                         300          1,155 00............          *.  1662        3, 012 75           57 75   Barbadoes.
24           Do.........................do......................                      400          1,5400............          2400 00         4,017 00            77 00        Do.
25           Do......00.......do.....................                                      331          1,274 35.........       1,986 00        3,324 07            63 72        Do.                              z
Oct.    I             Do..............................do......................                        271           1,063 35          23035..........5.             1,337 39            63 69   Norfolk. 
5           Do..............................do.....................                        311           1,197 35............            2,48800         3,745 22            59 87   Pernambuco. 
7           Do.......................do.....................                         186             716 10          139 50..............               898 38           42 78   Brooklyn.
8           Do........................... do......................                    176             677 60          13200.............               850 08           40 48         Do.
12           Do..............................do......................                        880           3,388 00............               257 98    11,735 38             169 40   St. Catharine's.
12           Do....................... do......................                      602           2.317 70............             7224 00        9,657 59           115 88   Rosario.
13           Do...........................do......................                          261           1,00185............              1,305 00       2,360 09            50 24   Barbadoes.
13           Do...........................do......................                          161            619 85          128 80..............             786 08           37 43   Brooklyn.
14           Do....................do......................                    367           1,412 95............             1,83500        3,318 60            70 65   Barhadoes.
14           Do.........................do......................                     337           1,297 45          438 10.............    1,822 33                   86 76   Boston.
15           Do'............do......                                246             947 10          209 10...........              1,214 01           57 81   Norfolk.
16           Do.........................do......................                         207             796 95          175 95.....            1,021 55            48 65         Do.
18           Do......'..............do......................                   143            55055           12155..............              70571            3361          Do.
18           Do..........do.....................                 170            654 50          136 00..............             830 03           39 53   Brooklyn.
22           Do..............  do......................                   450          1,771 00..5,06000                      6,919 55             88 55   Rtosario.
27           Do.'.........   do......................               662          2,548 70...........              5,296 00        7,97  14          10744   Pernambuco.
S0           Do...         0. do......................          688           2,648 80...........             6,192 00        8,973 24           132 44   Cape Town.
30           Do....................       do......................              300          1,155 00          300 00....            1,527 75             2 75   Norfolk.
Nov.    i             Do.... do......................              320           1,232 00          560 00.....           1,881 60            89 60   Boston.
2           Do1........". "..'.'..... do.............                175             673 75          148 75....        863 63           41 13   Brooklyn.
Do......do..............                                                       171             65835   14535.                                   84382    4018   Do.
3           Do........'.................do......................                250             962 50          437 50.1,470 00                                    70 00   Boston.




9  Do.............................~do-'~....................                    375           1,443 75         1,03125.............., 598 75           123 75   Warrhlg ton.
Q12          Do  0.......            380    1463 00............  4,180 00  5,716 15   73 15 Rosario.
1 6           Do'.............................. do......................                           385           1,482 25............               4,235 00         5,791 36             74 11         Do.
19            Do.............................. do.....................                         292           1,124 20.........                 2336 00          3,516 41             56 21   Perna mbuco.
25            Do.............................. do......................                            72.5          2,791 25.....                     7 975 00        10.985 81            139 56   Rosario.
26            Do................................do......................    1,010                             3,888 50            858 50         10,100 00        155,084 35           237 35   St. Catharines.
26            Do.............................. do......................                           452           1,740 25............              3,616 00         5,443 21              87 01   Pernambuco.
ec        I            Do............................do......................                               435           1,674 75         1,196 25.............    3,014 55                     143 55   Warrington.
2S           Do.......................do..............I........100                            385 00.....................         404 25            19 25   Phila., for   Chapin.
2   Do —......................... do..................                     167              642 95           45925..............             1,157 31             55 11   Warrington.
4            Do..........*..,*..............do.....................               400            1,540 00............              4,40000          6,017 00             77 00   Rosario.
0         Do...........................do..........        795           3,060 72............              3,975 00          7,188 78           153 03   Barbadoes.
16!           Do..............................do......................    1,585                                 6,102 25.........                 15,850 00    22,257 36                305 11   Shanghai.
17            Do.............................                                  312           1,201 20............              1,716 00         2,977 26             60 06   Aspinwall.
22!           Do.....do......................                                             340           1 30900............                1,870 00        3,244 45             65 45          Do.
24            Do..............................do.....................                              751           2, 89135........       6,759 00         9,794 91            144 56   St. Catharine's.
* Expenses of landing.
N. B.-Cost of stowage of coal not included In this statement.




Statement of amount for construdion, repair, equipment, and fuel for steamers, and purchase of hemp for the navy, S., from  July 1, 1841, to January 1, 1859, as shown                        ^
by the reports of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury.
~^^~~0 I..                                                          0 
00.                                -. 1. ^                                    
Years.   ~
1841-'42....................  $2,803, 820 70   e373,771 74    $33,750 O0..............               ~                                                                 $91 424
1842- 43..................................                                                                      9,  3, 3 41
1843-144....................   1,398  43658       86,977  43     36,786  39...........'................................................................... 0  4
1844-'45.....................  1,222,37854..............        845  I      18,7538-2      5  68.......                                         ~~       ~....
1845 46...................  387.............. 1 45738,4879.  53  0             82  83   41     9............................... 
1846-^47.....................  11567,371  85..............    1,2-26   80.............................................................................  ] 5,8 59 8 605
1847-'48...................   31067,779   01..........................................................................................................  3; 61 779^   0
188I  4.~;^                     O'. ^.................. 3,63 80    35........................... 3),4 90 1 1977............................................  1,0897, 304   12
1849U-'50.....................  1,086 2053774.........................................A                                                                                        k
1850^ 1   9                         ^ d   lQ.................................... 44..........................  1,687,206  442......................    44
185125                           9  0..................................................................................        2,354,052 93
1852~ 15.^J...i..~..~...,.~....  2,724 03  97J..~~~.~~.~.....,.................................~.........~.,,,......,...        2'724/    036   97y ^
1853-?54............     2      n71 99  84............................ I.....................................................................  d^ /484 o    )
1804050.         ~~~~~....................               1138    48 6,450 11..... 5731 50 30/8                                                   463       87
1855     "   """"56........... 3156   53  4............................  136,186   52...........    1719,146  96.........................   7,362   13    5,019,289  09  
185-1'-57-'~~...........  1153 12............................  119,206   31..............   1,466,000  04.........................  11329   90  4.701,887  53  
c.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~19130 50- 
185   5..o-...................  3129,427    8..................................           348,90241    $47 9       56........        3   0   0
To January, 1859.............   1788 39 5.................................................48 41    573::52 90   $314,550~97..........                               1,      06
41,804,15915    489,25482    1022003            4516296    101,13977  5707,88255  1045,74346    31455097    148,73491    50,165,03889.   
18452-'4395,1 98..8,515.65.29,018...993,353 1369
~~~~43-'44.5 398 436 58,.I~::":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. 9,2,069
154-~4,,            8,7   3        36786 3)9.84,2,204...............,...78.54..        845.11    $1,753115868504                  6      ~..,.....................,44756
5845-46'5.18384.......2. 797.444 9i::~:::/::.57350J"'  ~83098'.~ 83...... 1                              964501,3...............14,4  884967,,800,67251
1845-4. 1567,7 8.1268.....                                                                         1,911,.....350:59 50........
1856-'47...........3,067,779  01.......,  1,067,7 01........
5849-'5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,1460004............1,86,0 52...... 13- 9 9 04.7.1,687,906 5
1857-'51..                   2,080,377..44.2..080,377944t.2
1852-'53~~~~6:::::::::::::::::::::1::.........]389,721 4,',3036 97..............2,724,036950,9706
To85nuay-'59............ 3,1535..11,03..16,00... 1,39.0.,70,875'JoJanary 189.           1,739,6i8839..........114,548 41  573,352 90 $314,550 97.                                                             2,742,140..67
41,84,15  35 489,214 82    102,200 30    451,362 96    301, 139 77 ]5,707,882 55  1,045,743 46    314,550 97           14,391         5,6,089




COAL AGENCY.                          47
The undersigned, members of the senate and house of Berks county,
in the State legislature, beg leave to recommend Dr. Charles H.
Hunter, of said county, for the agency to supply the government with
anthracite coal, now held by Benjamin Tyson.
Doctor Hunter is a sound, active, and influential democrat, of
undoubted integrity, and in every respect fully competent to discharge
the duties of the office.
We earnestly request this appointment as one due to the applicant,
and as one which will prove highly gratifying to the democracy of this
county.
JOHN 0. EVANS.
J. LAWRENCE GETZ.
W. WM. HEINS.
B. NUNEINACHER.
MICHAEL HOFFMAN.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 19, 1859.
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in
this department.
JNO   WChief CleOGG
Acting Ohief Clerk,




4 8                      COAL AGENCY.
The undersigned beg leave to recommend Doctor Charles H. Hunter,
of Berks county, for the agency to supply the government with anthracite coal, now held by Benjamin Tyson.
Doctor Hunter is a sound, active, and influential'democrat, of
undoubted integrity, and in every respect fully competent to discharge
the duties of the office.
We earnestly request this appointment as one due to the applicant,
and as one which will prove highly gratifying to the democracy of
this county.
WM. M. HIESTER.
CHARLES KESSLER.
JOHN S. SCROEDER.
JACOB K. McKENTY.
GEO. D. STITZEL.
JOS. RITTER.
MICH. P. BOYER.
LEVI WUNDER.
EDWARD M. CLYMER.
SAMUEL L. YOUNG.
FREDK. LAUER.
J. B. WARNER.
DANIEL BUSKIRK.
DANIEL POTTIEGER.
H. S. GETZ.
J. HAGGENMAN.
A. JORDAN SWARTZ.
HIETTER CLYMER.
A. LIEZE.
GEORGE W. BRUCKMAN.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 19, 1859.
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in
this department.
JNO. W. HOGG,
Acting Chief Clerk.




COAL AGENCY.                        49
ANTHRACITE COAL AGENCY AT PHILADELPHIA.
No. 26.-CHARLES H. HUNTER, READING, PENNSYLVANIA.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
CHARLES H. HUNTER called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. That of a physician.
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Reading, Pennsylvania.
Question. What office or employment, if any, do you hold under the
governm ent of the United States?
Answer. I hold the agency for the purchase of anthracite coal.
Question. Are you the only party interested in that coal agency?
Answer. I am the only party recognized by the government.
Question. Who is associated with you in the matter?
Answer. Mr. John F. Smith.
Question. Where does he reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. Is he the only person associated with you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Why is he associated with you?
Answer. That I really do not know how I can tell you.  The arrangement is a private one between Mr. Smith and myself.
Question. Has Mr. Getz anything to do directly or indirectly with
this coal agency?
Answer. He has not.
Question. Does he receive any portion of the profits of the office?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Is there any arrangement between you and Mr. Getz in
regard to a division of the profits?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you contribute to Mr. Getz any particular sum of
money?
Answer. I do not.
Question. What is his employment?
Answer. He is the editor of a paper published at Reading, Pennsylvania.
Question. A democratic paper?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you not pay him anything?
Answer. No, sir, nothing.
Question. What other parties are interested in this private ar
rangement between you and Mr. Smith?
Answer. Not one.
4 A




50                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Is this private arrangement understood and known by
the government?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Upon whose recommendation were you appointed coal
agent?
Answer. There were a number of gentlemen gave me their personal recommendations; but I suppose I received it more through the
influence of the Hon. J. Glancy Jones.
Question. He favored your appointment?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Had you any experience in the purchase of coal previous
to your appointmnt?
Answer. I had not.
Question. Have you since had any active agency in the purchase
of coal?
Answer. The orders are issued to me.
Question. Do you purchase the coal yourself?
Answer. I direct the purchase of it.
Question. Is the fact of your not being connected with the coal
business known to the department?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question. When the orders are received what do you do with them?
Answer. I direct the parties to purchase the coal for the government.
Question. What is Mr. Smith's functions in this arrangement?
Answer. He attends to the selecting of the coal through my direction?
Question. What is the arrangement between you and Mr. Smith?
Answer. In regard to what?
Question. In regard to anything connected with this agency.
Answer. He receives a part of the commissions.
Question. What part?
Answer. One-half.
Question. Have you communicated this fact to the government?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Is it known to the department?
Answer. I cannot tell you, sir.
Question. Is it known to any officer of the government?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Where does this Mr. Smith reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What business is he in there now?
Answer. I really cannot tell you what business he is in now; he
formerly was in the omnibus business.
Question. How came you and Mr. Smith to make this arrangement?
Answer. Through our friends.
Question. What friends?
Answer. That I cannot tell you.
Question. Who first suggested the idea which led to the consummation of this arrangement?




COAL AGENCY.                       51
Answer. When the commission was made out to me, it was brought
to Reading by some of my friends who were on here at the time.
Question. What friends?
Answer. It seems to me that Mr. Smith's brother was here, and
that a Mr. Kearnes was here.
Question. Who else?
Answer. I was not in Washington myself at the time, but it seems
to me that there were gentlemen here from Reading at the time.
Question. Who brought on the commission?
Answer. Mr. Smith.
Question. Which Mr. Smith?
Answer. The one that lives in Philadelphia; his brother, Mr.
George Smith, of Reading, was on here at the time, but Mr. John
F. Smith, of Philadelphia, brought on the commission to me.
Question. Did he deliver to you your commission?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. From whom did he receive it?
Answer. That I cannot tell.
Question. From whom did the commission emanate?
Answer. From the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. This is a personal appointment of the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did Mr. Smith tell you that he had been authorized
the Secretary of the Navy to deliver this commission to you?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What did he say about it?
Answer. I really do not recollect what passed between us; but my
friends, who came on to Reading before Mr. Smith delivered to me
the commission of appointment, said that a commission had been
made out, and they would have brought it; I think Mr. Kearnes said
that, but that it was.afterwards agreed that Mr. Smith should bring
it on.
Question. Did you understand that it was arranged at Washington
that Mr. Smith should bring the commission on to you?
Answer. That was my understanding of the matter.
Question. Had you any previous acquaintance with Mr. Smith?
Answer. He formerly lived at Reading. I have known him perhaps twenty years.
Question. Had there been any degree of intimacy between you and
him for several years?
Answer. We knew each other, but I cannot say we were intimate.
Question. What did Mr. Smith say to you when he handed you the
commission?
Answer. I cannot recollect.
Question. Did he say that it was understood that you were to enter
into arrangement with him in regard to the profits of this office?
Answer. My friends had reported that to me before Mr. Smith came
on, and I take it for granted that Mr. Smith said the same thing.




52                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Did he tell you that it was understood that the arrangement was to be made between you and him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he tell you what the arrangement was to be?
Answer. It seems to me that there was no definite agreement, but
that arrangement, whatever it might be, was between me and himself?
Question. Did he propose an arrangement?
Answer. The arrangement was prepared and made between friends
here.
Question. Now, I want to get at this matter. Was there not a
dispute between you and Mr. Smith in regard to this matter, and with
Mr. Getz?  And was it not a part of the original arrangement that
Mr. Getz was to have a portion of this money?
Answer. Yes, sir, it was.
Question. Why did he not get it?
Answer. Mr. Getz withdrew.
Question. What were his reasons for withdrawing?
Answer. That I cannot tell. I heard a rumor before I heard anything from Mr. Getz himself, and Mr. Getz subsequently told me that
bhis intention was to withdraw.
Question. Did he not complain to you that the share allotted to
him was too small?
Answer. Not that I can recollect.
Question. Were there any other parties in this arrangement at
first?
Answer. No one else.
Question. Mr. Smith, Mr. Getz, and yourself were the parties?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What proportion did Mr. Smith first claim when you
were negotiating this arrangement?
Answer. There was no negotiation in regard to it.  When I received this appointment my friends, who notified me of the fact that
I was appointed, said that the understanding was that Mr. Getz, and
Mr. Smith, and myself were to have the emoluments.
Question. Who were these friends.
Answer. Mr. Kearnes, Mr. George Smith, and it seems to me that
Mr. Getz was one of the first men who communicated this fact to me.
Question. Did you enter into any written stipulation with Mr.
Smith?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. It stands merely upon open agreement between you?
Answer. Yes, sir, merely a verbal agreement.
Question. What are the profits of that agency per year?
Answer. I have not held it a year.
Question. What is the per centage allowed to the purchaser?
Answer. Five per cent.
Question. Upon what basis? the cost at Philadelphia?
Answer. The cost of the coal shipped to various points in the
country. On foreign shipments the government charters the vessels.




COAL AGENCY.                         53
Question. Have you your commission or letter of instructions with
you?
Answer. I have not.
Question. What is the purport of it?
Answer. The language, so far as I recollect it, is this:' Authorized
to purchase the anthracite coal for the United States navy, upon
which you are to receive five per cent. commission upon the cost of
the coal and freight."  I think that is the purport of it; I am satisfied
it is.
Question. When was you appointed?
Answer. In May last.
Question. How much have you received in the aggregate for your
compensation for the first six months of your appointment?
Answer. That I cannot tell you, sir.
Question. State it as near as you can.
Answer. I can best come at it in this way: the quarters end upon
the 1st of July, the 1st of October, and the 1st of January.
Question.  Give us one quarter, then.
Answer. The quarter for October, November, and December, came
to $3,400.
Question. Iow much did you receive for the quarter ending October 1st?
Answer. I think it was something like $4,000.
Question. Does that include all, or only your share?
Answer. That includes the whole; everything, sir.
Question. Have you made a division with Mr. Smith, so far as you
have gone?
Answer. I have.
Question. From whom does the money come to you for your per
centage?
Answer. There is a warrant issued by the Navy Department to
the navy agent at Philadelphia.
Question. Who makes this division between you and Mr. Smith?
Answer. I draw the money. I receive the draft and send Mr. Smith
his share.  All the orders are issued to me.
Question. Before we come to that, I want to know who were the
parties in Washington to this arrangement, as you have learned from
Mr. Getz or Smith. Who were the parties to this arrangement at the
time you were appointed, and who were present when this arrangement was entered into?
Answer. That I could not tell, sir.
Question. Were you not told by the parties that the Secretary
of the Navy had assented to this arrangement?
Answer. No, sir.  So far as I am aware, he knows nothing of it.
Question. Did you know that Mr. Jones assented to it or knew it?
Answer. I cannot tell you; but I took it for granted that Mr. Jones
was with these gentlemen.
Question. Did these gentlemen say to you that Mr. Jones wts
a party to it?
Answer. No, sir.




54                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Did they tell you that he knew anything about it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was Mr. Jones in Washington at the time?
Answer. He was.
Question. Did he go with them to secure this appointment?
Answer. That I cannot tell.
Question. Did he return with those men?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What other person was mentioned by them  as being
present at the arrangement?
Answer. No one that I recollect, excepting the gentlemen I have
named.
Question. Now let us return to the course of business.  When a
purchase is to be made, a requisition is sent to you. What do you
do with that requisition?
Answer. I send it to the party of whom I want to purchase, and
also notify Mr. Smith.
Question. What party is that?
Answer. I have sent to Tyler, Stone & Co.
Question. Do you not make all the purchases of coal of that firm?
Answer. I have done so to this time.
Question. You send the requisition to them; and what do they do?
Answer. If there is a vessel to load, they load the vessel according
to my directions.
Question. You do not go to Philadelphia to supervise it?
Answer. I have an arrangement with Mr. Smith to see that the
shipments are properly made.
Question. Do you go to Philadelphia yourself to see to it?
Answer. I go occasionally.
Question. How often?
Answer. I really cannot tell.
Question. Once a month?
Answer. I take it for granted that it is as often as that.
Question. Do you continue to practice as a physician?
Answer. I do.
Question. How far is Reading from Philadelphia?
Answer. Fifty-two miles.
Question. How far is Reading from the coal region?j
Answer. Thirty-six miles.
Question. Do you go to the coal region?
Answer. I have been up there.
Question. In regard to this particular business?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether you do anything excepting simply
to sign formal papers which it is necessary for the coal agent to sign?
Answer. I see that a proper article of coal is furnished.
Question. Do you inspect the coal?
Answer. I do not myself; I get Mr. Smith to do it.
Question. Do you know that Mr. Smith is qualified for this?
Answer. I have reliance in him.




COAL AGENCY.                       55
Question. Do you know whether he was ever engaged in that
business?
Answer. That I cannot tell you, sir.
Question. Do you know whether he can distinguish the qualities of
coal? There is a great difference in it.
Answer. I do not know of my own knowledge.
Question. Did anything induce you to appoint Mr. Smith to do
this excepting this previous arrangement?
Answer. That was the reason.
Question. Why did you purchase this coal of Tyler, Stone & Co.?
Answer. They had furnished the coal to the previous agent, and I
had such information as convinced me that they had furnished the
coal satisfactorily. I had no other reason.
Question. Did you know of any relationship between either of these
gentlemen and the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I was told that there was.
Question. Which member of the firm?
Answer r. Mr. Beach.
Question. Did you know that Mr. Tyler also was a relative by marriage?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did you so understand?
Answer. I do not know that I had ever heard of it.
Question. Do you know them?
Answer. I know Mr. Tyler and Mr. Beach.
Question. In what business are they engaged?
Answer. The coal business.
Question. Where?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. How long have they been engaged in it?
Answer. I cannot tell you, sir.
Question. Where did you first see them?
Answer. I met Mr. Beach at Reading the first time.
Question. Was that after your appointment?
Answer. He came to Reading, but whether he came up expressly
to see me or not, I do not know.
Question. Is Mr. Smith engaged in the coal business?
Answer. Not that I know of, sir.
Question. Who fixes the price of this coal?  Did you agree with
Tyler, Stone & Co. as to the price?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Well, what is the price?
Answer. At Philadelphia, $3 85.
Question. When did you fix that price?
Answer. Soon after my appointment.
Question. Upon what basis?
Answer. At the same rate that the coal had been purchased by
the former agent.
Question. Did you take any pains to examine whether coal could
be furnished more cheaply or not?




56                       COAL AGENCY.
Answer. I do not know that I did.
Question. Did you invite proposals or offers from coal dealers?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you go to see any other coal dealers?
Answer. A number of them made applications.
Question. Were their applications acceded to?
Answer. They did not state any price at all.
Question. Did you tell them that the matter was open to a proper
bid?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did you tell them that you had contracted with Tyler,
Stone & Co.?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did you communicate to them the price at which the
coal was to be furnished to the government?
Answer. I do not know that I did, sir.
Question. Have you ever had any correspondence with the Secretary of the Navy in regard to this subject?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Has he ever written to you since your appointment?
Answer. He has not.
Question. Have you ever received a letter from the department?
Answer. Yes, sir; relating to the manner in which the business
should be transacted; a letter of instructions.
Question. Have you those instructions with you?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Did they not require you to attend and examine in person the delivery of coal?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did they give you directions of this kind to furnish the
best article for the purpose for which it was intended without fixing
the price?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did any other circumstances induce you to make your
purchases of Tyler, Stone & Co., than the fact that they had previously furnished to the former agent?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you not understand from  Mr. Smith or Mr. Getz
that it was the desire of certain parties in Washington that they
should furnish the coal?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you not have such a conversation with them?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Did not Mr. Smith inform you that such was the wish?
Answer. He did not.
Question. Did not Mr. Getz?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was not that understood by you at the time?
Answer. It was not.




COAL AGENCYo                        57
Question. Was there no information of that kind communicated to
you?
Answer. None.
Question. Why then did you not seek to find out the lowest
responsible bidder, for the purchase of this coal?
Answer. I felt that the government had been furnished by these
men with a proper article, and that if the government were satisfied
with the article furnished, there was no reason to change.
Question. Did you not understand that it was your business, as
agent for the government, to procure the coal upon the most favorable
terms for the government?
Answer. I conceive that these agents furnish the coal upon as
favorable terms as the best coal can be furnished.
Question. You do not state that upon your own inspection of the
coal?
Answer. I base it upon the fact that there is no information from
the department that the coal fails to answer the purpose for which it
is intended to be used.
Question. There have been no complaints by the government?
Answer. No, sir; I felt satisfied that the coal furnished was furnished of the quality represented, and at the market rates.
Question. Did you make any efforts to ascertain that?
AnsTwer. I did not.
Question. Did you communicate this fact to the applicants for furnishing coal to the government?
Answer. I did not. I felt that the coal had been furnished by the
agents previous to my appointment in a manner satisfactory to the
department, and felt fully warranted by that to continue this arrangement.
Question. When did Tyler, Stone & Co. commence furnishing the
government with coal?
Answer. I cannot tell you, sir.
Question. Was it not since March 1, 1857?
Answer. I am not aware.
Question. Do you not know the fact from them, or from Mr. Smith?
Answer. I know that they furnished coal to the former agent.
Question. Do you not know that they only commenced fuirnishing
coal to the government after March 4, 1857?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you not know that they only furnished a portion of
thile coal from March 4, 1857, up to the time of your appointment?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you not know that other parties furnished coal as
well as Tyler, Stone & Co., up to the time of your appointment?
Have you not heard it from other parties?
Answer. I do not know that I have, sir.
Question. Did you ever make inquiries as to the fact?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are you connected in any way with the Reading forge?
Answer.  I am not. I unfortunately held some stock there.




58                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. You are a democrat in politics, I suppose?
Answer. I am.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Are you in the habit of observing the market price of
coal in Philadelphia?
Answer. I can get the market values.
Question. Are you in the habit of doing this?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know what has been the market price of coal in
Philadelphia during the last year?
Answer. I have been satisfied that the coal furnished to the government has been furnished at the market rates.
Question. I merely wanted to know the reason of your being
satisfied.
Answer. The department made no complaints.
Question. Are you in the habit of observing the quality of coal
delivered at that rate on board ships?
Answer. No, sir; Mr. Smith attends to that.
By the Chairman:
Question. Who inspects this coal when delivered to the government?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question. You never looked to that?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know whether it is inspected at all, or not?
Answer. It is delivered at various yards and docks in the country.
I take it for granted it is weighed in fact, I have received returns.
On one or two occasions I was notified that a certain cargo was one
or two tons short; on other occasions I have been notified that a
cargo has been several tons over weight.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Who gave you that notice?
Answer. The commandants of the navy yard where the coal was
delivered.
By the Chairman:
Question. A part of your duty is to contract for the transportation
of this coal to the navy yards of the United States wherever it is needed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who makes these contracts with the vessels?
Answer. Orders are issued by the department, limiting the freight
to a certain amount, for the points where I am to deliver.
Question. Who makes the contracts with the vessels for the freight?
Answer. Tyler, Stone & Co.
Question. They act as your agents?
Answer. Yes, sir; but the department has invariably restricted
the freights; they prescribe the maximum.
Question. Does the department know that you get Tyler, Stone
& Co., to charter those vessels?
Answer. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Question. Do you communicate to them the order of the department?
Answer. Yes, sir.




COAL AGENCY.                        59
Question. Do you send off the same paper to Tyler, Stone & Co.,
that you have received from the department?
Answer. No, sir; I write them that I have an order to ship a certain
amount of coal to a certain point, and that the freight is to be within
a certain amount.
Question. Do not they always charge that amount?
Answer. The freight is sometimes made specific; at other points it
is limited, say between 2? and 21; and where the limit has been put,
the freight is sometimes at the lowest figure; and, again, they have
notified me that they could not get vessels for a length of time.
Question. Are they forwarders?  Do they deal in ships?
Answer. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Question. They ship coal; is that a part of their business?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you see no impropriety in getting the same man who
delivers the coal to ship the coal? Do you think that is right?
Answer. I do not see anything wrong in it, sir.
Question. What induced you to employ Tyler, Stone & Co. to ship
the coal?
Answer. The reason was that they had done so previously.
Question. Do you employ any other firm in the transportation of
the coal for the government?
Answer. I do not.
Question. There was no other reason that induced you to employ
those gentlemen to ship the coal?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do they make returns to you of the amount shipped?
Answer. Yes, sir; they make returns.
Question. You forward the returns they make to you to Washington, do you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To whom do you address your letters?
Answer. To the chief of the Bureau of Construction, and to the
chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.
Question. Mr. Lenthall and Commodore Smith?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you have any correspondence with, or address any
communications to the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. From whom do you receive those letters fixing the maximum rate?
Answer. From Mr. Lenthall.
Question. Do you know the basis upon which that decision is made?
Answer.  No, sir.
Question. Do you ever inquire whether it is too high or too low?
Answer. I do not; I will say that I am told they are at the lowest
figure; I have been told so a number of times.
Question. What particular use is there in your office?
Answer. To purchase coal for the Navy Department.
Question. Will you state any particular use there is in the offioe




60                       COAL AGENCY.
you hold, if you know of any? [A pause.] I will ask you this question: Could not the money paid you and Mr. Smith be saved to the
government, and the correspondence be made directly between the
department and Tyler, Stone & Co.?  [A short pause.]  If there is
any explanation you want to give or reason you want to give to continue the place you are at perfect liberty to give it.
Answer. I don't know really what answer to make to your question, sir.
Question. It is for you to say; to answer it if you desire; if you
can give any reason to give it; if not(No reply.)
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How long has that office been established?
Answer. I cannot tell you, sir, but I know it was in existence
daring Mr. Fillmore's administration.
Question. Do you know the rates of compensation then?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. Do you know whether any change has been made in the
rate of compensation to the agent?
Answer. There has not been in the last two terms; that is, in the
term previous to mine and in mine, because I had a conversation with
the last agent, and his commission read like mine.
Question. You knew of this office as early as the administration of
Mr. Fillmore?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I will ask you, doctor, whether you were not under obligations, at the time your commission was delivered to you, to take in
Mr. Smith into that arrangement?
Answer. No, sir; excepting so far as those friends, who were here
at the time the commission was issued, informed me this understanding existed.
Question. Are you under any obligation to purchase of Tyler,
Stone & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; I am not.
Question. Are you at liberty to purchase anywhere?
Answer. Anywhere I see fit; yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is Mr. Smith a relative of the Secretary of the Navy in
any way?
Answer. No, sir; he is a son of Judge Smith.
Question. Is he related to any member of the firm of Tyler, Stone
& Co.?
Answer. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Question. When you say it was understood in Washington that you
were to take Mr. Smith into the arrangement, do you mean that it was
understood by the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.  So far as I know, the Secretary of the Navy knew nothing about it.
Question. Have you any knowledge, directly or indirectly, that the
Secretary of the Navy desires you to give the contracts for coal to
Tyler, Stone & Co.?




COAL AGENCY.                          61
Answer. I have not, sir.
Question. You say that you are satisfied that $3 85 is a fair price
for coal.  What is that understanding of your's founded upon?
Answer. Upon the fact that the previous agent purchased it at that
rate.
Question.  Had there been any change in the price of coal?
Answer. The coal of the last year has been purchased at a rate,
taking the year as a year, cheaper than the year before.
Question. Has there been any reduction in the kind of coal which
is furnished to the governmenti?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. It has been cheaper last year than the year before?
Answer. Yes, sir; at least, I am told so, upon what I conceive to
e good authority.
Question. Suppose that you, as coal agent, were to give an extravagant price for coal, what corrective would there be? Is there anybody
to supervise the price you give for coal?
Answer. I take it for granted the department would pursue the
same course they did with regard to freights.
Question. How much coal do you have to supply the government
with in the course of the year?
Answer. That I cannot tell you, sir, without stating definitely,
within a few hundred tons.  I have furnished 30,000 tons. I think
it runs several hundred tons beyond that.
Question. It is in that neighborhood, according to your best recollection?
Answer. It is.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you necessarily keep yourself posted as to the mar-.
ket price for coal?
Answer. The price for coal, I am satisfied, has not varied. It has
been rather on the increase than decline since I have had the agency.
Question. Do you keep yourself advised by the current papers as to
the market price for coal?
Answer. I keep myself advised, by my intercourse with my friends
in the iron business, in regard to the rise and decline of coal.
C. H. HUNTER.
No. 27.-TESTIMONY OF J. LAWRENCE GETZ, READING, PA.
J. LAWRENCE GETZ was sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question.  Where do you reside?
Answer. In Reading, Pennsylvania.
Question. What is your occupation there?
Answer. I am the editor of a newspaper.
Question. What is the name of the paper?
Answer. The Reading Gazette.
Question. Were you in the city of Washington at the time the
appointment of Dr. Hunter as coal agent was made?
Answer. I was here at the time I understood it was made.




62                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Did you join in the recommendation of Dr. Hunter as
coal agent?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. What others joined in that recommendation?
Answer. I was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature at the
time, and I saw only a recommendation signed by my colleagues and
myself.
Question. Do you know of your own knowledge and information
whether Mr. Jones contributed to that appointment?
Answer. I have no positive knowledge in regard to the matter. It
was generally reported that Mr. Jones had used his influence in favor
of Dr. Hunter. This was generally supposed and believed.
Question. Was any arrangement made with regard to the appointment as to the division of the emoluments?
Answer. I cannot say that any arrangement was made.
Question. What was the understanding at the time?
Answer. The knowledge I have is very vague. It was a third party
who spoke to me in regard to the matter, and said it would be understood in the appointment of Dr. Hunter that the profits of the office
would be shared between Dr. Hunter, Mr. Smith, of Philadelphia, and
myself.
Question. Who was the third party who spoke to you about it?
Answer. It was Mr. Carnes of Reading.
Question. From whom did you get this understanding?
Answer. I am not able to say, sir; I have no positive knowledge
where he got the information.
Question. Did you have any communication with any officer in the
Navy Department with regard to the matter?
Answer. I did not, sir.
Question. Did you go near the Navy Department with regard toit?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Jones with regard to it?
Answer. I did.
Question. Did he understand the arrangement?
Answer. I presume he did, sir.
Question. Did you gather from the conversation that he did?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he mention it to,you?
Answer. I cannot say that he ever spoke about the matter to me
directly; we had some conversation with regard to it.
Question. It was spoken of as an arrangement that already existed,
as a thing that would be done?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Why were you included in the arrangement?
Answer. I was an applicant for an office under the general government, and like many others I was not successful; I presume this thing
was offered to me as a substitute for the appointment that I sought.
Question. Had it any connexion with your position as editor, to




COAL AGENCY.                        63
enable you to prosecute the hazardous undertaking of keeping up a
newspaper?
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. It was to satisfy your claim as an applicant for an office,
then?
Answer. I judge it was, sir.
Question. Well, how did this offer come to you directly? Who
first mentioned the subject to you?
Answer. I think that Mr. Carnes did. Mr. Carnes came to Washington at the time I did.
Question. When it was mentioned to you what did you do?
Answer. When the proposition was first made to me I declined it?
Question. What further negotiation was had with regard to it?
Answer. It was represented to me that this thing was better than
nothing; that it would require none of my time or attention; that I
would probably better reflect upon the matter and consent to the
arrangement.
Question. State whether or not you did consent?
Answer. I did consent, with a mental reservation, if [ may say so?
Question. What was the mental reservation?
Answer. It was a thing that was not very acceptable and satisfactory to me; it was a thing I had never thought of, and had never
sought for, and I did not think it was at all in my line. I suppose I
felt as most persons do when disappointed in what they are seeking
for; I felt a little cross at the time.
Question. But you did the best you could?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Why was Dr. Hunter included in the arrangement?
Answer. He was the appointee?
Question. He was the applicant?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Had he any peculiar fitness or qualification for the office
of buyer of coal?
Answer. I am not able to say, sir.
Question. You know the Doctor is a very good physician?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. But do not know that he was ever engaged in the purchase of coal?
Answer. His father and several members of the family are largely
engaged in the iron business; and I believe the doctor was engaged at
one time under his father at a furnace in the country, and in that
capacity I have no doubt he was required to have some dealings in coal.
Question. Why was Mr. Smith a party to the arrangement?
Answer. Really I cannot say, sir.
Question. Was he present at the time?
Answer. Mr. Smith was here at the time.
Question. Did you hear at the time why he was one of the parties
in this arrangement?
Answer. I have no recollection of hearing.




64                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Had he any connexion, either by marriage or companionship with any particular person controlling this appointment?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Question. What position had he held before?  Had he held any
political position?
Answer. When he left our county, some years ago, I think he held
the office of flour inspector under the governor of our State.
Question. Had he afterwards, in Philadelphia, any political or official status?
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. Was he a coal dealer by trade?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. You cannot tell, then, why he was introduced into the
arrangement?
Answer. I have no knowledge of any reason other than supposed
political reasons. I have no knowledge even of that.
Question. Do you know upon whose authority this division of the
compensation was made?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. Was it communicated to any officer of the government?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Was it spoken of in your presence-in the presence of
any officer of the government besides Mr. Jones?
Answer. I do not think it was to my knowledge.
Question. Just think a while and recollect, if you can.
Answer. The appointment was spoken of, I think, by the President in my presence.
Question. The appointment of Dr. Hunter?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What did the President say to it?
Answer. It was in reply to something that was supposed to refer
to me; it was in reply to an application for my appointment to that
office, as it was supposed; he said he had made up his mind to appoint
Dr. Hunter; these were his words, I think —"Mr. Jones urged me
to appoint you; but you were no applicant, and I have made up my
mind to appoint Dr. Hunter."
Question. Was anything further said?
Answer. Not in regard to this subject, I think, sir.
Question. Did you say this would be satisfactory; that it would be
all right; or anything of that sort?
Answer. Nothing like that was said by me at all, sir.
Question. When was this conversation?
Answer. In May or June last; in the latter part of May, I think.
Question. Who was present?
Answer. Mr, Smith was present.
Question. The Mr. Smith who is in this arrangement?
Answer. No, sir; a brother to that Mr. Smith.
Question. Where does he reside?
Answer. In Reading, Pa.




COAL AGENCY.                        65
Question. Was there anything said at that time about the enmoluments of that office?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. By the President, or by any one in his presence?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know that nothing was said about its being a
valuable office, or a profitable office?
Answer. Not in my presence.
Question. What connexion had Mr. Smith with the politics of your
State?
Answer. When he lived in our county I knew him as a pretty
active member of our party, as an active politician. Since he has
resided in Philadelphia I have known very little of him.
Question. Was he not the chairman of the Philadelphia committee
in the election of 1856?
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. Did not hear his name mentioned in connexion with some
political position of that kind?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Why did you not continue in this arrangement?
Answer. Well, sir, it has never been very acceptable to me, and
I did not continue in it because I had some reasons of a personal
nature.
Question. Did you receive any other appointment from the government?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you receive any other place or emolument from the
government?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You are still in the position of editor of a newspaper
then?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. State whether or not Mr. Jones was to receive any portion of this?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Was any portion of it to be applied to purposes of the,
election?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Was there an understanding that any portion of it was:
to be expended upon the then pending election?
Answer. I heard of none, sir.
Question. Were you connected with the Reading Forge?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Have you received any portion of the emoluments of
this office?
Answer. I have not, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Does it come within your knowledge that. either the.
5 A




66                        COAL AGENCY.
President or the Secretary of the Navy knew anything about the
arrangement for the division of the compensation?
Answer. I have no knowlegde of it; I knew very little about it,
indeed.
J. LAWRENCE GETZ.
No. 28.-TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. SMITH, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
J. F. SMITH called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What is your business there?
Answer. I was engaged in the omnibus business for a considerable
time for the last ten or twelve years, but latterly I sold out to my
son-in-law; but I have an interest in the business again.
Question. Were you in the city of Washington in May last?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you present at the time the arrangement was made
for the appointment of Dr. Hunter coal agent?
Answer. I was here. Dr. Hunter was not here; his friends were
here, several of them; I was here, and several of my friends were
here; there were several applicants for the place; we had a conversation to arrange things amicably, if we could. Finally it was agreed
that if the Secretary would appoint either of us, he should appoint
Dr. Hunter, and he did so.
Question. What was the arrangement in regard to the division of
the emoluments of the office?
Answer. The emoluments of the office were to go to Dr. Hunter,
Mr. Getz, and myself.
Question. Was this arrangement made known to the Secretary of
the Navy?
Answer. No, sir; it was amongst ourselves and our friends.
Question. Who were present at the time this arrangement was
made?
Answer. I think my brother, George Smith, was present, and Mr.
Kearnes, whose first name I do not recollect, a friend of Mr. Hunter,
was here; Mr. Hunter was not here; Mr. Getz himself was here. We
concluded, from all we heard and all that was said, that the appointment would probably go to Berks county.  I lived in Berks county
originally, and my brother and relations all lived there.
Question. Were any other persons present when this arrangement
was made except the persons you have named? Was J. Glancy Jones
present?
Answer. No, sir; we had conversations with him  several times
about it, each one urging the claims of different parties.
Question. Did he understand your arrangement?
Answer. We told him, I think, that such and such an arrangement
was agreed upon, if it could be brought about.  He was aware of it.
Question. Did you communicate this arrangement to the President?




COAL AGENCY.                        67
Did he understand that an arrangement had been made between the
competitors for this office?
Answer. Yes, sir; he understood that the emoluments of the office
were to go to the three, as I have stated.
Question. Did he say anything about it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. And thereupon Dr. Hunter was appointed?
Answer. We agreed among ourselves that Dr. Hunter should be
appointed.
Question. Did you communicate this fact to the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. No, sir; not a word of it, to my knowledge.
Question. From whom did the appointment emanate?
Answer. The appointment was made by the Secretary.  I think
the President felt disposed-indeed he told me upon several occasions
before that if he could do anything for me he would.
Question. Did he express himself gratified at this settlement of the
controversy?
Answer. Yes, sir; he said he was pleased that the thing was done
or finished, or something to that effect.
Question. Did you take the commission with you to Reading?
Answer. Yes, sir; I received it here.
Question. From whom?
Answer. If my memory serves me right, I received it from Mr.
Welsh, the chief clerk of the Secretary of the Navy.  I think Mr.
Getz and Mr. Kearnes had left here. I told them that I had some
business at Reading, and that I would be there in the course of a day
or two, and that I would receive the commission, and bring it along
with me.
Question. Did you deliver it to Dr. Hunter?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he assent to the arrangement?
Answer. He merely opened the commission and looked at it, and
said that it was all right.
Question. Did he say anything about this arrangement?
Answer. I do not recollect whether at that time we talked matters
over or not.
Question. From the conversation you had with him, did he seem to
understand the arrangement?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has it been carried out by him fairly?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What induced Mr. Getz to retire?
Answer. I cannot tell that.
Question. How long was it before you learned that Mr. Getz had
retired?
Answer. It was somewhere about the time the nominations were to
be made and the ticket was to be. formed in Berks county. I cannot
recollect exactly when,
Question. Do you know of anything that influenced him to retire?




638                       COAL AGENCY.
Answer. I never had a word of conversation with him about itL
Question. After he retired then you and Dr. Hunter were to divide
it between yourselves?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was any one else allowed to share the profits. of the
office?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was there any understanding between you and the parties making this arrangement as to the amount to be contributed to
carrying on the pending election?
Answer. No, sir, not at all. I would merely observe here that
in all elections I contribute all I can afford.  In such cases, when I
have it, I contribute freely sometimes.
Question. What official position, either political or in the democratic party, have you held?
Answer. We stand very fair in Berks county-my brothers and myself, and my father before me.
Question. You are known as active democrats?
Answer. Yes, sir. We have lost many elections of our friends we
went for, and we have gained a good many.
Question. What connexion had this division of the profits of this
office with the pending election last fall?
Answer. None whatever.  We did last fall what we generally do,
I am speaking now of what we sometimes call the "Smith family 
there.  We went for the whole ticket, from one end to the other, and
did all we could to elect it; and the ticket very generally succeeded,
all except Mr. Jones.
Question. What did you contribute yourself in the way of material
aid?
Answer. I do not even know that. It was something in the neighborhood, perhaps, of $200, $300, or $400, perhaps more or less. The
reason I cannot answer that question more definitely is, I told my
brothers that we should not stop and look back, but to go ahead, and
I would do my share not only in this but in all other elections where
I felt interested.
Question. Were your past political efforts pressed by you as a reason
why your application should be granted, and some provision be made
for you?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was that fact in regard to your family mentioned by the
President in complimentary terms?
Answer. No, sir.  I have been acquainted with Mr. Buchanan for
a good many years.  My father and he often met at the Supreme
Court; they practiced at the bar of that court together, and I think
he always felt disposed to favor us out of friendship.
Question. He knew your position very well?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What official positions have you held?
Answer. I was recorder of Berks county at one time, and was appointed flour inspector by Governor Porter.




COAL AGENCY.                         69
Question. Wer;e you president or secretary of any of the political
organizations in 1856?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know whether my brother or my nephew
was one of the executive committee.
Question. What have you done to aid Dr. Hunter in the performance of his duties as coal agent?
Answer. Dr. Hunter living at Reading, and I living at Philadelphia.
I had better opportunities to attend to matters than he had, unless
he came to Philadelphia for that purpose especially. The orders from
the department would pass through Dr. Hunter, and I would attend
to things in Philadelphia, purchasing coal, &c.
Question, With whom did you make your contracts?
Answer. Generally with Tyler, Stone & Co.
Question. Did you not always get your coal of them?
Answer. No, sir; we got some of Repplier & Co., and we got some
from Messrs., Luther & Co.; I do not remember who the first
member of the firm was.
Question. Who inspected the coal when it was delivered?
Answer. We depended in a great measure upon Tyler, Stone & Co.
to see that the best coal was furnished; I was not quite so good a
judge of coal as some others, and perhaps there were some others
who were not quite as good judges as I was.
Question. Did you yourself take any personal supervision of the
matter?
Answer. No, sir; what I did was to see that the best coals were
had. I was acquainted with the best veins of coal in the mining region.  As an instance, I would say that there were two veins of coal
worked by Hecksher & Co.; the Blackheath coal, that all parties admit
is the very best found for steam purposes.  There were two veins
particularly; and, if my memory serves me right, they were marked as
Letter A" and "Letter S," which are the best.
Question. Did you go to Mr. Hecksher to get this coal?
Answer. No, sir.  At one time I had agreed with Cain, Hacker &
Co. to furnish a thousand tons. After the whole thing was understood,
the other partner in the firm, whose name was Mr. Cook, said he
would go immediately to Pottsville and make arrangements to get this
coal.  He went there and there was such a demand for this coal for
steam purposes that he could not get it at all. I had informed him
that it was absolutely necessary to have this particular kind of coal,
and to furnish it in three weeks.  On his return home he told me that
he would not be able to get it for me, as it was all engaged for four
or six weeks, or two months ahead. I then called on Tyler, Stone &
Co., and they furnished it.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you say that the President understood that you three
gentlemen had made an amicable arrangement about this office, or
that he understoood the profits of the office were to be divided up
between you?
Answer. He understood that we had come to some amicable arrangement.




7 0                      COAL AGENCY.
Question. Did he understand that the profits were to be divided?
Answer. I do not know what he understood, whether it was that
one-half was to go to one man and one-fourth to each of the others,
or what it was.
Question. Was anything said by him about dividing the income of
the office between you three?
Answer. No, sir..Question. Was anything said to him about it?
Answer. No, sir; not by me. I do not know what conversation the
others may have had about it.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you mean to say more than this: That the President
was advised that the various applicants for that place had arranged
that there should be no controversy about the place?
Answer. The President understood that we three understood one
another, and that Dr. Hunter was to be appointed, or that one of us
was to be appointed.  I do not recollect that he even did understand
that Mr. Hunter was to be the one, but he understood that we three
and our friends were satisfied in regard to the division of the emoluments.
Question. Was anything said about a division of the compensation?
Answer. No, sir; after Mr. Getz announced that he had no interest
in it, had had none, and would have none in it upon any account, Mr.
Hunter and myself had more conversation about it, and I told him
that I supposed we would then have it to ourselves.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did the President understand that this arrangement was
for the mutual benefit of you three gentlemen?
Answer. From what little conversation I had with him, I suppose
he lnderstood that we three, who were all pressed for appointment,
had made an arrangement. But I suppose he knew nothing in regard
to how the emoluments were to be divided, whether equally, share
and share alike or not.
Question. Did he understand that the office was for the benefit of
you three persons?
Answer. Yes, sir; that we three were to be satisfied, but he knew
nothing about the arrangement whether one-half was to go to one
party, and the other half to the other two or not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you any judge of the price of coal in the Philadelphia
market?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What do you think of the price of $3 85 a ton?
Answer. This is about the price of a superior quality of coal; some
of the kinds are a little less; I recollect, however, that there was
one order received for one of the institutions in Philadelphia, requiring
300 or 400 tons; they wanted the Locust Mountain coal, as they had
used it and were satisfied with it; and it occurs to me that that coal
could not be had unless we paid a little above that price; how much,




COAL AGENCY.                         71
I do not know; but the price was very easily ascertained, as all the offices
furnished at about the same price, particularly when you bound them
up to furnish coal of the very best quality; I always kept that in
view in making these purchases.
Question. Do you keep yourself well informed upon the prices of
ooal?
Answer. Nothing more than this; when I want it, I make it my
business to inquire how coal is going.
Question. Suppose you were to find that coal was rapidly falling in
price, would you interfere in regard to this matter or not?
Answer. I could not; I could only fill the orders when I received
them from Mr. Hunter; I never bought any of this coal without an
order.
Question.  Would you inform Mr. Hunter anything about it?
Answer. No, sir; I never bought unless we had orders; when we
received the orders from the government, we filled them at the lowest
price we could get the coal at, and have it of the best quality.
Question. I understand that this price of $3 85 per tn is the fixed
price; is that so?
Answer~ No, sir; this $3 85 coal, was this Heckshers coal from
these two veins, and was about the same price all the time. It is
something lower now, perhaps, than before Mr. Hunter was appointed;
but I never bought any; we never took a step in the matter until we
received the orders.
Question. When you get the orders you fill them?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you look to see what the prices are every order you
get?
Answer. When Mr. Hunter sent the orders to Tyler, Stone & Co.,
I would not know what would pass between them.
Question. What is the condition of your hearing? I notice you do
not seem to understand all the questions put to you.
Answer. It is not perfectly good; I do not always understand what
is said to me.
J. F. SMITH.




72                        COAL AGENCY.
No. 29.-TESTIMONY OF C. NICHOLS BEACH, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859
C. NICHOLS BEACH called and examined.
By the chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. Coal merchant.
Question. Of what firm are you a member?
Answer. Of the firm of Tyler, Stone & Co.
Question. Who are the members of that firm?
Answer. Mr. Frederick Tyler, of Hartford, Connecticut, Mr. Georg
F. Tyler, Mr. William E. Stone, and myself, all of Philadelphia.
Question. Are any of the firm connected with each other by marriage or blood?
Answer. By marriage, Mr. Frederick Tyler is my father-in-law, and
Mr. George F. Tyler is my brother-in-law; all are family connexions
except Mr. Stone.
Question. How long have you been engaged in that business yourself?
Answer. I have been in the business some ten years; I have, how.
ever, had an interest in this firm since the year 1852.
Question. Is your business solely with coal dealers and buyers?
Answer. That is our business; there are other incidental matters
that come up in this as in all other kinds of business.
Question. For whom do you buy your coal chiefly?
Answer. For the public generally; for any one who will purchase
of us.
Question. Are you what are called commission dealers, or do you
buy and sell on your own account?
Answer. On our own account.
Question. Do you buy your coal of others, or do you quarry it for
yourselves?
Answer. For the last two years we have bought our coal; previous
to that we were extensive miners.
Question. From whom do you buy it?
Answer. From various parties; quite a large number of names are
on our books.
Question. Since when have you furnished coal to the government
in considerable quantities?
Answer. The first coal we ever furnished to the government was
five or six years ago. I cannot say when, but previous to Mr. Pierce's
administration.
Question. How much did you furnish during Mr. Pierce's administration?




COAL AGENCY.                        73
Answer. I do not know; only a part that was used at all events;
perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 tons.
Question. When did you commence furnishing large quantities of
coal to the government?
Answer. The year 1857 we furnished more than we ever furnished
previously.
Question. How much did you furnish in that year?
Answer. I think we furnished about 20,000 tons; perhaps not quite
that amount.
Question. Did other parties than yourselves furnish coal to the
government during 1857?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think they did. I know that other parties
had the reputation of furnishing some. Indeed, I heard the agent
say that he had bought of other parties.
Question. When did you commence furnishing all the coal to the
government?
Answer. I do not know that we have ever furnished all.
Question. All that is delivered at Philadelphia?
Answer. Not until last year; indeed, I do not know it to be a fact
that we furnished it all then.
Question. How much did you furnish last year?
Answer. I do not know exactly. From 30,000 to 40,000 tons.
Question. Did you furnish 40,000 tons?
Answer. From 35,000 to 40,000 tons; not quite 40,000.
Question. What do you receive per ton from the government?
Answer. We receive different prices at different times.
Question. What have you received during the last year?
Answer. The bulk of our sales were at $3 85 per ton.
Question. What coal do you furnish to the government?
Answer. The best of anthracite coal.
Question. Do you sell other coals?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you sell any other to the government?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Who fixes the value of this coal? with whom do you
contract to furnish the coal?
Answer. With Dr. Hunter, the coal agent.
Question. Has any other person taken part in the contracts that
have been made with you?
Answer. I do not think there has; although Mr. Smith attended to
the business for Dr. Hunter at times.
Question. Were your contracts made in writing?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you had any negotiation with the government
during the last year in regard to the price of coal?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you had at any time?
Answer. Never, except on one occasion.
Question. When was that?




74                        COAL AGENCY.
Answer. I do not know as that could be called a negotiation; I
merely made a remark in the department one day that coal would be
at a less price after that, owing to a reduction in the rates of freight
upon the railroad.  That is the only time, I believe, I ever mentioned
the price there.
Question. Then the price of coal was fixed by arrangement between
you and Dr. Hunter?
Answer. Yes, sir.  We did the same with him as we would with
any other purchaser; he asked our price and we told him.
Question.  What is the cost of anthracite coal at Pottsville, the
mining region?
Answer. It varies.
Question. Such as is furnished to the government?
Answer. It varies from $1 75 to $2 25 per ton. It varies in different years, and the different grades vary in price.
Question. What grade do you furnish to the government?
Answer. The best we can procure, so far as our judgment goes.
Question. What is the cost of freightage and tollfrom Pottsville to
Philadelphia?
Answer. $1 40 per ton.
Question. Is it the same by railroad or by canal?
Answer. It was very nearly the same last year.
Question. Does that include the tolls on the canals and other expenses?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Does that include the expense of throwing it off on the
wharf or dock?
Answer. That delivers it at Richmond, at our shipping point, but
includes no labor.
Question. Does the government receive it there?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Does that price include the unloading from the cars?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How much does that cost?
Answer. We calculate that our labor up there amounts to 15 cents
per ton; that is our theory, and practice carries it out so nearly that
we assume that as a basis.  I should state that the cost of labor is
different in different yards, or with different shippers.  Some of the
wharves have more convenient arrangements, and would pay less
than others for labor.
Question. With whom does Dr. Hunter make contracts for the
transportation of this coal?
Answer. He makes none that I am aware of; we did the business
for him as we do for all our customers.  A gentleman in Boston, for
instance, wishing some coal sent to him, would order us to ship it to
him; and we would procure a vessel to take it on upon the best terms
we could.  We have no interest in the freight, except in cases of
special contract.




COAL AGENCY.                         75
Question. What profits do you derive from the chartering of these
vessels?
Answer. None whatever; in all contracts that we make with all our
customers, it is a generally established rule of the trade, we make it
a contract, that we shall generally charter vessels for our customers
on the best terms we can.
Question. Do you own the vessel?
Answer. No, sir; we own none except the one-eighth interest in a
small schooner, which I think never carried any of our coal for the
navy.
Question. Do you make these charter parties for the government?
Answer. Yes, sir; that relates, however, only to a portion of the
coal.  If the Doctor should write us that he had an order for a thousand tons of coal, to be shipped to some I articular port in the country, we should take vessels just as we coald get them, on the best
terms we could, making no charge in relation to it against any one.
Question. Did you receive any profits incidentally from  these
charter parties?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. To whom did you deliver the government coal?
Answer. It is consigned to the naval storekeeper and sometimes to
the commandant of the yard; it is consigned to some of the officers of
the yard.
Question. Is it inspected and weighed?
Answer. It is always understood that it is weighed out in every
yard; but that I cannot tell from my own knowledge.
Question. Is it weighed as it goes on the vessels?
Answer. It is all weighed as it goes on the vessels.
Question. Who inspects the coal?
Answer. That is the duty of the coal agent.
Question. Is any other person called upon to inspect it?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Is the coal weighed?
Answer. I know it is weighed when it is loaded.
Question. Is it weighed when it is delivered on the dock of the
government?
Answer. I am  confident that it is weighed at every yard; so I
judge from receiving certificates mentioning the weight.
Question. Do you ever see it weighed?
Answer. No, sir; I have never been at the yard when it was
received.
Question. How is coal weighed when it is delivered?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question. Do you not know that the coal is merely wheeled off the
vessel and dumped on the dock, and piled up there in bulk?
Answer. I do not know that; I doubt it. I recollect that the naval
storekeeper at Norfolk has sent us certificates from time to time, saying that such a cargo fell short, say three tons, and other cargoes
overrun that amount.




76                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Is the coal weighed in the Philadelphia navy yard when
you have delivered the coal?
Answer. I do not remember that we have ever delivered more than
four or five hundred tons at the Philadelphia navy yard.
Question. Where do you deliver this coal?
Answer. At the different navy yards in the country, at Charlestown, Massachusetts, New York, Norfolk, and Pensacola.
Question. Do you deliver the coal at the Philadelphia navy yard at
$3 85?
Answer. I think we have delivered but a little coal at the Philadelphia yard.  We sent about a hundred tons there for a little steamer
upon the Paraguay expedition.
Question. Is the coal transported at your risk?
Answer. It is not.
Question. When does the risk of the government commence?
Answer. As soon as it is loaded upon the vessel and the bill of
lading signed.
Question. Is it weighed then?
Answer. Yes, sir; every pound of it is weighed.
Question. At Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. The coal agent should inspect the quality of the coal and
see that it is good anthracite coal?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is the variation of the price of anthracite coal from
the highest to the lowest qualities?
Answer. That is rather a difficult question to answer.  It varies
in price as much as fifty cents a ton; and in some years more. But
much depends not only on the kind of coal itself, but upon the
preparation of it.
Question. Were you here at the time Dr. Hunter, the coal agent,
was appointed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you know of his appointment?
Answer. I did.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Jones or Mr.
Getz in reference to his appointment?
Answer. I had with Mr. Glancy Jones.
Question. Were you acquainted with the arrangement by which the
profits of the coal agency were to be divided among several individuals?
Answer. Only from outside rumors.
Question. Did you hear it at the time of the appointment?
Answer. I did; I heard that there were partners in it.
Question. Was that rumor general?
Answer. I heard it then, and I saw it in the papers afterwards.
Question. Was it a general rumor at the time of the appointment?
Answer. I can say that I heard it at that time; it did not seem to
be a private matter, but I heard it talked of.




COAL AGENCY.                        77
Question. Did you have any conversation with the Secretary of the
Navy in regard to the rumor concerning the appointment?
Answer. No, sir; not about the rumor. I have spoken to the Secretary of the Navy about the appointment.  I was an applicant
myself for the position, and was, of course, interested.
Question. You then conversed with the Secretary of the Navy in
regard to the appointment?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he tell you why he had appointed Dr. Hunter?
Answer. I cannot say that I conversed with him specifically in regard to Dr. Hunter's appointment.  The only thing I recollect of
saying is that I heard that Dr. Hunter was to be appointed.
Question. Did you communicate to the Secretary of the Navy those
rumors about the division of the profits?
Answer. I do not recolloct that I did.
Question. From whom did you hear this rumor?
Answer. I am unable to state.  I think, however, that Mr. Jones
told me so, for one, and I believe that Mr. Devine, who was here at
the time, told me, but that I cannot swear to.
Question. Was this before the appointment?
Answer. Perhaps it was before the appointment was made known
officially, but it was during that week.
Question. Are you a relative of Mr. Toucey?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are you a relative by marriage?
Answer. Mrs. Toucey was my mother's sister. There is, however,
no relationship in any way between any of Mr. Toucey's family and
any other firm of Tyler, Stone & Co., except the relationship of Mrs.
Toucey to myself.
Question. Did you not feel called upon to communicate this rumor
to Mr. Toucey?
Answer. No, sir. I may have done so, but I cannot say that I did.
I know that I laid no stress upon it as affecting me.
Question. Was it regarded as wrong or right by you?
Answer. I did not see any impropriety in it, perhaps because I
knew the same thing existed under the previous agent.
Question. Did you know that fact?
Answer. I frequently did business with the agent, and always understood it so.
Question. How was it divided in that instance?
Answer. I think there were two of them who divided it equally;
so I supposed. I know that both had an interest in it.
Question. Was the division of these profits a matter very well
known?
Answer. 1 do not think there was any secret about it.
Question. Would you not, being an applicant, naturally communicate that fact to the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I might possibly have done so, and I might not, because
I did not consider that there was any impropriety in it.




78                        COAL AGENCY.
Question. What is the degree of intimacy between you and Mr.
Toucey?
Answer. We are on very good terms; with Mrs. Toucey I am particularly intimate, especially since I lost my mother, her sister.
Question. How frequently are you in Washington?
Answer. Quite frequently; sometimes I am here twice a month;
sometimes once in two months.
Question. Where do you generally stop while here?
Answer. At the National Hotel?
Question. By whom are the contracts made for the transportation
of coal to foreign governments?
Answer. By the Navy Department itself.
Question. To whom do you deliver the coal that is sent abroad?
Answer. To the vessel designated.
Question. The government makes out an order, and you deliver the
coal to the one they order you to deliver it to?
Answer. Yes, sir; to the one the coal agent orders it to be delivered.
Question. Then the charter parties you make apply to the coasting
trade alone?
Answer. That is all; in fact, we make no special charter contract
with any one; we only made the ordinary bills of lading.
Question. You agree with them at the regular price?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are you under any obligation either personally or in any
way, to contribute any portion of the profits growing out of this coal
business with any other party?
Answer. Not in the least.
Question. Is there any understanding by which you are to have the
contract?
Answer. No, sir; not that I know of.
Question. Do you know why the coal agent applies to you for all
the coal of the government, instead of other parties?
Answer. I do not know as I could say exactly. It is freely done
by him, probably because he feels sure we will treat the department
fairly.
Question. It is a matter of discretion by him?
Answer. Yes, sir; he can purchase at aly moment, wherever he
chooses; he is under no obligation to buy of me.
Question. Has it not been a matter of general complaint that all
the coal is bought of you?
Answer. I cannot say that there was any general complaint. Some
of our neighbors in business have been jealous and envious of us, I
suppose.
Question. Was the fuel of the government ever purchased of one
company exclusively before?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When? Previous to 1857?
Answer. I think that one firm supplied it all formerly.  That was
the general rumor, at all events.




COAL AGENCY.                         79
Question. Did you not supply some then? You said you supplied
4,000 tons during Mr. Pierce's administration?
Answer. There is a little misunderstanding about that quantity. I
meant to say that we furnished some under Mr. Fillmore's administration.
Question. Was not the coal before supplied by contract?
Answer. Not that I am aware.  The first coal agent I knew was
under Mr. Fillmore.
Question. What was his name?
Answer. Mr. Springer.
Question. He was appointed in 1851, was he not?
Answer. I do not know.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is the price of coal which you furnish to the government
the lowest price at which coal was sold in the market?
Answer. I do not know that it was. It would, besides, be very
difficult to discriminate between the different qualities of the coal.
Question. How came you to fix the price at $3 85?
Answer. It was fixed upon the basis of what had formerly been
charged of a fair profit for those in the business, believing the profit
of it to be perfectly fair and reasonable.
Question. Do you know the market price for coal during the time
you have been furnishing it?
Answer. I cannot say; I do not know that I do. Coal has varied
at different times and for different qualities. I do not know how low
it has been. It has been from $3 25 a ton up.
Question. Of the same quality as that you furnish?
Answer. I do not know that. I did not say that.
Question. I only referred to the kind of coal that you furnished.
What has been the variation in the price of that kind of coal during
the last year?
Answer. There has been very little of that quality of coal shipped.
I do not know any one who has shipped exactly the quality of coal
that we furnished; when I take into consideration the care with which
it was handled and shipped, I think it is better coal than was shipped
by any other parties.
Question. Do you mean for sea-going steamers?
Answer. Yes, sir, in our opinion.  It was always rehandled by us
with a great deal of care.
Question. What is the price of the best quality of coal shipped by
other persons for similar purposes?
Answer. I cannot say; about that figure, I think; I know of some
other coals that sold for $3 75; but I do not know what such as ours
would bring.
Question. Have you yourselves, within the last year, shipped any
coal for marine purposes for any other parties but the government?
Answer. No, sir; I think not; I do not think we have shipped any
other; I would not say positively; if we have, it has been but a very
small amount.
Question. Do you know who are the principal shippers of this kind
of coalin Philadelphia, to be sent abroad for the use of marine engines?




80                        COAL AGENCY.
Answer. There is a firm there, who I think have shipped more
largely for that purpose than any others.
Question. Who are they?
Answer. Hecksher & Co.
Question. Have they an establishment in Philadephia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is there not such a firm there as Benj. Milnes & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Now in regard to this firm of Hecksher & Co., what
kinds of steamers do they ship coal for?
Answer. I think they ship for some of the French steamers; at any
rate they are sea going steamers; one line to Southampton or to
Havre.
Question. The mail steamers from New York to Europe?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do they ship for any of the California lines?
Answer. They have done so; but whether the last year or not I
do not know.  You asked me if any others were in the business
largely, I did not mean to say that no others were; but I do not know
of any others who are so largely in the business as Hecksher & Co.
Question. Are you acquainted with the firm of Benj. Milnes & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. With the firm of Van Dusen, Norton & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Blachiston & Cox?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. N. Sturtevant & Co?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Charles Miller & Co?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Noble, Hammack & Caldwell?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Lewis Audinreid & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are all these persons of fair standing in business?
Answer. I think so?
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You said you have uniformly furnished this coal at $3 85
per ton; have you never varied in your price?
Answer. I ought to correct that statement. I spoke of the bulk
of our business being at that price.  We did some business with
other bureaus, in which case we charged a different price. This was
owing to the fact that we sold them the coal delivered at the various
yards in the country.
Question. Then it seems that all the coal which you furnished upon
the orders of Dr. Hunter you furnished uniformly at $3 85 per ton.
Answer. Yes, sir, with the exceptions above named.
Question. Was that the market price while you were furnishing it
at that price?
Answer. No, sir; not for ordinary coal, but for coal shipped in that




COAL AGENCY.                        81
manner. But there is very little coal shipped that would pass the
inspection of an agent, if he attempted to inspect it.
Question. Then you did not sell to the government at what is the
market price at the time you furnished the coal?
Answer.'If we shipped the same kind of coal that we did to other
parties we would charge the same.
Question. Is there as much difference in the quality as  ou make
in the price?
Answer. I think there is. I would not like to say that there was
to a cent; but there is a' great deal of difference.
Question. How much is your price above the market price?
Answer. That I cannot say, because, as I said before, the market
price is rather an indefinite figure. Ordinarily, in shipping coal for
other parties, we ship coal with care, it is true, but we ship it somewhat as it comes; but with the government we have always been
exceedingly particular in regard to selecting good coals, and have
put a great deal more labor and expense upon coals shipped for the
government than upon any other coals we have shipped.
Question. Is there any quality of coal now in the Philadelphia
market so good as that which you furnish to the government?
Answer. I would not like to say whether there is or not, for that
would be arrogating a great deal. I am under the impression that
since we have supplied this coal to the government there has been
none of quite so good quality sold. Formerly there were complaints
of the coal supplied by others; but we have had a great many commendations from parties who have used our coal in the navy.
Question. I am not speaking of the quality now, but of the price.
Answer. It was a price that the agent seemed to think was a fair
one. I had no business, no conversation, no communication with the
department about the matter. In naming and fixing the price with
the agent he seemed to be satisfied with it.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Does your firm keep regular merchants' books?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then tell this committee how much are your profits upon
the coal that you furnish to the government?
Answer. It would be impossible for me to state that; all our coal
business is carried to the general coal account, and it would be impossible, I think, to discriminate?
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Do you not keep separate account with the government?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is, we keep a separate account of the charges
against the government.
Question. You keep an account with the government?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And you keep an account of the coal you purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir, but the government business is but a fraction of
business?
6 A




82                        COAL AGENCYT
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you keep a separate account of all your purchases
for the government?
Answer. No, sir, we do not, for in purchasing government coal we
purchase a great deal of other coal.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Will your books show the price at which you purchase
your coal?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Well, sir, by reference to your books, keeping in mind
the price at which you sell it to the government, can you not very
readily arrive at the profits?
Answer. We could not very readily do that, from  this fact: In
buying coal for the government, for instance, we desire to get a
certain size and in large quantities, and it is impossible to get that
size from any miners by itself, because the production of that size
involves the production of a large amount of other kinds of coal,
which we must take and sell as we can, sometimes at a profit sometimes nearly at cost. But we are obliged to take all this other coal,
in order to secure that we wish for the government.
Question. I did not exactly understand your statement of what was
done with this coal when it arrived at the Reading docks —in the cars,
for instance.  Does your control over it end there, and does the goveminent take it and deliver it from the cars?
Answer. No, sir; we put it on the vessel ourselves.
Question. What does that cost you?
Answer. As I said before, it all goes under the head of shipping
account; the average is about fifteen cents per ton.
Question. Is that the average of what you pay for the coal you
furnish to the government?
Answer. We pay more than that, sometimes; I know of cases where
we have paid fifty cents per ton.
Question. To get it on board the vessels?
Answer. Not altogether that; it always comes with more or less
slate and impurities with it, which are objectionable, and we have to
pick those impurities out.
Question. Is the $1 40 a ton, which you say covers freight and
tolls, in addition to the price paid for the labor?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then the $1 40 does not pay for taking the coal from the
mines and delivering it on board the ships?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Now, could you not deliver this coal to the government
at a smartly less price and still make a handsome profit?
Answer. We could make a profit at a less price, perhaps; but I
have never considered and do not now consider that we alake more
than a good, fair profit, considering the advantages we give the government of being always supplied with the same kind of coal, in good
condition and in whatever quantities and at whatever notice they
may give.




COAL AGENCY.                          83
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What did you get some years ago, when you furnished
cal to the governmentT
Answer. I do not recollect,
By the chairman:
Question. Is this coal transported from Philadelphia to the different
navy yards in steamers or in sailing vessels?
Answer. In sailing vessels.
Question. Do you say that you derive no benefit or advantage in
your business from the power to make these charter. parties?
Answer, Not a cent; we make them free of cost.
Question. Are they made out in the name of the coal agent?
Answer, No, sir; this charter party is but an ordinary bill of lading.
It says, for instance: "Shipped on board schooner Sam Smith, by
Tyler, Stone & Co., (so many) tons of coal,"  &c.  The captain is
bound to deliver at such a place in good condition, &c.
Question. Is this coal transported at the risk of the government?
Answer. Yes, sir, it is at the risk of the government, as with all
our other customers, as soon as it is loaded on the vessel and the bill
of lading is signed.
Question. Do you charge Dr. Hunter anything for this?
Answer. Not a cent,
Question. Do you know whether he inspects this coal or not?
Answer. It is his duty to do it.[ I presurned that he would do it,
or the Navy Department would complain of him, and I have never
heard that they have made any complaints of him; and I will say
further here that I have never sold any coal to Mr. Toucey, the Secretary of the Navy, nor to any one in the Navy Department, nor to any
one except the coal agent, for the use of the department in any of its
business; nor do I think that the coal agent has ever had any intimation from any one in the department that I should furnish him with
any coal, and he will swear that he has had no such intimation.
FEBRUARY 3, 1859,
C, Nwmo-s BiACH recalled:
By the Chairman:
Question. You say that you wish to make a statement in explanation
of your testimony given on yesterday; what is the explanation?
Answer. It is in relation to a certain document which I did not
have an opportunity to examine until after my examination on yesterday. (See appendix to this deposition.) I refer to the affidavit
of certain parties as to the price at which they would have supplied
coal of similar quality to that which we sent to the department.  I
will only say that that to some extent is only a mere matter of opinion,
as they are not fully aware of what was supplied, nor the manner in
which it was supplied.  I will also state that one of the firms did
formerly supply the coal under the regulations made one year, that
it should be given to the lowest bidder; and the coal they furnished
was of such an inferior quality that it created very great trouble, and




84                        COAL AGENCY,
orders were never afterwards given to that effect.  And I will also
state, that another firm, who testify that they never were applied to
during 1857 and 1858, were applied to during 1857; that I know,
Through forgetfulness, probably, their statement is wrong in that
respect.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What are the names of these firms?
Answer. The firm which supplied the coal one year, and with which
the department had so much trouble, is the firm of Noble, Hammack
& Co.; the other firm I referred to is the firm of Blackiston & Cox.
I am quite well assured that they were applied to in 1857 in relation
to the price at which they would furnish the coal, and they did make
a proposition, but it was too high, or was for some reason unsatisfactory.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. You used the words awhile since, in stating that they
were applied to, "that I know."  You now say that you "are well
assured" of it.  Perhaps it would be better for you to fix upon the
form of expression that you wish to have employed.
Answer. Perhaps it would be difficult for me to say that I know
that fact, of my own personal knowledge. I do not know of that myself, but the agent informed me that he had a bid from that firm as
well as from others. I will say this, however, without any hesitation,
that the parties could not have supplied the coal of the quality we
supplied at the price they have named, and have got cost for it.  In
many instances we purchase coal for the government that costs us
more than they give there as the price at which they would furnish it.
I would state that my wife's family (the Tylers) have never considered themselves connected with the Toucey family, and that there is
merely a "calling" acquaintance between the two families: nothing
on which the Tylers would presume to ask or expect favors.
C. NICHOLS BEACH.
(APPENDIX.)
PHILADELPHIA, January 29, 1859.
To the honorable John Sherman, chairman of the committeefor investigating naval contracts, &c.:
The undersigned, citizens of Philadelphia, respectfully represent:
That they are coal dealers, and that they represent nearly threefourths of the whole amount of anthracite coal shipped from the city
of Philadelphia in the years 1857 and 1858, and that during those two
years no application has been made to them, or to either of them, to
supply the naval department with anthracite coal, neither has any
application been made to them to furnish any statement of prices at
which coal could be furnished to said department.
The undersigned further say that they would have been glad, in the
year 1858, to have supplied the naval department with the anthracite




COAL AGENCY.                        85
coal required (of the same quality as that furnished) at three dollars
and thirty-five cents per ton, on board of vessels in Philadelphia.
All of which is respectfully submitted to your notice by
Israel W. Morris, jr.,          Blakiston & Cox,
N. Sturtevant & Co.,            Benj. Milves & Co.,
Van Dusen, Norton & Co.,        Charles Miller & Co.,
Noble, Hammack, & Caldwell,    Lewis Audenreid & Co.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 88.
On this 29th day of January, A. D. 1859, personally appeared
before me, the subscriber, an alderman of the city of Philadelphia,
John P. Cox, of the firm of Blakiston & Cox; Charles Wannamacher,
for N. Sturtevant & Co.; Charles Miller, for Charles Miller & Co.;
Israel W. Morris, jr.; Benjamin Milves, for Benjamin Milves & Co.;
C. F. Norton, for Van Dusen, Norton & Co.; Seth Caldwell, for
Noble, Hammack & Co.;John Rommel, jr., for Lewis Audenreid & Co.;
who being sworn or affirmed, say that the facts set forth in the foregoing statement are true.
JOHN B. KENNEY,
Alderman and Justice of the Peace.
No. 29. —. NICHOLS BEACH, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
C. NICHOLS BEACH, recalled.
By Mr. Bococx:
Question. Were you an applicant for the coal agency when Dr.
Hunter was appointed?
Answer. I was.
Question. Do you know of any reason why you did not get the appointment?
Answer. I think political reasons in part.
Question. You had been connected with the coal business?
Answer. Yes, sir; a good while.
Question. Was there any other gentleman applying for the coal
agency who had as much experience in regard to the coal business as
yourself?
Answer. I do not know of more than one. Mr. Springer applied,
who, I think, was very competent. Mr. Nevin might think that he
was, although I do not think he has had as much practical experience
in the coal business as I have.
Question. Do you know of any reason why you did not get the appointment?
Answer. I think for political reasons in part, I have always understood.
Question. I want what you know, not any hearsay statements.  If
you heard the President or Secretary say anything about it that would
be competent for you to give?
Answer. As the appointment was in Mr. Toucey's office I thought




86                       COAL AGENCTY
I could get it when I came down here. But he gave me to understand
that I must be very well endorsed to secure it. Afterwards he gave
me to understand, that as it was a Pennsylvania appointment, he
would defer a great deal to the President in it, but that my papers
would go on file, and my application would have equal consideration
with the rest.
Question. How extensively were you endorsed in Philadelphia and
in Pennsylvania?
Answer. I had the names of, say a couple of dozen gentlemen, all
of first-rate standing; some of them  politicians, and some of them
merchants.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Nevin was a candidate for the
office?
Answer. Yes, sir; he was.
Question. Did he make any proposition to you to aid him in getting
the appointment?
Answer. He did.
Question. What?
Answer. He made propositions at different times. First, he proposed that if I would use my influence for him he would make all his
purchases through our house. Afterwards, as the time drew near for
the appointment to be made, he made a rather more indefinite proposition than that. He said he was anxious to get this appointment,
and if I would assist him, and he should succeed, I might dictate my
own terms in return.
Question. Do you know anything of a letter written by Mr. Nevin
to Dr. Hunter, proposing to furnish him  with coal for the government?
Answer. Dr. Hunter informed me of such a letter, and I think he
showed it to me; I have quite a distinct recollection that he did. Mr.
Nevin Lad entered the business very late in the season, I think as late
as August. He was not in the business during the early part of the
season; but he formed a connexion with a house in Philadelphia as
late as August, 1 think, and entered into business to a small extent.
Question. Had the arrangement between your firm and Dr. Hunter
been made before that time?
Answer. It had been made soon after Dr. Hunter was appointed,
The first coal he bought I think he bought of us.
Question. What was the precise nature of that arrangement?
Answer. It was this: we had nothing in writing, but it was understood, however, that the doctor would come to us as he wanted to
buy coal, and we named the price at which we would furnish it to
him.
Question. How long did you agree that that arrangement should
exist?
Answer. It was understood that it should extend through the season.
Question. Suppose the price of coal had advanced with that understanding between you and Dr. Hunter, would you have been permitted
to charge a higher price than that which you had agreed upon, or
would you have been bound to let him have it at that price?




COAL AGENCY.                        87
Answer. We should have been bound to let him have it at that
price. It was the same price at which we had furnished the last coal
to the former agent. The change from the old price to the new was
made after the railroad company reduced their rates for transportation.
Question. What was the former price?
Answer. During the previous year it was $4 25 a ton.
Question. How much did you supply at $4 25 a ton?
Answer. I cannot say; we supplied the agent, I should think, with
more than half of what he purchased that year. I think that a Mr.
Repplier supplied about all or nearly all of the balance.
Question. Something was said by witnesses here, perhaps by yourself, about the peculiar process that this coal has to go through in
order to fit it for government purposes.
Answer. I answered that question the other day, but I do not know
as my explanation was very lucid.
Question. What peculiar preparation over and above what is given
to other coal is necessary in order to fit coal for government steam
uses?
Answer. It is the putting a larger number of men for a longer time
upon the work of selecting the impurities from the coal, so that the
government may receive purer coal. We have it entirely pure, if we
can. All this selecting is done by hand, and very carefully.
Question. Where was this handling done, at the mines or by your
firm?
Answer. Our firm had it done after we received it.
Question. What is your estimate, if you made any, of the value of
the labor per ton, to which it was necessary to subject this coal in this
preparation you speak of?
Answer. It would depend very much upon the condition in which
the coal came to us from the mines. I am very confident we have
expended as much as fifty cents a ton upon some of the coal which we
have received. In other cases we would not expend so much; twentyfive cents a ton, perhaps. Occasionally it would need only a small
amount of labor upon it; but generally it would require a great deal
of labor more than ordinary coal.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you mean that this was extra labor put upon this
government coal beyond what is put upon coal for other sea going
steamers-say, for instance, coal for the Collins' steamers?
Answer. It is much more labor than we would put upon any other
coal. I do not think there is any other coal shipped with so much
care as the coal ordered from us for the government.
Question. Do you know anything about it?
Answer. I know what it is in our own case.
Question. How is it with other dealers; those who furnish the
Collins and California steamers?
Answer. I know the coal goes, to some extent, more or less, as it
comes from the mines into the market, for I have seen them loading it.
Question. You wish, then, to be understood that your rehandling,




88                       COAL AGENCY.
costing you from twenty-five to fifty cents a ton, is extra, beyond what
is put upon coal for other sea going steamers?
Answer. I do think it is beyond what is ordinarily put upon
other coal; and I would like to state my motive for putting on this
extra care and labor. Knowing the position of the agency, and that
this matter might be called in question and there might be reflections
made upon my connexion, or supposed connexion, with the Secretary
and Dr. Hunter, I have always been more particular in furnishing
this coal than in furnishing any other that I have supplied to purchasers, perhaps more so than I would have been in furnishing it to
the government, if the parties I have referred to had been entirely indifferent to me.  And I would like also to state another reason; it is
that I know something of what is required for the naval service. All
the vessels are cramped for room for coal; their bunkers are small,
and they can carry but a limited amount of coal. I think it is very
important for our naval vessels to have clean coal, because they cannot
afford so much room for it as other sea going steamers. We did
bestow labor upon preparing this coal above what we bestowed upon
ordinary coal for other sea going steamers.
By the Chairman:
Question. You say that the Secretary informed you that he had to
defer to the wishes of the President in Pennsylvania appointments?
Answer. I did not mean to be understood to state that he said so in
direct terms; but I got the impression in some way from the Secretary
that that was the fact. I do not think he said so in direct language.
Question. Were the qualifications of Dr. Hunter for this office
spoken of by or to the Secretary?
Answer. Not that I recollect.
Question. Was anything then said, between you or the Secretary,
about your supplying the coal to Dr. Hunter?
Answer. There was not.
Question. When did the Secretary understand that you were furnishing coal to Dr. Hunter?  When did he first understand it?
Answer. I cannot say. I do not know that it ever came to his
knowledge officially.
Question. Would he not naturally know it in the way of official
business?
Answer. I do not know of any way in which it would come to his
notice.
Question. Do you say under oath that the Secretary did not know
that you was furnishing this coal?
Answer. I say he would not know it officially.
Question. Does he know it as a matter of fact?
Answer. I think that he does know that I furnish some of it, but I
think he does not know to what extent, how much or in what proportion. I have no doubt mentioned to him that we were shipping coal
for his department.
Question. Did you understand from the Secretary that the appointment of coal agent was made upon political considerations?
Answer. No sir: I do not think I did. But I understand myself




COAL AGENCY.                        89
the nature of these things. I knew that in order to get the appointment myself I required political as well as other endorsements.
Question. You do not know why Dr. Hunter was appointed, further
than you have stated?
Answer. No, sir: but I think he was appointed at the desire of the
President.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you know anything about that?
Answer. I do not know it positively.
The witness subsequently made the following statement:
I wish to state that the Chairman's question, " You say that the
Secretary informed you that he had to defer to the wishes of the President in Pennsylvania appointments," is not what I understood him
to ask on my examination. I understood the question thus-' Did
the Secretary inform  you that he should defer to the wishes of the
President in this matter (the coal agency) as it was a Pennsylvania
appointment?"  My answer, as reported, is a correct reply to the
question as I understood it, but it is not a correct reply to the reported
question, as the Secretary never told me that he had to defer to the
President's wishes in any matter; nor did I discuss with him any
other appointment than that of coal agent, for which I was an applicant.
C. NICHOLS BEACE.
No. 33. —TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. REPPLIER, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 3, 1859.
JOHN G. REPPLIER called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. I am in the coal business.
Question. Where?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. In what kind of coal business?
Answer. The mining and selling of coal.
Question. What is the name of your firm?
Answer. Repplier & Bro.
Question. What is your experience in the business?
Answer. I have been in it a good many years.
Question. What has been the market value during the last year of
anthracite coal of the quality, used by the vessels of the United
States? what its value per ton delivered on board the vessel at the
Reading docks, Philadelphia?
Answer. It has ranged from $3 20 to $3 30, per ton, according to
the quality of the coal.
Question. State what examination, if any, you have made of the
coal delivered by Tyler, Stone & Co. to the United States government, within the last year, at Philadelphia?
Answer. I have made no examination of it at all; I have made
inquiries as to the kind,of coal delivered, but I have made no personal examination.




90                        COAL AGENCY.
Question. From whom do they purchase their coal?
Answer. Principally from Richard Hecksher & Co., so far as I can
learn.
Question. What quality of coal is it?
Answer. It is middling quality; I do not consider it first class coal.
Question. What is the market value of that quality of coal on board
vessel?
Answer. Not over $3 25 a ton, I should say.
Question. Could such coal be purchased in open market in Philadelphia, in such quantities as used by the United States, and be delivered on board vessel at $3 25 a ton?
Answer. I should say yes, and I would add to that, I believe I mine
as good an article as is mined for marine purposes, and I should have
been very well satisfied to have taken $3 30 a ton for any quantity
desired.  I believe that my coal stands as high as any that is mined;
I do not think there is any better coal for marine purposes.
Question. What advantage has a purchaser who consumes, say
50,000 tons of coal annually, such a purchaser as the United States
would be, in entering the market to purchase coal?
Answer. I would say that the United States government pays cash
and the seller has no risk.  We have, ourselves, frequently furnished
the government, during some of the terms of former coal agents.
We would always sell to the government in preference, because we
ran no risk in selling coal to it.
Question. There is no delay in receiving the money, you consider?
Answer. Yes, sir; we consider that a great advantage.
Question. State whether you made any application to any one,
either the coal agent or any officer of the government, for the privilege of selling coal to the government?
Answer. I never made any application to the present coal agent.
I would say, however, that Mr. John F. Smith called upon me to
make some little inquiry, he said, in relation to coal. I told him I
should be very happy to sell to him; that our coal had given general
satisfaction, and we would be glad to sell it to him any time he would
purchase. That is all the application I ever had from him.
Question. What did he say to that?
Answer. He said that Dr. Hunter and himself would be the purchasers; himself principally, as he resided in Philadelphia, and he
would call upon us.
Question. Did he tell you what prices he was paying for coal for
the government?
Answer. He did not.
Question. Did you communicate your price to him?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he make any inquiry as to what was your price?
Answer. He did not; but said that when he was prepared to make
an inquiry he would call upon us.
Question. Did he ever come after that to see you?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What is the difference in the price of coal delivered, say




COAL AGENCY.                         91
at the works of Messrs. Merrick & Sons, in Philadelphia, and that
delivered on board government vessels there?
Answer. It could be delivered at about the same price on board of
the vessels as it could be delivered to Merrick & Sons, at about the
same price as it could be delivered on board vessels weighed, screened,
and cleaned. The works of Merrick & Towne or Merrick & Sons, are
on the railroad. This coal would come down to Philadelphia and pass
along on the Southwark railroad immediately into their yard, and
there is no cost except the mere hauling of the cars from the terminus
of the railroad to their place, which is probably fifteen cents a ton;
and that is less than the cost of transhipping coal on board the vessel.
Question. You go upon the presumption that Merrick & Sons would
receive their coal directly by railroad instead of by canal?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is the way they have generally received it.
Question. From whom do they generally purchase their coal?
Answer. From various parties.  We have furnished a firm in Philadelphia, or a coal man there, who has furnished Merrick & Sons;
but he has a wharf in the vicinity of their foundry. We would ship
it direct in boats to their wharf and it would then be carried to their
place.
Question. Then they do not buy of the original miners?
Answer. Yes, sir, in some instances, but they did not of us then,
though they used a quantity of our coal last year. We are shippers
of coal as well as supplying retailers or distributors of coal in Philadelphia.  We supply a large amount to the distributors there, as well
as distribute it ourselves.
Question. Have you ever seen Dr. Hunter, the United States coal
agent, at Reading?
Answer. I know him; he is a fellow townsman of mine.
Question. Has he any qualifications, and if so what are they, for a
coal agent?
Answer. I should say he had none at all.
Question. In your judgment is his office of any practical service to
the government of the United States?
Answer. Not the least in the world.
Question. Who are then the real coal agents as the matter is now
conducted?
Answer. I should say that Tyler, Stone & Co. were. In explanation I would say that whenever Dr. Hunter, who is the coal agent,
gets a requisition from the government for any quantity of coal he
sends it to Tyler, Stone & Co., and they ship this coal and make out
their bill upon a printed form that is established by the government.
The bill is made out at the head of the form, and there is a certificate
as follows, signed by Dr. Hunter:




92                        COAL AGENCY.
[In triplicate.]
United States Navy Department, Bureau of Docks and Yards,
To                                   Dr.
Appropriation..
I certify that the above coal, amounting to       tons, shipped
on board the, bound for, was
purchased by me for the use of; and that the
quantity and price are correct, and that it is of the best quality.
United States Coal Agent.
185 
Now I am very confident that Dr. Hunter never saw one ton of coal
go aboard that ship or any vessel.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Or Mr. Smith either?
Answer. Nor Mr. Smith either. If you ask me my opinion I would
say that the coal agency as now conducted is a perfect sinecure.
By the Chairman:
Question. From whom do Tyler, Stone & Co. purchase coal?
Answer. I think, as far as I have made any inquiry, from Richard
Hecksher & Co.; and I believe that Dr. Hunter could have bought
the same coal that Tyler, Stone & Co. sell to the government for
$3 85 a ton from Hecksher & Co. for $3 25 a ton.
Question. How much do Tyler, Stone & Co. pay Hecksher & Co.?
Answer. Not over $3 25 a ton, I should say.
Question. Delivered?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. On board the vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is, they purchase it at the mines at a certain price and then pay for the transportation to Philadelphia, and, I
suppose they would not pay more than Richard Hecksher & Co. would
ask to deliver it,on board the vessel.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Then these other agencies of Dr. Hunter and Tyler,
Stone & Co. would be perfectly superfluous, for Hecksher & Co. could
furnish the coal themselves?
Answer. I have no doubt that they would be glad to furnish this
coal to the government for $3 25 a ton, if that question was an open
one.
Question. Is that a responsible house, a house of credit and standing?
Answer. Yes, sir, as much so as any one in our trade, the largest one
in our trade; and Mr. Nevin also offered coal to Dr. Hunter at a much
less price than he is paying.




COAL AGENCY.                          93
Question. What do Tyler, Stone & Co. do with this coal? Do they
buy it at the mines and then contract for its transportation?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much do they pay for it at the mines?
Answer. I should say they get it for $1 75 per ton.
Question. Now what would it cost for transportation from the mines
to Philadelphia?
Answer. It would cost about $1 35 per ton to transport this coal
from the mines to Richmond.  The cost of transhipment would be
very little, because they have allowed them five per cent. on the
whole amount of cost, because it is allowed by the miner and by the
railroad also, and that would pay all the expense of transhipping the
coal.  It costs for transhipping the coal at Richmond probably ten
cents a ton for manual labor, which I say would be fully paid by the
five per cent. which is allowed by the miner and the railroad company.  If the coal costs them $3 a ton at Richmond, then five per
cent. off would be fifteen cents per ton, which would pay all the cost
of transhipping the coal. If Tyler, Stone & Co. pay $1 75 a ton for
this coal at the mines, and $1 35 to have it transported from thence
to Richmond, then I do not think it could cost them more than $3 10
per ton on board the vessel, as the five per cent. off would pay all
other charges.
Question. Now, if they got $3 25 per ton delivered on board the
vessel, would that be considered a fair and reasonable profit?
Answer. Yes, sir; as it is without any risk at all; and I know that
a coal dealer is always satisfied to sell at twenty cents profit per ton;
and take'the risk of selling a man on four months' credit.  I do that
every day; I do it for parties who mine coal, and send it to me to sell
for them.  I charge them only twenty cents a ton, and take all the
risk of collecting the money, while I furnish them the money right
away.  Therefore I say that twenty cents a ton is a full profit for any
coal man.  The profits on coal are smaller than the profits in other
occupations, I would say, so far as the first dealers are concerned.
Question. Is your name attached to that paper?  [Showing witness
"'appendix" to deposition of J. Nichols Beach.]
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are you familiar with these signatures?
Answer. Yes, sir; I am familiar with all of them.
Question. Are they coal dealers?
Answer. Yes, sir.  Mr. Israel Morris, jr., I believe, goes out of it
in the spring. I will state that this document was handed to me for
signature. I told them I could sign it so far as regards the year 1858,
but not for the year 1857, for, during a portion of 1857, Mr. Tyson,
who was the coal agent at that time, did purchase coal from me.
But every signature there is that of a respectable coal dealing firm,
as much so as any we have.
Question. Has this matter about the purchase of coal for the government been a subject of complaint among the dealers in Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir; it has been the subject of universal complaint
amongst us.




94                       COAL AGENCY.
By the Chairman?
Question. Is there anything further upon this subject that yon
know? if so, you can proceed to state what it is?
Answer. I cannot say further than my opinion as regards this matter is, that the only trouble among the coal men is that they have
never been asked to even name a price for this coal.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Would it be proper for the government to make a coal
dealer directly its agent?
Answer. I should say it would be very improper.
Question. Is it not necessary, then, to have some agent for this
business? I am not speaking of the manner in which it is now transacted; but would you not consider it necessary, where so much coal
is purchased, that the government should have an agent, or else buy
its coal on contract?
Answer. No, sir, I should not think it necessary to have an agents
but it would be proper to have a coal inspector.
Question. Would he not be an agent?
Answer. No, sir, not necessarily so; the government could buy the
coal by contract, and the business of this inspector would be to see
that the coal was of the proper kind and quality, and that it went on
board properly weighed and in good order. As an illustration of
what I mean I will give my experience in this matter.  A few years
ago Mr. Lenthall, who was at the head of a bureau, sent orders to
Mr. Tyson, who was the coal agent, to obtain bids for a certain quantity of coal that he wanted for his department.  Mr. Tyson went
around to a number of the coal dealers, and got bids from them; Mr.
Lenthall, upon being informed of these bids, then took the matter
entirely out of the hands of Mr. Tyson, the coal agent, and ordered
him to give the contract to the lowest bidder, which happened to be
Noble, Hammack & Co. Mr. Tyson came down to Philadelphia, to
see that the coal was shipped properly.  He found that it was not
going aboard in that condition in which he claimed it should go aboard,
and he accordingly remonstrated with them. But it was of no avail 
they paid no heed to him, but still shipped the coal in the same way,
and Mr. Tyson then refused to sign the bills. The coal, it appears,
did not give entire satisfaction, and there was considerable trouble
about it; complaints came back that the coal had not been weighed;
that it was dirty, &c. And I believe the bills were sent back, and
not paid until some deduction was made.
Now, as regards this office of coal agent, I will say that when it
was first created, it was given to a Mr. Springer, who was a retired
coal merchant.
Question. How long ago was that?
Answer. That was in Mr. Fillmorels administration. Mr. Springer,
who was then appointed coal agent, was a retired coal merchant,
who knew as much about the trade as any man in the trade.  He
knew all the different qualities of coal; all those suitable for steam
purposes, whether at sea or on shore, as well as all those qualities




COAL AGENCYe                         95
suitable for other purposes.  I sold Mr. Springer a few cargoes occasionally. While he was coal agent he would go around to the different
dealers and get bids, and if my price suited him, he would buy of me,
But I never shipped a cargo of coal for him but what he or his son
was on the wharf to see that it was all weighed correctly and shipped
in good order. Now, a coal inspector would do that.  He should be
a retired coal merchant, or one familiar with the trade, and we have
hundreds of them in the Schuylkill region and in Philadelphia, who
could attend to that matter very readily; and no doubt the coal would
then be purchased at the lowest price; for it could be purchased by
contract, and the inspector would see that it was delivered properly.
Question. Was it purchased by Mr. Springer of the lowest bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir.  He would come into my office sometimes, and
say, perhaps: "I have an order for a thousand tons of coal for Pensacola; what can you let me have it for?" I would put down the
figures, and he might then say: "I can do better than that," and I
would reply that I could not do any better. And perhaps the next
time he came in my price would suit him, and he would then buy of
me.  I do not think, however, that T sold the government 2,000 tons
a year while Mr. Springer was the coal agent.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is the name of the coal that your company mines?
Answer. We mine two kinds of coal; one we call the Mammoth
Vein coal, and the other we call the Locust Mountain coal.  They
are two different kinds, both white ash, and both of very good quality, such as is used for steam purposes.
Question. By what name is Hecksher's coal known?
Answer. I think he mines two kinds of coal, known as the Blackheath coal and the Broad-mountain coal.
Question. Is there a sort of coal called the Buck Mountain coal?
Answer. Yes, sir; but Hecksher does not mine it.
Question. Which of all the species of coal is considered the best
for generating steam to run steam-engines?
Answer. The Buck Mountain coal is considered the best.
Question. To what sort of purchasers have you sold your coal?
Have you sold it for engine purposes?
Answer. Yes, sir; we have sold a great deal of it for marine purposes, and also to supply a large number of stationary engines in the
city of Philadelphia.
Question. Have you sold your coal to Merrick & Sons?
Answer. They are using our coal now, but not directly from us;
they obtain it through Mr. Morris.
Question. You have supplied a good part of the coal used by that
firm?
Answer. Within the last year only.
Question. Do you say that the cost of getting coal to their establishment is about the same as that of delivering it on board of government vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir, if they were to buy it of first hands; but they




96                       COAL AGENCY.
buy it second-handed.  We sell it to the dealer who supplies them,
while we could sell it to them as cheap as we sell it to the dealer.
By Mr. Groesbeck.
Question. Why do they not buy it all at first-hand?
Answer. I do not know.
By Mr. Bocock.
Question. What is the reputation of Merrick & Sons as shrewd
business men?
Answer. I suppose they have very few superiors.
Question. Do they take good care of their interests?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you ever buy coal of Hecksher & Co?
Answer. No, sir.  We never buy coal at all.  We mine so largely
that there is no necessity for our buying it.
Question. Have you, or any of those named here, (referring to the
"Appendix" to the deposition of J. Nichols Beach,) so far as you
know, ever made any complaint to the Navy Department here that
the coal agent did not consult the interests of the government in his
purchases of coal?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think any of them have.  I do not
know anything of the kind.  I think I was in error in saying the
coal should cost Merrick & Son the same price as that put on
board of vessel. I have ascertained it cost them from 15 to 20 cents
per ton higher.
JNO. G. REPPLIER.
No. 34.-TESTIMONY OF GEORGE P. NEVIN, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 3, 1858.
GEORGE P. NEVIN called and examined:
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. The wholesale coal business.
Question. How long have you been in it?
Answer. I have been in the wholesale coal business, with the exception of some eight months, for nearly thirteen years.
Question. Are you acquainted with Dr. Hunter, the agent to purchase coal for the government of the United States?
Answer. I am.
Question. Have you ever offered to sell coal to him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Since he has been the government agent?
Answer. Yes, sir.




COAL AGENCY.                         97
Question. At what price did you offer to sell coal to him, delivered
on board of vessels at Philadelphia?
Answer. I offered to sell him Black-heath and Broad-mountain coal,
delivered on board vessels at Philadelphia, at $3 20 a ton of 2,240
pounds.  I offered to sell him Lehigh coal, delivered at Bristol, at
$3 62- a ton of 2,240 pounds. I offered to sell him Lackawanna or
Scranton coal, on board vessels at Elizabethport, New Jersey, at $3 40
per ton of 2,240 pounds. I made this offer to him by letter. I had
one or two interviews with him in regard to coal, and as he never
asked me the price, I volunteered it to him, and thought it would
make it an inducement for him to buy.
Question. Have you s copy of the letter you sent to him?
Answer. I have; it is as follows:
PHILADELPHIA, August 14, 1858.
DEAR SIR: Herewith we hand you our card, and beg leave to say
that we are prepared to furnish government, through you as purchasing agent, with first quality Black-heath, Broad-mountain, Lehigh,
or Lackawanna coal, at the following prices:
Black-heath and Broad-mountain at $3 20 per ton, 2,240 pounds,
on board vessels here; Lehigh at $3 62- per ton, 2,240 pounds, at
Bristol; Lackawanna at $3 40 per ton, 2,240 pounds, at Elizabethport.
We feel very confident that it would be to the interest of government, as well as your interest, to give us a call before making any
further purchases.
Hoping to hear from you soon, yours, respectfully,
NEVIN, SAWYER, & CO.,
106 Walnut street.
C. H. HUNTER, Esq.,
Government Agent, Reading, Pennsylvania.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, S8.
A. T. Fox, being sworn, says: That he is in the employment of
Nevin, Sawyer, & Co., and that the foregoing is a true copy of a
letter that was deposited in the Philadelphia post office by deponent on
the 14th of August, 1858, directed to C. H. Hunter, government
agent, Reading, Pennsylvania.
A. T. FOX.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, February 2, 1859.
JNO. B. KENNEY, Alderman.
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with Dr. Hunter on
this subject?
Answer. I had, previous to writing him that letter.
Question. Did he ever purchase any coal of you?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he ever assign any reason why he did not do so?
Answer. He did, upon one occasion.
7 A




98                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. What was the reason he assigned?
Answer. It was that his personal interest would not admit of it.
He had previously told me that he would give me a part of the government orders to fill, without saying anything in regard to the price.
Question. Do you know the persons who furnish the government
vith coal in Philadelphia?
Answer. I do, sir.
Question. Who are they?
Answer. Tyler, Stone & Co.
Question. Is a Mr. Beach one of the firm?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with him upon that
subject?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was it?
Answer. I have had several conversations with him in regard to
furnishing coal to the government. I met him at Richmond one day,
on the shipping wharf. I will say here that I went out of business
on the 1st of January, 1858, and was out of business until about the
1st of July the same year, at which time I then formed a new connexion and went into business again. I was formerly one of the firm
of Blakiston, Cox & Co., of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
After I resumed the coal business I met Mr. Beach one day and told
him that I was going to be a competitor for part of the government
coal.  He remarked that the amount was so small that it would
hardly be worth dividing. I told him that did not matter, as we were
willing to take whatever the agent would favor us with; that we were
just again starting in business; that ours was a new house, and we
wanted to get all the trade we could, and we should like to have some
of this government coal to furnish, and would be willing to furnish it
at the price that we would sell to other parties at. That was the amount
of the conversation that passed between us then, and there has been
very little said between us in regard to it since, until to-day, when we
had some talk about it.
Question. Do you know anything about the manner in which the
present coal agent performs his duty; what he does, &c,; of your own
knowledge?
Answer. I cannot say positively, of my own knowledge, what
course he pursues?
Question. Do you consider the prices stated in your offer to him as
living, remunerative prices, for a coal dealer to charge any one?
Answer. Yes, sir. I should have been very willing to have furnished coal to the government at that price.
Question. Do you know the quality of the coal required on United
States vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir. I think I have knowledge enough of the coal
trade to know what is required for any purpose, whether it be bituminous or anthracite coal.
Question. I am speaking of the kind used on board government
vessels, for steam purposes-anthracite coal.
Answer. The Black-heath and Broad-mountain coal is the best coal




COAL AGENCY.                         99
steam, I suppose; for heating purposes and heavy fires Lehigh
coal is the best.
Question. Then you think that those prices stated by you in your
proposals are fair, remunerative prices?
Answer. Yes, sir. I sold coal about that time at a less price than
that. Other parties have sold it as low as $3 15.
Question. Can you get any quantity of coal at the price you offered
to sell it for?
Answer. Yes, sir, I could.  I would have been willing to have
furnished any quantity-any reasonable quantity-any quantity that
the government was willing to order.
Question. Suppose you were to select with great care the qualities
of coal you speak of as being the best for marine purposes, would it
increase the price?
Answer. No, sir, not any.  We purpose having the coal we name
a price for of the first quality and in the best order.
Question. Did you ever see the coal furnished by this firm of
Tyler, Stone & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think I have ever seen it, and have
never made it my business to examine it particularly.  I know, however, the mines the coal is said to come from, and I know the quality
of that coal.
Question. Did you make this offer to Dr. Hunter merely to try him?
Answer. No, sir; he had previously told me that he had intended
to give us part of the government orders to fill.  I have been
acquainted with Dr. Hunter nearly twenty years, a part of that time
intimately acquainted with him.  He made an appointment to ecall at
our office in Philadelphia about a certain time.  I waited until after
that time, and I then made up my mind that I would write to the
doctor and name our price to him.
Question. When was this?
Answer. It was last August.
Question. Does the price of coal in Philadelphia generally vary
much?
Answer. It varies some.  There are different kinds of coaL  There
is the red ash coal, and the white ash.
Question. I am speaking of the best quality?
Answer. That is the white ash coal.  The Black-heath and lBroadmountain coals are white ash, but they do not vary muchli in price.
There may be a difference in regard to the preparation of the coal;
the care taken in selecting and handling it.  The coal comes down
first in what is called the run of the mine, and there is, more or less
impurity in it then.  It is the business of the miner to select these
impurities out, and then send the coal out of the mine. It is again
selected over at the head of the dumping shutes where it is dumped
from the cars.  All coal properly handled must come in good order.
If there is carelessness in handling it, of course there will be impurities in it. We purchase of the miners, the same as Tyler, Stone &
Co., and as the shippers do, and it is our business to see that we get
our coal well selected.




100                       COAL AGENCY.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you purchased any coal of Hecksher?
Answer. Not this last year, 1858.
Question. Do you know what Hecksher's coal could have been
bought for last year at his mines?
Answer. Only what I have heard from others who were buying it.
I know the general price of coal.
Question. What does it cost to bring coal from Hecksher's mines
to Philadelphia?
Answer. We have nothing to do as purchasers of coal with the cost
of transportation over the lateral roads.  When the coal is delivered
upon the main Reading road, as Hecksher' s coal is, at Schuylkill-haven,
4- miles below Pottsville, we have been paying from there to Philadelphia and Port Richmond;1 35 per ton, tolls, transportation and all,
included. From this we get a reduction, or what is termed a draw
back, of five per cent. That is, if we ship in cars coal to weigh 100
tons, five per cent is deducted from that for waste, &c., so we pay
for transportation and toll at that rate, five per cent. off.
Question. What is that five per cent. allowed for?
Answer. To cover the waste by selecting and relanding at Philadelphia. This five per cent. also comes off the amount purchased of
the miner, as he is always paid according to the railroad weight.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. For what do you have the coal delivered at Schuylkillhaven?
Answer. We have bought coal, white ash coal at various prices at
Schuylkill-haven, during the season. After I went into business
again last year, I cannot state it exactly, but I do not think I paid for
any white ash coal over $1 70 per ton, and some I bought for
less than that.  Coal and freights both ruled lower last year than we
have had them before for a number of years.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is there any difference in the different veins of the same
sort of coal? For instance, is Black-heath coal taken from one vein
different from Black-heath coal taken from another vein?
Answer. There is but one kind of Black-heath coal.  There are
other veins which are called Black-heath by those who mine them for
the purpose of giving them a character in the market. But we generally know what is Black-heath coal and what is not.
Question. Would there be likely to be any difference in the quality
at the different points where mined?  Is there any difference between
the Black-heath that is mined by Hecksher and that which is mined
by some one else?
Answer. No, sir; I never see any difference in it.  Hecksher & Co.
mine large quantities of coal, and of different kinds, and sell it to other
dealers and shippers, and to the trade generally.  The house I was
formerly with, Blakiston, Cox & Co., have bought large amounts of
Hecksher every year for the last three or four years, at least previous
to 1858.  I do not know what that house has done since 1858.




COAL AGENCY.                       101
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You stated that Dr. Hunter stated he could not purchase of you because his personal interest would not permit it. Did
he state what that interest was?
Answer. He did not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When did he state that? was it before or after you wrote
that letter to him?
Answer. I think it was after that time; but I will not be positive
about that; I saw him both before and afterwards.
By the Chairman:
Question. Do you know how much Merrick & Sons, and other large
purchasers of coal, in Philadelphia, pay per ton for their coal?
Answer. I do not; I have not been supplying them with coal.
Question. What would they pay, according to a fair market price
in Philadelphia?
Answer. I presume that Merrick & Sons, Phoenix Iron Works, and
those large consumers could buy their coal from the mines about as
cheaply as I could; probably they would have to pay 5 or 10 cents
per ton more; not more than that.
Question. Could they buy it, delivered at their works as low as
$3 05 per ton?
Answer, (hesitatingly.) I do not know but what they could during
the last year; I do not know but what they might buy good steam
coal for that; they probably could not buy the Monmouth-vein coal,
or the John's coal for that.
Question. Could they get good steam coal for that price?
Answer. Yes, sir; they might; and first quality of steam oal
might not cost them over $3 10 per ton; if they could not get it at
that I could.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you ever made any complaints to the department
about the manner in which coal for the government is purchased in
Philadelphia?
Answer. No, sir; I have not.
G. P. NEVIN.




102                       COAL AGENCY.
No. 64. —W. W. W. WOOD, U. S. N., PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
WW. W. W. WooD called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you been acquainted with the character and quality
of the coal furnished by Tyler, Stone & Co. for the use of the vessels
of the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have burned a great deal of that coal. I used
it on board the frigate Roanoake during her last cruise.  I think it
was furnished by Tyler, Stone & Co.; at all events, it was furnished
by the coal agent, and that company are his agents, so I have understood, and I suppose furnished this coal. I also had the inspection of
a cargo of coal for the steamer Chapin.  I have inspected various
kinds of coal since I have been connected with the navy.
Question. What is your opinion of the coal furnished during the
past year, both in regard to the quality and its preparation?
Answer. It was everything, so far as regards quality and preparation, that could be desired. I never saw superior coal to that furnished. I burned some 800 tons of it not a great while since.
Question. Is not particular preparation necessary to fit coal for government use on board steamers?
Answer. Yes, sir, an extra screening is generally given it; at any
rate, I always required that an extra screening be given it when necessary.  It is very important, on board sea-going steamers, to have our
bunkers filled with coal free from impurities. We generally give
in our log-books-at least I have always done so, in order that the
department may be able to judge of the qualities of the various kinds
of coal used-the residuum after combustion. This residuum sometimes varies from 10 to 40 per cent; therefore coals that give a residuum of 40 per cent. have 60 per cent. of available fuel. You can
appreciate the importance of having available fuel, to say nothing of
the labor of throwing these impurities into the furnaces and then
tumbling them overboard again.
Question. Do you say that some coals only furnish available fuel
to the extent of 60 per cent.?
Answer. That is all that some coals furnish.
Question. In that case there would be a clear loss to the government of 40 per cent. of the coal purchased?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much was the residuum in the coal that has been
furnished during the last year?
Answer. I think not more than 10 or 12 per cent., to the best of
my recollection, of the coals of which I have any knowledge; not any
more, I think.
Question. How does it compare with coal heretofore furnished?
Answer. The coal I inspected last year was prepared with more
care than any I ever used before, as a general thing.
Question. Is any particular labor necessary to fit coal for govern



COAL AGENCY.                        103
ment use, in order that this great amount of residuum should not be
left in the furnaces?
Answer. It is necessary to have the coal broken into proper size,
then to screen it, and deliver it in a cleanly condition.
Question. How much per ton would you estimate this extra labor
to cost in preparing coal for government use?
Answer. I should suppose that it could not be done for less than 30
or 40 cents per ton; I have, however, never taken the trouble to inform myself about the prices. I know I always have had the coal
screened at the expense of the government, if it was not delivered in a
cleanly condition.  We generally inspect these coals when received;
and when coals are not in a proper condition to be used in consequence
of a want of screening and proper preparation, we generally do it;
but the expense of doing it I am not so well informed about.
Question. Is there any loss to the government, when you have to
send coal from one point to another, in case of this large residuumany loss other than the loss in coal? Suppose you were fitting out a
ship for sea, and you were going to send coal to a foreign station,
would this residuum in the coal which you speak of be merely a loss
of 40 per cent. upon the value of the coal, or would there be some
additional loss?
Answer. Under such circumstances as these it would be an additional loss, inasmuch as-or, probably, it would be this way.
Question. I want to direct your attention to the subject of freight
upon this residuum.
Answer. Certainly; in that respect, of course, it would be an additional loss, for you would have all the tons of impurities to pay
freight upon, the same as upon so many tons of pure coal, while it
would not be available fuel.
Question. And then is it not necessary to have as much available
fuel as possible within the smallest possible space?
Answer. Yes, sir, it is of importance to have all the available space
filled with available fuel. In fact, with impure coals, I would not
forego having them screened and properly prepared whenever it could
be done. Even on a foreign station I would rather take my own men
on shore to screen them, previous to bringing them  on board the
vessel, so that I could have the bunkers filled with available coals, to
have it taken on board without that additional cleansing process, and
have the bunkers filled with a mass of unavailable fuel; the coal would
be inferior to that extent.
Question. Have you been acquainted with the price of coal, generally, in Philadelphia, during the last year?
Answer. No, sir, I have not informed myself upon that subject,
generally.
Question. Are you prepared to say what the coal, delivered to the
government the last year, has been worth; what would be a fair,
reasonable, price for it?
Answer. I am not prepared to answer that question, because, as I
have said before, I have had very little to do with money matters outside of the vessel, as little as possible, and, therefore, this information
does not come within my line of duty; I do not attend to money mat



104                      COAL AGENCY.
ters except when required to do so, and I have never informed myself
upon this subject.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know anything about the process of breaking and
screening coal; whether it is done in Philadelphia or at the mines?
Answer. Yes, sir; it is done at the mines.
Question. Have you ever been at the mines and seen it done?
Answer. No, sir, but I have made myself familiar with coal mining
operations.
Question. Is not this coal broken and assorted into different sizes
and screened at the mines?
Answer. As a general thing, I think it is to a certain extent; but
then, nevertheless, it requires additional care in handling and delivering in order to make it what it should be, in many cases, for steamer's
use; by screening and handling, I mean throwing out the dirt and fine
coals, and slates, and other impurities.
WM. W. W. WOOD,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.
No. 65.-GEaRGE F. TYLER, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
GEORGE F. TYLER called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am a dealer in coal.
Question. Who are your partners?
Answer. Frederick Tyler, my father, C. Nichols Beach, and William
E. Stone.
Question. How long have you been furnishing coal to the government?
Answer. I confess I am unable to give you the precise date. We furnished some under Mr.Fillmore's administration for the useof the navy.
Question. Have you been furnishing coal to the government, more
or less, ever since that time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you any recollection of the general run of prices
from that time down to this?
Answer. Do you mean the average price from that time till now?
Question. Yes, sir; how have prices ranged? Have they gone down
or up since that time?
Answer. Coal is lower now than it has averaged since that time.
Question. What has been that average price?
Answer. I should suppose that the average price in Philadelphia
of steamers' coal has been considerably over $4 a ton. There have been
fluctuations in the price during different years. In some years it has
been higher, and in others lower. But the average price of coal, to
my knowledge, has been more than $4 a ton.




COAL AGENCY.                       105
Question. Did your firm make any arrangement with Dr. Hunter
to furnish coal to the government?
Answer. I hardly know how to designate the transaction; when Dr.
Hunter was first appointed to the office of coal agent he came to us,
knowing that we had been furnishing coal for the use of the navy, and
after a full discussion of the matter, we agreed to furnish him what
coal he might require during the year at a fixed price. There was an
understanding, although there was no formal contract made, that he
should take the coal from us.
Question. What was the price agreed upon?
Answer. The price we fixed was $3 85 a ton. If the price of coal
advanced, we were not to charge any more than that for it. That
contract or agreement was made soon after the panic of 1857, when
everything had gone down to the lowest point. It was immediately,
too, after a reduction of 40 cents a ton had been made in the price
which the government had been paying; and it seemed probable, at
least that was the view he took of it, that if everything else improved
as it was likely to do, coal itself would be higher. That was the view
we took of it also; that if there should be any change in the price of
coal, it would advance rather than recede. At that time it was looked
upon as an advantageous arrangement for the government.
Question. Have you had a supervision of the coal which you have
furnished to the government of the United States under this contract
with Dr. Hunter?
Answer. Yes, sir; there has been an accurate and strict supervision of it. Everything has been done with the greatest care.
Question. Which member of your firm has attended to this supervision principally?
Answer. My own self.
Question. What has been the character and quality of the coal
which you have delivered?
Answer. It is a kind of anthracite coal mined in Pennsylvania that
we consider the best adapted for steamers' use. We have not confined our purchases to coal from any one mine, but have bought the
largest proportion of our coal, however, from Hecksher & Co; what
is called the Black Heath coal. But we have also purchased a considerable amount from other individuals, when, from causes that we
could not foresee, we could not obtain the precise article we wanted
from Hecksher & Co., or when we consider some other coal better
adapted to the purposes for which it was required.
Question. What has been the price of coal at the mines during the
last year?
Answer. From $1 75 to $2 20 a ton for such coal as we have shipped
for the Navy Department. The coal that we paid $2 20 a ton for was
coal that we purchased of Repplier & Co. to fill an order where their
coal had been theretofore used, and to which use it seemed particularly
adapted. I therefore bought it of them at that price, and then they
assured me that the price which they charged me was less than they
had before sold any for.
Question. Is the Mr. Repplier of that company the one who has
testified here?




106                      COAL AGENCY.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he say that $2 20 a ton was lower than his usual
sales?
Answer. Yes, sir; he said that the majority of his sales had been
made at $2 40 a ton. He had sold some at $2 30, (the least he had
sold any for before,) out of which he made a commission of ten cents
a ton. But as I gave him the cash in hand he would waive that
commission in my case, and simply get a market for his coal.
Question. What was the freight on coal from the mines to Philadelphia?
Answer. It was $1 35 a ton by railroad from Schuylkill Haven.
And that reminds me of another point I would like to state. It was
expected that before the close of the year the Reading Railroad Company would advance their rates of transportation, as it had been
always customary for them  to do. As it happened, however, their
rates were uniform from about the middle of March.
Question. I want to know if there is any extra preparation put upon
this coal to fit it for government use?
Answer. We bestowed upon it a great amount of labor; more than
upon any other coal we handled. We felt that it was important and
necessary to furnish coal that was entirely pure. Even the best coal
that we bought we always re-handled, and sometimes at a very great
expense. We actually bestowed more labor and expense upon this
coal than upon any other coal that we shipped.
Question. What particular preparation did you bestow upon it?
Answer. The labor we bestowed upon it was involved in selecting
the slate from the coal. There is no coal that comes from the mines
entirely free from impurities.  It is mixed with what we call " bone"
and slate. "d Bone" is an earthy substance that mixes with the coal
in the vein, and which it is exceedingly difficult to separate from it.
The slate that is in the coal, of course, it is important to remove, for
it will not burn; it makes weight, increases the bulk, and diminishes
the value of the coal.
Question. Where was this work done?
Answer. On our wharf at Richmond, after receiving the coal from
the mines.
Question. What do you estimate this extra labor to have been
worth?
Answer. I should say that, taking the whole of it into account,
twenty cents a ton would be a fair average of the extra expense.
Some of the coal we have not bestowed so much expense upon, but
upon other portions of it we have bestowed more expense. Some of
it we have bestowed an expense of fifty cents a ton, including the
waste and all; but that was not an av3rage.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was this extra labor more than you bestowed upon coal
for other sea-going steamers?
Answer. By other parties do you mean?  We had no other trade
for steamers. I mean, that this expense was additional to that which
we put upon coal which we furnished to our other customers.
Question. What additional labor did you bestow upon this coal over
that which was bestowed upon coal furnished for other sea-going




COAL AGENCY.                       107
steamers-for instance, the Collins and California lines-by those who
furnished coal for those lines?
Answer. I should think it was certainly twenty cents a ton.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you sell coal to other parties than the government
during the last year?
Answer. Yes, sir; but not for steamers' use, however. Our other
trade was with manufacturers and with dealers.
Question. I would like to know how your profits upon your trade
with the government compared with your profits upon your sales to
other parties?
Answer. I should think they were more.
Question. More profits upon the coal sold to the government?
Answer. Yes, sir. I think it paid us better than our other trade. It
was a business upon which we bestowed more care and labor, and it
did pay us a better profit than our other business did; otherwise we
should not have been paid for devoting the time and attention we did
upon it.
Question. Was it a better profit, considering the cost of the coal
and the amount of labor you bestowed upon its preparation?
Answer. Yes, sir; I should think the government contract was a
more profitable one to us than the average of our other business.
Question. Did you have contracts with private individuals that
paid you as much profit as this?
Answer. We have frequently sold coal that paid us better than the
coal that we furnished to the government.
Question. During the last year?
Answer. We made other sales that paid as well; I cannot say that
we had any that paid us better.  There is one point that I wish to
add in explanation, and that is, in buying the particular kind of coal
required for the Navy Department it was impossible for us to obtain
from any one miner all of one size. The coal is broken at the mines
by machinery; and when one size is made, several other sizes are made
also, and no miner can afford to sell altogether one size alone. We
were obliged, therefore, to take from him other sizes of coal also,
which we sold sometimes profitably, sometimes merely for cost.
Therefore it is I say that the other parts of our business were not so
profitable.
Question. What price did you get for the coal furnished the government coal agent?
Answer. Up to March 30, 1858, he paid us $4 25 a ton.
Question. What agent was that?
Answer. Benjamin Tyson. He then ordered two cargoes from us;
one was shipped in May, and the other the 7th of June, after the appointment of Dr. Hunter, for which he paid us only $3 85 a ton.
Question. Who was the first coal agent appointed?
Answer. Benjamin H. Springer.
Question. When was he appointed, and by whom?
Answer. I think he was appointed during Mr. Fillmore's administration, and I have an impression that his commission was made out
by Mr. Kennedy, as Secretary of the Navy.




108                      COAL AGENCY.
Question. Did you furnish coal to him, as agent for the government?
Answer. Yes, sir, to a considerable extent.
Question. Are you able to say what you got for that coal furnished
to him?
Answer. I could not tell without reference to my books.
Question. Was it more or less than $3 85 a ton?
Answer. My impression is that it was considerably more.
Question. Do you know George P. Nevin, of Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long has he been in the coal business?
Answer. I should suppose for some three or four years; but about
a year ago, I should think, he dissolved partnership with the firm with
which he was then connected, and he was then out of busines for a
considerable length of time. He resumed business again in September last-I believe it was in September-it was in the latter part of
the summer or early in the fall.
Question. Was he a candidate for the office of coal agent?
Answer. He was, to my own knowledge.
Question. Did he make any proposition to you, or to M    ach, to
back him for the coal agency?
Answer. He made a proposition to me that I should induce Mr.
Beach to assist him in obtaining the appointment.
Question. What consideration did he offer?
Answer. That Mr. Beach should furnish the coal to be purchased
by him for the use of the Navy Department.
Question. At what price?
Answer. No price was named.
Question. Why is it necessary for the coal agent to purchase his
coal of any particular party?  Why could he not send to the mines
and purchase his coal directly from the miners, and have them send
it down to Philadelphia and deliver it on board the vessels?
Answer. That is practically impossible in the way in which business must be managed with the Navy Department; their orders are
always for one particular kind of coal, often requiring a very large
amount to be furnished immediately. No one miner could furnish
all that coal instantly, as it is often required. It is, therefore, important for the coal agent to have an arrangement with some house
which controls a large amount of coal which they can furnish him at
very short notice.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What is the use of a coal agent at all; why not let some
particular house make an agreement with the department to furnish
the coal as they would to the coal agent?
Answer. I think that an officer who would do the duties that he is
delegated to do would be necessary, because the Navy Department
would hardly be willing to pay the bills for an article that they have
never seen, without having the certificate of some officer that the
article as furnished is of the quality called for.
Question. Does the coal agent inspect the coal?
Answer. That is his duty.




COAL AGENCY                        109
Question. Has he ever done it?
Answer. He has not done it very frequently; in a great measure
the business has been done by us, and the coal agent has not seen the
coal.
Question. Then, in your case, it would be just as well for the
department to do business directly with you?
Answer. Yes, sir; I suppose it would.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is the form of the certificate signed by the coal
agent?
Answer. It is that the coal is of the best description adapted t)
steamers' use, and is of the quantity certified to. In regard to the
quantity he has the guarantee of the bill of lading which makes the
vessel responsible for delivering the amount of coal therein specified.
Question. Did Dr. Hunter ever see a single ton of this coal put on
shipboard?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. You have spoken about a reduction in the price of coal
from $4 25 to $3 85 a ton; did not the transportation companies
at the same time reduce the price of freight upon coal forty cents a ton?
Answer. They reduced it twenty cents a ton.
Question. Was there no further reduction?
Answer. No, sir; during the year 1857 the nominal rate of transportation was forty cents a ton higher than in 1858; but to equalize
the business with other regions the Reading railroad allowed a drawback of twenty cents a ton upon all cargoes shipped during the year,
so that the rates of transportation were really reduced twenty cents
per ton. When we obtained $4 25 per ton for our coal we obtained
a drawback from the company of twenty cents a ton, so that it was
equivalent to $4 45 a ton without any drawback.  Afterwards the
Reading Railroad Company made their rates uniform.
Question. Did the price of coal in 1858 go down below the price of
1857?
Answer. I should think that the price of coal in the spring of 1858
did not differ materially from the price of coal in the spring of 1857;
but it was a little lower in the spring of 1858 than it was in the fall
of 1857.
Question  What kind of coal was it that Repplier & Co. furnished
to you?  Was it not a Lehigh coal?
Answer. It was Locust Mountain coal.
Question. For what purpose was it used?
Answer. It was sent to the naval hospital.
Question. It was used there for a special purpose?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Could you not have bought ordinary Schuylkill coal at
that time from Repplier & Co. for $3 20 a ton, delivered in Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not think I could. I never knew them  to sell that
kind of coal. They sold exclusively their own mining.
Question. How much was the particular quality of coal furnished
you by Repplier & Co. worth more than the ordinary Schuylkill coal?




110                      COAL AGENCY.
Answer. Adapted to the same purpose?
Question. I want to know the market price of this particular quality
of coal over that of ordinary Schuylkill coal?
Answer. I should think it was about 20 cents a ton.
Question. It was Schuylkill coal that you bought for supplying the
government?
Answer. Yes, sir, mostly. We bought some Lehigh coal in a case
where we thought the vessel required a very hard coal.
Question. How much Lehigh did you buy?
Answer. I think that in 1858 we bought some 1,500 tons, which we
sold the Navy Department.
Question. Was that all?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is the difference in price per ton between Lehigh
and Schuylkill coal?
Answer. There are various qualities of Schuylkill coal.
Question. I mean ordinary qualities.
Answer. For ordinary qualities I should think the difference in
Philadelphia would be in the neighborhood of 25 t'o 30 cents a ton.
Question. The Lehigh coal would be of the higher price?
Answer. Yes, sir, it would be higher than ordinary qualities of
Schuylkill coal.
Question. The ordinary qualities of Lehigh coal is higher than the
ordinary qualities of Schuylkill coal?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was this coal of Repplier & Co. a Schuylkill coal?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Of the highest grade?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much did you buy of them?
Answer. Something over 400 tons.
Question. Did you ever buy any other coal from other parties?
Answer. We bought one lot at $2 15 a ton.
Question. How much did you buy at that price?
Answer. One thousand tons.
Question. Of whom?
Answer. Of Kane, Hacker & Co.
Question. For what purpose?
Answer. For steamship purpose.
Question. Was there any other case in which you paid more than
$2 per ton?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What has been the average price of coal at Schuylkill
Haven since the 1st of July last?
Answer. I should think about $1 85 a ton would be the average;
if anything different it would be a little higher than that; it would
not be lower. I mean that was the average price for coal that we
bought for this specific purpose. We have bought coal for a less
price.
Question. I mean the particular qualities used by the government?




COAL AGENCY.                       111
Answer. About $1 85.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is there a discount of 5 per cent. upon the price of coal
and upon its transportation?
Answer. There is nominally that discount; but practically the
average discount has not been 2- per cent.?
Question. Why is that?
Answer. I suppose it arises from the difference in weighing coal in
long trains of twenty or thirty cars at a time at the mines, and weighing it by single cars at Port Richmond; and then there is also a waste
between the mines and market. The last time we tested the matter the result satisfied us that the miners' scales were wrong, and did
not give us full weight. It was a matter of complaint in the trade
that the coal did not hold out in weight.
By the Chairman:
Question. In other words, the drawback does not much more than
cover the waste?
Answer. No, sir, it does not. It does not cover the waste of coal
handled as much as we have to handle coal shipped for the Navy Department, throwing out all the impurities and dirt. All that amounts
to more than the allowance we receive from the railroad company.
Question. You think this drawback or allowance would not cover
all the waste that practically occurs in coal sold to the government?
Answer. No, sir, it would not.
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
GEORGE F. TYLER recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What profit did you make upon the coal delivered to the
government in 1858?
Answer. My impression is that it was in the neighborhood of 10
per cent.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did the former inspector, Mr. Tyson, inspect the coal?
Answer. We sold him a large portion of the coal he purchased;
and of that, to my knowledge, he never inspected but one cargo. Mr.
Springer, the first agent, was in the habit of inspecting the coal carefully. We sold him a considerable amount.
[The witness also made the following explanation:]
In reference to the 10,000 tons of coal purchased of Cain, Hacker &
Cook, I now remember that it was never delivered to us; they notifying us, after a good deal of delay, that they could not furnish it of the
kind and quality required.
GEO. F. TYLER.




112                      COAL AGENCY.
No. 66.-DILLER LUTHER, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 10,1859.
DILLER LUTHER called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I have been engaged in the coal business for some years
past.
Question. Have you been well acquainted with the prices of coal
during the year 1858?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know anything of the quality of the coal furnished
by Tyler, Stone & Co. during that time to the United States government for steamer purposes?
Answer. I have no personal knowledge of it; I have heard of it.
Question. Are you acquainted with the Black Heath and Broad
Mountain coal mined by Hecksher & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know anything about any peculiar preparation
necessary to fit that coal for steamers' uses?
Answer. I believe the agent of the government does require, and
has always required, that the coal shall be prepared with more care
for the government than is generally bestowed upon coal for other
purchasers. Generally, higher qualities of coal have been selected
tor government purposes, and is prepared with more care, and consequently there is more expense bestowed upon it. There are various
qualities of coal, as there is of anything else, and there are various
prices; there is a cheap coal and a dear coal.  Hecksher's steamboat
coal has a high reputation in the market; he prepares it specially for
steamers' uses-steamboat size as it is called-and he gets a higher
price in consequence of that preparation.
Question. What would have been a fair price for such coal, thus
prepared for steamers' uses, delivered on board the vessel in Philadelphia, in May, 1858?
Answer. I am  scarcely able to say what would have been a fair
price throughout the season. I might tell what it was at the commencement of the season.
Question. What was it in May or June of last year, at the commencement of the season?
Answer. I suppose that in May or June it was $3 50 or $3 60, and
so on up to $3 85 a ton.
Question. Did it fall after that time?
Answer. Yes, sir; coal declined in price in the middle and the
latter end of the season.
Question. How much?
Answer. Some 15 or 20 cents a ton.
Question. When you speak of coal being $3 50, $3 60, and $3 85




COAL AGENCY.                         113
a ton, do you allow a fair profit to a coal dealer who would purchase
of Hecksher & Co. to furnish to the government?
Answer. When I speak of $3 50 a ton I speak of what I got for
ordinary sizes of coal, such as individuals take.  I had, myself, an
order from the War Department-propositions were received by the
department, and my bid was the lowest. Proposals were issued in
the month of May for furnishing 1,600 tons of coal, to be delivered
at West Point.  There was considerable risk in making bids for this
coal in the matter of freights, &c. Freights outward, from Philadelphia, had commenced in the early part of the season at a very low
rate, and it was apprehended that they would advance. At all events
in putting in for a bid of that kind that matter was taken into
consideration. Freights, however, remained low during the entire
season.  A large part of this coal was of a similar kind to that furnished the Navy Department. The price I bid yielded me $3 85 a ton.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was this $3 85 a ton the price in Philadelphia, or did it
include freights to West Point?
Answer. It netted that price at Philadelphia; the price at West
Point, was $4 70 a ton.
Question. Wtas there any statement in your bid of the price in
Philadelphia?
Answer. No, sir; the bid was for compensation for delivering the
coal at West Point.
Question. It included freights and all the risks of shipping from
Philadelphia to West Point?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were there a number of bidders for that contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And you got it as making the lowest bid, and it netted
you $3 85 at Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. How do you mean that it netted you $3 85 at Philadelphia?
Answer. I mean that if you deduct from the $4 70 a ton for delivering it at West Point, the freight paid from  Philadelphia to West
Point, it would net me $3 85 a ton on board ship at Philadelphia.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. State, if you know it, the market price at Philadelphia,
at that time for such qualities of coal for steamer purposes?
Answer. I have no knowledge of that kind of coal; I had no orders
for it myself, and did not deal in it except in the particular case I have
mentioned; I can give my opinion as to what I think would be realized
from the sale of such coal; I have heard the price of a few cargoes sold
very early in the season; that was lump coal, similar to steamer coal, but
not broken up as for steamers.
Question. What was that?
Answer. That was $3 75 a ton aboard the vessel; that was sold,
however, just as it came from the mines, being merely the large pieces
of coal picked out.
8 A




114                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. What was the probable price of coal to be furnished to
the government for steamer purposes?  What would you have considered a reasonable price to furnish it at if you had been asked to
submit a bid for it?
Answer. It would afford me a very narrow margin for profits if I
offered to furnish steamboat coal at $3 75 a ton, which is what I would
charge in the business; leave me a margin, perhaps, for a profit of 5
or 10 per cent. I think that $3 85 was not too high a price.  Coal
has been exceedingly depressed in price, and the producer has not got
the cost of it sometimes.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is there any advantage in dealing with the government
rather than with general dealers in the trade, in regard to payment?
Answer. There are divided advantages.
Question. Then if the matter was carefully attended to, could not
the government get their coal at a less nominal price than what it is
quoted at as market prices?
Answer. I have no doubt that the government is always able to buy
their coal at very great advantage.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are you a dealer in coal?
Answer. I am a miner and dealer of coal.
Question. What was a fair market value of such coal as would be
fit to use in government sea-going steamers, in June, July, and
August, 1858?  What could it have been bought for at Philadelphia,
the fair market price at that time?
Answer. Is the question, what could it have been bought for, or what
was its fair market value?
Question. What could it have been bought for by a person charged
with the duty of selecting a good quality of coal?
Answer. I suppose that single cargoesQuestion. I mean 2,000 or 3,000 tons, or more, just as it would be
likely to be called for by the government?
Answer. I have no doubt that parties, in order to get hold of government contracts, would have made bids at low rates to furnish single
cargoes. But I take it that there are very few parties who would
undertake to supply coal through the entire season, such coal as the
government requires, with such care bestowed upon it as the government requires, even last year, for less than from $3 50 to $3 75 a ton.
Question. I will ask the question again, and I want you to answer
the question which I ask you.  What could the article of coal required
and used by the government be purchased for in June and July last?
I want to get at that point.  We have examined several witnesses
upon that point, and I wish to get at it now.
Answer. In small quantities or in very large quantities?
Question. Say a thousand tons or so.  What could the government
have got it for in open market?
Answer. I think it could have been purchased for $3 50 a ton; I
do not think it could have been purchased for less than that.
Question. What could coal have been purchased for in open market,




COAL AGENCY.                       115
delivered on board vessel at Philadelphia, of such quality as used by
the government, per cargo?
Answer. I have no doubt there are parties there who would have
sold it for $3 40 to $3 50 a ton. I would not like to have undertaken myself to have furnished any large supplies at any such price.
Other parties might be able to do so, as some have larger facilities
than I have.
Question. What was the fair value of such coal at Schuylkill Haven,
during the last summer or fall, as is used by the government?
Answer. I think this description of coal used by the government
commenced at about $2 10 per ton and then declined down to $1 80,
perhaps.
Question. What is the cost of the transportation of the coal from
Schuylkill Haven to the docks in Philadelphia?
Answer. $1 35 a ton.
Question. What drawback is allowed upon that?
Answer. No drawback is allowed upon that.
Question. Some of the witnesses have mentioned about drawbacks
being allowed; how is it about that?
Answer. It is not allowed by the railroad company. There is a
drawback of some fifteen cents a ton allowed by the navigation company for reshipping at Philadelphia. They charge sixty-five cents
per ton for tolls, and then the freight has been from sixty cents to
seventy-five cents a ton, to Philadelphia.  And the navigation have
allowed fifteen cents per ton for reshipping it at Philadelphia.
Question. Then the tolls and transportation have been about $1 35
a ton?
Answer. It has been that during the summer for the railroad; the
canal rates have varied a little.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What would have been a fair market value during the
spring and summer of 1858 for such coal as the government uses, provided a man had obligated himself to be in readiness to furnish any
amount the government might call for upon short notice- any reasonable quantity of coal the government might call for; such quantities
as the government did in fact use.
Answer. I would not have undertaken to have supplied it, with
such despatch, at less than from $3 75 to $3 85 a ton. When I said
that a man might have bought it for $3 40 or $3 50 a ton, he could
not buy the quantities the government orders of one single individual
or firm alone. None of them ever have that amount on hand. He
might get it, perhaps, by going around to several different houses,
taking half a cargo of this one, a cargo of that one, and, perhaps, two
cargoes of another.  What I mean by a cargo is 200 to 300 tons,
which is the usual size of a boat load.
Question. Do dealers in Philadelphia often have a quantity of coal
on hand such as the government would need for its uses?
Answer. No, sir; I have never seen any of them have more than
five hundred tons of it on hand at a time in my life, never.
Question. Could an agent of the government safely rely upon buying up in market in that way-that is, going around and buying it




116                     COAL AGENCY.
of this and that one-such coal as the government would need; or
would it be necessary, in order to be able to furnish the coal as called
for, in the quantities called for, to make an arrangement with some
person to keep on hand such coal as the government may need?
Answer. The manner of supplying coal to the government has
changed somewhat, I think, since I had a knowledge of it. I formerly
did supply the government with some coal, but I have not done so for
a number of years past. The way it used to be, when we got an order,
it would be in this way: They would want a thousand tons of coal
shipped to a certain point, and we would be allowed a month to do it
in, perhaps. That would give us, or any other house, or any two or
three houses, time enough to get down from the mines the article
wanted. But if the government came to me without any previous
notice and said, we.want you to ship a thousand tons of steamboat
coal next week, I could not do it. Whether such despatch is necessary
now or not I do not know. But if an order was given to me to ship
1,000 or 1,500 or 3,000 tons of coal, and I was allowed three weeks
or a month to do it in, I could get it; but I would not have it on
board at the time.
Question. Suppose the government should want some 10,000 tons,
how long would it take a man who did not have it on hand to get
ready that amount of coal suitable for government purposes-steamboat coal?
Answer. I should suppose that it would take any one man several
months, unless he had had some previous knowledge of what was
wanted.
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
DILLER LUTHER recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How long have you been engaged in the coal business,
and what is the extent of the business you have done in that line?
Answer. I think I have been in the business nearly twenty years.
I have been engaged in the mining department about twenty years.
We combined the commercial department with it about ten years
ago.
Question. To what extent have you been engaged?
Answer. To a very large extent.
Question. Whom  have you supplied with coal?  What class of
purchasers have you had?
Answer. The principal dealers in the eastern markets for domestic
use; and also the iron establishments, to a considerable extent.
Question. Can you give us the difference in the market price of coal
between 1857 and 1858?
Answer. I think about 30 cents. It was 30 cents higher in 1857.
Question. Was that the general average of difference on different
sorts of coal?
Answer. Yes, sir; about 20 cents difference of transportation, and
10 or 15 cents difference in the price of the coal itself.
D. LUTHER.




COAL AGENCY.                        117
No. 67. —CHARLES P. HAYES, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
CHARLES P. HAYES called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where is your residence?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am a coal merchant.
Question. How long have you been a coal merchant in Philadelphia?
Answer. Since 1847.
Question. Do you know anything about the prices of coal during
the year 1858?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are you acquainted with the description of coal used by
the government on board steamers?
Answer. I am not particularly acquainted with it.
Question. Do you know anything about the Black Heath and Broad
Mountain coal mined by Hecksher and others?
Answer. I know it to be a coal of a very good quality.
Question. Do you know anything about the principal preparation
of it necessary to fit that coal for government uses on board steamers?
Answer. I know that the coal can be prepared at the yards in
Philadelphia for steam purposes, so as to make the quality much
better than that which is generally shipped.
Question. I want to know if a paper containing the affidavits of
sundry coal merchants in Philadelphia, stating at what price they
would furnish coal, was handed you for your signature?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you sign it?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Why not?
Answer. Because I could not have contracted to supply the coal at
the prices named then.
Question. Are you able to tell what would have been a fair market
price during the last spring, summer, and fall, of Black Heath and
Broad Mountain coal, fitted for government use in generating steam,
and delivered on board the vessels at Philadelphia?
Answer. I am not able to say what was the actual price at which
it could have been delivered; but the coal that I prepare, and sell, I
know I could not sell at less than $3 75 a ton, to pay a good profit.
Question. What sort of coal do you prepare and sell?
Answer. Carter's Lehigh or Greenwood coal, and other kinds.
Question. What did you sell that coal at?
Answer. I sold some in Boston during the year 1858, without any
extra preparation, at $3 65 a ton; and I sold several lots at $3 75.
Question. The last was with preparation?
Answer. Yes, sir; ordinary shipping coal.
Question. When you say that you sold some in Boston for $3 65,
did that include the price of freight from Philadelphia to Boston?




118                       COAL AGENCY.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What was the coal you sold at $3 75 a ton?
Answer. We named the price at which we would put the coal on
board the vessel at Port Richmond or Philadelphia; Port Richmond
is where we get it. The price I have named is the price at Port Richmond, on board of vessel.
Question. Do you know anything about the price of Repplier's coal
during the last year; did you buy any of him?
Answer. I bought none of Mr. Repplier; but on two occasions I
called to ask the price of their coal, but they charged me a price that
did not leave me any margin for profits.
Question. What did he charge?
Answer. He charged, I think, $2 30 for his coal at the mines, which
was 30 cents more than I could get coal at which I thought was equally
good; therefore I did not buy it.
Question.  Where are Repplier's mines; those which he works?
Answer. At Ashland, I believe; I think so.
Question. What is the price of freight from that point to Port
Richmond or Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not exactly know; I could easily ascertain, but I do
not know at the present time; about $1 35 a ton, I think.
Question. How does such coal as you sold in Boston compare in
value and cost with the coal furnished to the government-Hecksher's
Black Heath and Broad Mountain coal-was it of a better or of an
inferior quality?
Answer. I do not think it was better than good Black Heath.
Question. Would you be able to say about what profit Tyler, Stone
& Co. would be able to make on that coal at $3 85 a ton?
Answer. If they prepared their coal as it should be prepared for
generating steam, they would make but a small profit; they would
make but a fair profit.
Question. What would you call a fair profit?
Answer. Certainly something more than we have been getting ourselves of late years.
Question. How much a ton?
Answer. I should think about thirty or forty cents a ton would be
a fair profit; that would be about ten per cent.
By the Chairman:
Question. You sold and sent to Boston the Lehigh coal?
Answer. No, sir; I sold Carter's Greenwood. He calls it a Lehigh
coal, but it comes from the Schuylkill region. He calls it Carter's
Lehigh or Greenwood coal; that is the name he gives it.
Question. What is the value of that or Lehigh coal over Schuylkill
coal?
Answer. Some thirty or forty cents a ton, I believe, is the usual
average of the difference in price.
Question. The quality of coal you sold was of good quality, I
suppose?
Answer. I thought it was.
Question. Have you not sold coal during the last season, good




COAL AGENCY.                        119
quality of coal, delivered at Philadelphia on board vessels, at $3 20
a ton?
Answer. Not Carter's lump coal. I have sold other coal for that
price.
Question. What coal?
Answer. I have sold Tamaqua coal as low as $3 20 a ton.
Question. To whom?
Answer. To a great many parties.
Question. Did you not sell it to Repplier?
Answer. I do not now recollect to have ever sold Repplier a pound;
yet I might have done so-upon reflection, think we did sell him a
small lot of coal.
Question. Was that a fair quality of coal you sold at that price?
Answer. It was a fair quality; yes, sir.
Question. Did that include such profits as you are now receiving
for coal?
Answer. We are selling very little coal at the present time; but
that price did not afford a paying profit at all.  We sold our coal for
almost cost.
Question. Suppose an active, intelligent dealer in coal should enter
the open market in Philadelphia at any time during the spring,
summer, or fall, to buy coal by the cargo or by the thousand tons, at
what price could he get a good quality of Schuylkill coal for generating steam upon government steamers?
Answer. One cargo do you mean?
Question. I mean for him to go into the open market with money
in hand to buy a good, fair article of Schuylkill coal, such as is used
for steam purposes?
Answer. I should have charged him from $3 60 to $3 65 a ton.
Question. I do not ask what you would have charged him. I want
to know what he could have got it at.
Answer. The difference in the quality of coal is so great, that that
is a very difficult question for me to answer.
Question. You say that you sold coal for $3 20 a ton.
Answer. That was not for steam  purposes, but for family use,
entirely of a different size, and costing less.
Question. What difference would there be?
Answer. We made a difference of twenty-five cents a ton.
Question. Between the quality fit for generating steam  and tha
for family use?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How does the coal that you sold at $3 20 compare in
value with Black Heath and Broad Mountain coal?
Answer. I said that 25 cents a ton would be the difference between
the prepared coal, and large size, for steam purposes and the other.
Any extra preparation after that would be in addition to it. I cannot
speak in regard to any contracts that may have been made by others.
CH. P. HAYES.




120                      COAL AGENCY.
No. 67.-Appendix to Charles P. Hayes' testimrony.
PHILADELPHIA, February 14, 1859.
DEAR SIR: In my affidavit made before your committee on the 10th
instant, I stated that I had inquired of Messrs. Repplier & Brother
during the year 1858 the price of their coal, &c. Upon my return
home I find I was mistaken; it was during the year 1857, and not in
1858 that I made the inquiries, and I beg leave to make this correction in my statement.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHARLES P. HAYES.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN, Chairman, &c.
No. 68.-CIIARLE SINNICKSON, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
CHARLES SINNICKSON, called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Philadelphia.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am in the coal business.
Question. How long have you been engaged in the coal business?
Answer. Eighteen or twenty years.
Question. Have you been engaged in it largely or not?
Answer. Yes, sir; very largely engaged in it; up to the last year I
have been managing the business of another concern.
Question. What firm is that?
Answer. Sinnickson & Glover.
Question. Are you acquained from your own personal knowledge with
the coal furnished by the agent of Tyler, Stone & Co. to the government of the United States during the last year?
Answer. The wharf I did business on joined their wharf; it was
very close to it; immediately connected with it, I used to examine a
good deal of the coal they were loading for the government; and I
made the remark that I thought they took unusual pains with it, in
the selection and throwing out of impurities that we are very apt to
ship with the coal that comes down.
Question. Did you observe personally that they put extra labor and
care upon it in preparing it for government use?
Answer. I did with regard to some of it; I did not see it all shipped.
Question. How often did you observe it?
Answer. I saw them load vessels frequently; I could not say how
many times; I remarked at the time, to them and to others, that they
were taking great pains with the coal and must get a big price for it.
Question. As you saw it delivered, what would have been the fair
market price in Philadelphia, in the spring, summer, and fall, of 1858?
Answer. $2 75 to $2 90 would not be anything more than a reg



COAL AGENCY.                         121
ular paying business of ten per cent., I should judge; we sold coal at
the same time at $2 85.
Question. To whom?
Answer. To coal dealers in Virginia; we sent a good deal to the
south; I do not remember the firms.
Question. How much coal did you sell in the spring, summer, and
fall, of 1858 at $2 85?
Answer. I am unable to say.
Question. What sort of coal was it?
Answer. That was lump coal; the size of steamboat coal; white
ash; about the size of your head.
Question. Where did you obtain it?
Answer. From Schuylkill county.
Question. What particular vein was it?
Answer. The leading white ash vein; what we call the Mine Hill
vein.
Question. Are you acquainted with the Black Heath and Broad
Mountain coal?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How did your coal compare with that?
Answer. I think our coal was as good as the Black Heath.
Question. Was it better?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think it was selected quite as well.
Question. Did you put as much labor upon it as Tyler, Stone & Co.
put upon the coal furnished to the government?
Answer. We did not put so much labor upon it.
Question. How much would you assume as the value of the labor
per ton put upon coal to prepare it in the way they prepared it?
Answer. What I saw them preparing, over and above the expenses
of shipping it, I think 20 cents per ton would not any more than
cover it.
Question. Does not the railroad company allow 5 per cent. drawback upon the coal brought down the Reading railroad?
Answer. Yes, sir; 5 per cent. deduction from their freight.
Question. What is that for?
Answer. It was originally intended to cover the loss of weight and
the dirt.  That was the original idea, many years ago.  The idea
was that the coal would chafe and be ground into dirt some.
Question. Is there a loss of coal upon the railroad, over and above
that?
Answer. Yes, sir; it never holds out in weight.
Question. Is the loss as much as 5 per cent?
Answer. No, sir; not counting the dust taken from it.  The actual
loss of weight is about I to 2 per cent.; and then 4 to 5 per cent. of
dirt is taken from it upon the average, besides that.
Question. What was the price of Hecksher's coal in 1858?
Answer. I went out to buy coal several times, and Repplier offered
it at $3 15. In midsummer he would sell for $3 65. That was less
than his price, but the market was dull and he was anxious to sell it.
Question. Did you buy of him?
Answer. No, sir.




122                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Why did you not buy of him?
Answer. He told me his price, and the party said they could get it
cheaper than that.
Question. Do you know Mr. Nevin?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know whether he was an applicant for the coal
agency?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know when he commenced business in Philadelphia, as coal dealer?
Answer. He has been, directly or indirectly, engaged in the trade
for a number of years. He has been out of it.  He began the now
concern he is now with, I think, late in the summer or in the beginning of the fall-in August or September, I think. I know it was
late in the season.
Question. What is the character of the firm? Is it a strong firm?
Answer. It is a new firm which we do not know much about. His
partner was engaged in the retail business in Boston. I do not know
anything about the strength of the firm.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was the coal you sold at $3 85 Schuylkill or Lehigh coal?
Answer. Schuylkill, brought from Tamaqua.
Question. Was $3 85 a fair price for that coal?
Answer. At the time we sold it it was.
Question. When was that?
Answer. At the opening of the trade, in the months of April and
May. Then it fell to $3 75, $3 65, and we sold some as low as $3 45.
Question. Was that sold in small or large quantities?
Answer. We sell the coal in quantities varying from  a cargo
to two and three thousand tons. We do not sell such large amounts
as we used to sell.
Question. For what could a good coal agent of experience have
bought good coal for the use of the government, in quantities such as
they might want, with the money, during the summer and fall of the
last year, delivered on shipboard?
Answer. I cannot answer that.  If it were a question what we
would have sold coal for, I could answer it.. Question. What could the government have bought it for in open
market?
Answer. I cannot tell, for it is worth considerably more to sell to
the government than to individuals. I can only say what we should
have been willing to sell for.
Question. Do you pretend to say that you sell higher than others?
Answer. No, sir; the agent would have had to go into the open
market to obtain the coal. I suppose the price would be all the way
from $3 40 to $3 80. It depends altogether upon the quality of the
coal and the manner it is shipped. There is a considerable difference
in the quality of coal. You can buy it at any time at twenty or
thirty cents difference.
Question. What veins of coal did Tyler, Stone & Co. use?
Answer. I noticed that they got coal from quite a number of indi



COAL AGENCY.                        123
viduals. I could see from the reports on the Reading railroad, books
whom they got it from. They got a good deal from Charles Hecksher
& Co.
Question. From how many miners do you suppose they get coal?
Answer. They bought a good deal of coal besides that sold to the
government, red ash and grey ash coals, which the government did
not take. I should suppose their leading coals were, pretty much, the
Tamaqua and Hecksher's, but they bought of half a dozen large white
ash miners.
Question. Did you sell any coal as low as $3 20 last summer?
Answer. No, sir; no lump coal.  I do not think we sold any lump
coal under $3 40 or $3 45. We sold another description of coal as
low as $2 50-chestnut size.
Question. Do you know anything about the Black Heath and Broad
Mountain coals?
Answer. We have mined them both.
Question. From your knowledge of the price at the mountains, and
the cost of transportation down to Philadelphia, the cost of carrying
on board ship, and the cost of the extra labor of preparing it as you
saw it prepared, for such coal as you saw Tyler, Stone & Co. deliver
to the government, what profit could have been made last year at $2 85?
Answer. Not over eight or ten per cent.
Question. In fixing the price at $3 75 you allow the vender ten per
cent. profit.
Answer. The dealer would get about ten per cent. profit.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. What is considered a fair profit on coal?
Answer. We consider that we ought to make in the general run of
business twenty-five to thirty cents a ton. It is a very heavy article
to handle, and I guess it is less profit than any business of that nature
that is carried on. You cannot stow away a large amount of coal, it
takes up so much room.
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
CHARLES SINNICKSON recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How extensively have you been engaged in the coal
business?
Answer. At one time I was one of the largest miners and dealers
in coal. I have mined from 80,000 to 100,000 tons in a year.
Question. Can you give me the average difference of the price of
coal in 1857 and 1858?
Answer. As near as I can remember, between 20 and 40 cents.
Question. Was it more than 40 cents?
Answer. No, sir, I do not think it was; I think it was somewhere
between 20 and 40 cents.
CHAS. SINNICKSON.




124                       COAL AGENCY.
No. 73.-EUGENE BORDA, WooDSIDE, PENNSYLVANIA.
FEBRUARY 12, 1859.
EUGENE BORDA called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. At Woodside, Schuylkill county, Pennsylvania.
Question. What business are you engaged in?
Answer. The coal business.
Question. What branch of the coal business?
Answer. Miner and seller.
Question. To what firm do you belong?
Answer. To the firm of Hecksher & Co.
Question. Are you a partner in that firm or a manager?
Answer. I have been a manager and partner since 1852.
Question. Are you familiar with all their operations?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What sort of coal do you mine?
Answer. We mine different varieties of coal in Schuylkill county:
red ash and white ash. We have different operations.
Question. Are you acquainted with the coal that has been purchased
by Tyler, Stone & Co. for Mr. Hunter, the coal agent?
Answer. Yes, sir, I sold that; a good deal of it.
Question. What sort of coal was it?
Answer. It was the white ash coal, such as is used for steam  purposes.  We do a very large business.  We have had that trade a great
many years to supply coal for steamers. We furnish a particular kind
of coal from a particular mine.
Question. Were they particular in their coal?
Answer. Yes, sir; while they dealt with us, they bought a good
deal of coal for different purposes. They generally stated when it
was an order of the government, and they urged me to be very
particular.
Question. What is the name of the coal you furnished?
Answer. The Black-heath coal.
Question. What did such coal as that sell for at the mines in June,
July, August, and September, 1858?
Answer. $1 80. It was not a regular price; we did not make a
contract for the year. We sold it subject to the market price. They
would buy for a month, or 3,000 or 4,000 tons at a time. Some of it
they bought for other purposes, and some of it they bought for the
government.
Question. Was it sometimes above and sometimes below $1 80.
Answer. It did not vary materially in 1858, because the trade did
not alter much; it did in 1857. I sold them a little higher in 1857
until the panic came, when the prices came down as the demand for
coal decreased.  The prices came down to $1 80.
Question. What does it cost to carry the coal from the mines to the
docks in Philadelphia?




COAL AGENCY.                          125
Answer. The charge last year from Schuylkill Haven by Reading
railroad was $1 25.  It was 20 cents more in 1857.
Question. Was $1 80 the general price of that conl in 1858?
Answer. No, sir; for that particular coal, $1 80 was lower than we
would sell it to other parties.  We had an understanding with the
firm to give it to them as low as we could. Our object was to introduce
the coal into the navy.
Question. What was the general price of such coal at your mines
in 1858?
Answer. We sold such coal for from $1 90 to $2 25.
Question. Was $1 80 the lowest price charged to Tyler, Stone & Co.?
Answer. For about six weeks at one time last year, when the trade
was very dull, we made an allowance of five cents per ton; and then the
trade became better and we went up again to $1 80. The price was
subject to the rise in the market, and we meant to charge them whatever the rise was.  We did not always know when the coal was for
government purposes.  Sometimes, when vessels were chartered to
carry the coal to different points for the use of the government, it was
wanted very quick, We had also a very large trade of steamboat
coal; but we had agreed, in case it was necessary that the government coal should be delivered very quick, to drop our own trade and
load the vessel.  Sometimes they would require 500 or 600 tons
in a day.  At other times there would be two or three weeks when
they did not order any.
Question. Did you sell any of this coal to them for more than $1 80?
Answer. No, sir; not for steam coal.  I sold them  other coal, but
not the steamboat coal.
Question  What is the cost of shipping, removing from the cars to
the vessel, in Philadelphia?
Answer. Twelve or fifteen cents.  It depends very much upon the
coal.  If the boat is there and the coal can be dumped directly from
the cars, it costs very little. If it is to be unloaded fromn the car, that
would cost fifteen cents.  We have trimmed cargoes of coal ourselves
for particular purposes, sometimes, where it was to be sent to the Pacific, for instance, when the freight would be very great, when it
would cost twenty to twenty-five cents to trim it.
Question. Did they complain to you that the coal required trimming?
Answer. Sometimes they would wish me to be very particular in regard to the coal. At other times they would say it was in very fine
order, and wish me to continue to send it so.  I had a letter from
them almost every day.
Question. Did they trim your coal? Did they rehandle it in Philadelphia?
Answer. I was rarely in Philadelphia last year, so that I do not
know personally. They said that they did.
Question. What would it be worth to trim it?
Answer. It would depend upon the amount of trimming.  That
size of coal is very difficult to handle with a shovel, so that it costs
more to trim it than smaller sizes.  It would cost twenty to twentyfive cents.  Sometimes they would get somne of their coal at our wharf




126                       COAL AGENCY.
to be shipped, and it would be trimmed there. We charged them with
the expense of trimming, but what that was I cannot remember.
Question. What did you charge for the Black Heath steamer coal,
delivered at Philadelphia, and trimmed so as to be suitable for steamer
purposes?
Answer. It would be from $1 90 to $2 25 at the mines; the freight
would be $1 35; the trimming would be 15 cents at the lowest. The
coal that netted us $2 25 at the mines did not need trimming. It
amounted to from $3 40 to $3 65.
Question. Did you sell to Tyler, Stone & Co. lower, in consequence
of taking a large quantity besides the government coal?
Answer. No, sir; they were sometimes compelled to take other
coal besides the steamboat coal, when trade was dull, because we had
no means to sell one size without the other sizes.  It was the understanding that they would help us, on account of their getting so much
coal of a particular size, in disposing of the other sizes.
Question. If they had not taken the smaller sizes of coal, could you
have afforded to sell the other coal at a lower price?
Answer. I could not have afforded it for the whole year at a less
rate. It was about the cost price. It was a little below the cost price.
Question. Did you sell that kind of coal to any body else as low as
you did to Tyler, Stone & Co.?
Answer. We did not sell any lower.  We sold some at the same
price.
Question. How much?
Answer. I do not believe it would amount to more than 400 or 500
tons during the whole year. I sold some upon the line of the Schuylkill to iron manufacturers, furnaces, rolling mills, &c., to make up
their supplies. In one or two instances we sold as low as $1 80; it
was only as a matter of accommodation.
Question. Did you sell for any other purposes large quantities of
that same coal last year?
Answer. We sold to steam companies large quantities; that is our
largest trade; we supply a good many steamship lines.
Question. Did you get in all those cases a higher price than Tyler,
Stone & Co?
Answer. Yes, sir, all that I know of have been higher.
Question. Would you have contracted in the months of May or
June to furnish during the year at $1 80?
Answer. I would now, knowing what the prices were during the
year, but I would not then; but if I had been applied to then to take
the risk for the year I would not.  There are a great many things in
the coal trade which may affect the price; the freight upon the railroad may rise, the miners may want more wages.
Question. From your knowledge of the cost of transportation and
preparing this coal, could you have sold it to any firm in Philade]phia,
to enable them to make a profit, at $3 25?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Could you at $3 30?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Could you at $3 35?




COAL AGENCY.                         127
Answer. We might, if we had sold at the same price that we sold
to Tyler, Stone & Co. for, it would have left them five cents for profit;
but I do not know of any one who would do the business for five cents.
No one could have contracted for that, because they could only have
got it for one month at that rate, and could not have been sure to get
it for the whole year as low as that, or anything like it. It might
turn out that there would be no alteration in freights, and no rise in
wages; but I thought last spring that there would be.
By the Chairman:
Question. You say that the freight would be $1 35; how much of
that is allowed as drawback?
Answer. If it is to go to New York, there is a drawback of twenty
cents; but if it is loaded at Philadelphia to go south or east, there is
no drawback.
Question. What is the five per cent. allowance?
Answer. It is the allowance made by the railroad for waste. We
include that in the shipping expenses.
Question. How do you ascertain the weight?
Answer. Upon the railroad scale at the mine.  We have lateral
railroads, and the coal is weighed upon scales at the termination of
those lateral roads, where they meet the Reading railroad. That is
called the gross weight.  Five per cent. being taken off, that leaves
the net weight.  We get paid only for the net weight.
Question. If the coal is dumped there is no further expense than
you have already stated?
Answer. That dumping  costs something.  The general rule in
selling coal at Richmond is to take fifteen cents for the shipping
expenses.  If you dump upon the vessel, it costs less; if you dump
upon the wharf, it costs more.  This is taken from  the shipping
expenses. Sometimes it will cover the loss, and sometimes it will not.
It depends upon whether vessels are scarce or not.
Question. The net cost, then, to the dealer at the mine is $1 80 for
the last year; the freight is $1 35, with drawback for waste; and the
shipping expenses are fifteen cents. Is there any other outlay?
Answer. None that I know of, unless it requires extra trimming.
The coal that we furnished had extra trimming at the mine at their
own request.
Question. Was that paid for extra?
Answer. No, sir; that is included in the $1 80.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. In making this calculation of the cost of this coal to
Tyler, Stone & Co. is it fair to allow $1 35 or $1 30 for freight?
Answer. One dollar and thirty-five cents is the freight. The five
per cent. is allowed to cover the waste.
Question. Does that come out of them or out of you?
Answer. They do not get the clear benefit of it, because there is
a waste of something like two per cent. in the transportation, even
if it is the cleanest kind of coal.  If it is not the cleanest, there would
be more waste.  Dumping will make dirt.  Every time you handle
coal there will be a waste.




128                       COAL AGENCY.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do they pay you for the gross weight or the net weight?
Answer. They pay only for the net weight.  For instance, we send
100 tons, as weighed by the scales; they paid freight upon 95 tons,
and they paid us for 95 tons.
Question. If dumped and trimmed at the wharf there will be a large
quantity of coal which is refuse?
Answer. That depends upon the care with which it is trimmed, and
the state of the coal as it comes down; and what would be considered
well trimmed coal by one would be considered badly trimmed by another.
Some people object to the look of a piece with a " string" in it; they
want it all " clear coal."
Question. Will this refuse coal bring as large a price as the other
when sold for other purposes?
Answer. It does not bring any price at all if there are large pieces
of bone, slate, stone, in it. It must be hauled away at a cost. The
waste coal is screened and the screenings are sold to manufacturing
establishments at a price of about $1 a ton in Philadelphia.
Question. You have sold some of your coal at $2 25; under what
circumstances was that?
Answer. It was when we made a sale taking the risk of the freight,
to deliver at a certain point; and when the time came for delivery,
the freight was very low, so that we made a good bargain of it.
Question. Did you agree in any case with any parties, to deliver
coal at Philadelphia, on board vessel, well trimmed, taking upon
yourselves the responsibility of all loss in trimming and dumping it,
so as to have it in a suitable condition to put on board steamers?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What did you charge for coal when you took that risk
and responsibility?
Answer. I remember a sale at $3 65; but it was not a long sale.
WVe knew what the freights would be.  It was a certain quantity of
coal to be delivered as soon as we pleased, in a condition for steamer
purposes. That is one sale I recollect.
Question. What part of the year was that?
Answer. In June and July, so far as I can recollect.
E. BORDA.
No. 7 5.-TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN H. SPRINGER, OF PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 12, 1859.
BENJAMIN II. SPRINGER called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia, sir.
Question. Are you in the coal business at the present time?
Answer. For the past year I have done very little at it.  I have
been in the coal business for more than twenty-nine years, and may consider myself in it now, although for the last year I have done but little.
Question. Have you ever filled any official position while you were
connected with the coal business?




COAL ArGENCY.                         129
Answer. I was formerly agent of the navy department for furnishing
coal. I was the first agent appointed.
Question. By whom were you appointed?
Answer. By Mr. Graham, Secretary of the Navy at that time, under
President Fillmore's administration.   I may premise  by saying
that I was urged by the coal trade in general to solicit the appointment.
Question. I want to hear your opinion on the propriety of a coal
agency, vwhen well managed; I want you to state what advantages
there are to the government in having an agency, or whether it could
be dispensed with, &c.
Answer. So far back as 1845 or 1846, I am not positive which, the
coal trade in Philadelphia, seeing the manner in which the government was supplied, felt desirous of introducing a better article, for
their own interest of course, as well as for the interest of the government.  They  urged me to visit Washington and try to get it
introduced into the navy.  I think this was during Secretary Jlason's
frst term, under President Polk.  I complied with their request and
visited Washington each session without accomplishing anything
until the long session-I do not remember which Congress-which
terminated in 1850.  I was informrd by Mr. Graham that if we could
succeed in getting the law altered which gave it to the lowest bidder,
he would appoint an agent.  We did succeed, and I was appointed
in January, 1851.  Prior to that, the government was supplied in a
very bad way, and I think injuriously to its interest.  I think they
got a much better article and at a lower rate, during the agency than
before.  I consider it an all important thing; I consider a coal agency
properly conducted is one of the most important stations belonging
to the navy department.  The properties of coal are so various that
a person who is not thoroughly acquainted with it may purchase a
bad article and endanger the ship and all on board.  The received'
opinion of persons not acquainted with the subject is that all coals arealike; but there is as imuch difference between different coals as there is.
between the best hickory and the worst pine wood.  The government
has bought coal, to my knowledge-not under agencies, but prior to,
them-which was condemned.  I was removed 1853.  Mr. Dobbin
was then Secretary of the Navy, and for a time he tried the navy,
agents; but they sent such coal as could not be used.  Mfr. Dobbin.
told me himself that on some of it they had a survey, and it was condemned and sold for either a dollar and a quarter or a dollar and a
half per ton.  I was familiar with the fact myself.  I must say that
I consider a coal agency indispensable for the navy department.
Question. What is the proper business of the coal agent?
Answer. When I was in the agency I can inform  you what I considered the business.  I was required, when I was first appointed, to
abandon all other business, and devote my whole time to the agency..
rhe duty of the agent is to select the coal, purchase it, and superilltend the shipping of it; to do which it would require the. closest
attention of two or three persons.  Indeed, while I was agent that
was the course I pursued.
9 A




130                      COAL AGENCY.
Question. Did you have an assistant to aid you in the discharge of
your duty?
Answer. My son assisted me; he was constantly there while the
vessel was loading. He was practically acquainted with the properties
of coal..
Question. Who succeeded you?
Answer. Mr. Tyson. Prior to his appointment there was no coal
agent, but Mr. Dobbin thought he would try the navy agents.  I advised him strongly against it, and that he should leave it to the
bureaus.  I gave him my advice; there was the best feeling existing
between Mr. Dobbin and myself, but the section of country that produced bituminous coal was opposed to me, and I was removed. He
appointed the navy agents, and after that he appointed Mr. Tyson.
Question. You have already told how the matter was managed by
the navy agents; you think very unsuccessfully?
Answer. It was very unsatisfactory. A part at least of the coal
was not fit for the service.
Question. While Mr. Tyson held the coal agency do you know
whether he had a partner or assistant in the business.
Answer. Not of my own knowledge; I heard that he had. Mr.
Tyson was not, when appointed, acquainted with the coal business.
He resided in Reading, and the coal business was done in Philadelphia. While I had the agency I did the business between Philadelphia
and the mines; that is, I selected the coal at the mines and the dealers in Philadelphia to purchase it from, and I superintended the
shipping, took up vessels, &c.
Question. Do you say that your arrangement was with dealers to
furnish you with coal?
Answer. Yes, sir; I occasionally bought at the mines when the?lace for which the coal was destined could be reached by canal
lbarque without being transhipped.
Question. Why was that preferable to having an arrangement with.miners.
Answer. Simply because they are an intermediate class. If you
make purchases at the mines, then you have to employ persons to
transport it to the shipping ports:and you must engage a wharf.  I
-could procure it on better terms direct from the dealer, who would
supply me with the article; and then I examined how it was put on
board. It was my province to watch the man that I bought it of and
sae that he gave me proper coal, which was thoroughly cleaned, and
that I got good weight. I trusted no man, but superintended the
transhipment of it at Philadelphia myself. As I observed, I arranged,with the dealer and fixed the prices, and he was bound to put it on
board-that is, to pay the expenses of putting it on board the vessel.
I superintended the procuring of the vessels, and saw it put on board,
and saw that it went on board of the proper size, clean, and good
weight.
Question. In purchasing of a dealer in preference to purchasing at
the mines, did you not loose to the government the profits of the




COAL AGENCY.                          131
dealer; he had to purchase it at the mines, and had to have his
profits?
Answer. He must have some profits, of course; but the government
could not well purchase the coal at the mines without renting a wharf
and employing supernumerary agents; and the profits which the dealers charged could not be sufficient to make it an object of any moment,
and I think not equal to the extra charge the government would have
to pay.
Question. If the government purchased directly at the mines,
would it not involve the necessity of the government's purchasing
coal not suitable for steamer purposes, and which they would have to
get rid of afterwards?
Answer. No, sir.  I purchased at the mines-that is, I selected the
coal at the mines.  The miners have parties in Philadelphia, either
partners or agents, to receive their coal and ship it; and it was from
those parties at Philadelphia that I received it.  Having first agreed
with them for a particular kind of coal that was to come on, if they
failed to furnish that kind of coal I rejected it.  I have done so, rejecting it because it was not according to what I had purchased.
Question. What would you consider a fair profit for the dealer to
make?
Answer. It would be a difficult matter to determine.
Question. What per cent.?
Answer. We do not go by percentage; it depends pretty much
upon the season and demand.  I could not fix any particular amount.
I have been a dealer myself for a long time; the profits are not
generally very large on coal; it depends something upon the quantity
that is purchased.  I do not suppose the dealers average more than
25 or 30 cents profit, or it may be 40, on a ton; that is, as a general
thing.  There may be times when they make more.  I was a long
time in the business; and, in fact, until I became the agent of the
government, I was a vender of coal in Philadelphia. Some coals I was
in the habit of getting higher prices for than almost any man in the
market.
Question. Perhaps that was because you had the best article?
Answer. Yes, sir.  I mined'j;i myself, and was particularly careful in selecting it in proper order: and, therefore, I had the preference in the market for that particular coal.
Question. Do you say that, in order to discharge the duties of a
coal agent properly, it is necessary to have a man at Reading and
another at Philadelphia?
Answer. No, sir.  Reading is not in the coal region, and few, if
any, in Reading have any practical knowledge of coal.
Question. Well, in the coal region then?
Answer. Reading is entirely out of the coal region.  Reading is in
Berks county, and upwards of thirty miles from the boundary of the
coal region, which is in Schuylkill.
Question. Is it necessary to have some man at the mines, and some
man also at Philadelphia?
Answer. No, sir. A person who is familiar with the coal trade, a




132                        COAL AGENCY.
practical man, knows the veins which are most suitable for his purpose, and, therefore, it is not necessary to have an agent at the
mines.  He purchases a particular kind, and it is sent to the agent of
the miner.  Either.the miner has his partner, or he has a consignee;
he sends the coal to him, and the agent or partner receives it.  I have
boug-ht coal directly at the mines.
Question. What do you consider the best veins of coal for steamer
purposes?
Ainswer. There are several about the centre of the coal basin. We
do not go by names, sir.  Every man gives a name to his own coal to
suit himself:   I have frequently known the names of the best veins
applied to very inferior coal.  I consider the middle of the field as
the best, for steam  purposes particularly, because it is of a medium
hardness.  For instance, the eastern terminus of the coal basin at
Lehigh or Maunch Chunk is too hard for steam  purposes, because it
requires a greater draught for steam purposes than our ships can give
it.  That has a decided preference for smelting iron, where they have
heavy bellows for making a draught.  At the eastern terminus the
coal is very hard, and it becomes softer as it goes west, until the same
vein terminates in the bituminous coal.  It at first becomes semi-bituminous, and afterwards changes entirely to bituminotis.  The medium
hardness is best for steam  purposes, and it therefore requires a good
judge to determine the kind necessary for it.  I consider the appointment of an agent as of vital importance to the Navy Department; they
generally got bad coal previously.
Question. How was your compensation fixed?
Answer. At five per cent.
Question. Upon what?
Answer. Upon the price of coal and freight.  I took up all vessels
and superintended them.
Question. Upon what freight?  The freight from the mines?
Answer. I had nothing for the inland freight.  The coal was purchased deliverable on board the vessel at Philadelphia.  Upon that
which wAas produced for the naval asylum  and for the navy yard, at
Philadelphia, my commission was upon the mere cost of the coal.
Question. Suppose that you freighted a vessel to take coal from
Philacdelphia to Boston; did you have conmmission upon that freight?
inswer.  Yes, sir.
Question. Or firom Philadelphia to Pensacola?
Answer. Anywhere. I was required to procure a vessel and see
the coal on board, and had my commission on the freight.
Question. Suppose that you freighted a vessel with coal for a foreign station?
Answer. It was the same thing; I charged commission upon that.
Question. And was it allowed you?
Answer. Yes, sir,
Question. How Tmuch coal upon the average did you purchase during
the year?
Answer. I do not recollect exactly.  I have minutes of it, but I




COAL AGENCY.                          133
have not brought them with me.  It was a small amount compared
with the present.
Question. Then what was the amount of your compensation?
Answer. I could not even tell that.  I was anticipating a better
one when they removed me.  My great object was, and that of the
coal trade also, to introduce the coal into the foreign stations, and to
the notice of foreign governments.  The compensation was considered
a small matter.  France alone takes 1,500,000 tons from England, or
did two years ago, and probably takes more now.  The trade urged
me, as I was acquainted in Washington, to get the appointment with
a view to that more than anything else.  It would have amounted to
something here; but just as it was becoming a little profitable I was
reimoved.
Question. Are you able to inform  the committee what was a fair
market price in the summer and fall of 1858, of coal suitable for use
upon the government steamers, delivered on board vessel at Philadelphia?
Answer. I am unable to answer that.  For the last year I have not
been in business; I have been sick a great part of the time.
Question. What was the price when you were coal agent?
Answer. I cannot recollect.  I think it varied probably from $3 50
to;5 per ton.  It is an article that varies according to the demand.
Coal has been at a higher price than it was the last two years, when
the stoppage of the foundries and manufactories cut it down.  The
average increase, until within the last two years, was about 121 per
cent.  For the last two years it has been falling off.
By the Chairman:
Question. State as near as you can the amount of your annual
compensation during the two years you served as coal agent.  Was
it over or under $2,000?
Answer. It was under $2,000.
Question. What, in your judgment, would be a fair and reasonable
compensation for an inspector of coal in Philadelphia, who would be
required to examine the coal and see that it complied with the
contracts?
Answer. It would be a very difficult thing to fix, sir.
Question. You know what the services are.  What would be a
fair compensation for the services, I do not refer to per centage?
Answer. It would require a n-umber of persons to attend to it.
One person could not attend to it to give it the attention it requires.
For instance, sometimes there will be two or three vessels loading at
once at different ports.  When I first had it, it could have been done
m-uch better, when the different vessels would be loaded near each
other.  One coal inspector could not attend to the whole; but if the
coal were to be procured on contract, it might be still worse.  I consider it necessary thlat one person should have the purchasing of the
coal, procuring of the vessel, and putting the coal on board, for this
reason.  The inspector would be eternally in conflict with the whole
coal trade.
Question. What would be a fair compensation for the coal dealer




134                      COAL AGENCY.
or coal inspector, for performing the duties, so far as he could, of a
coal dealer or inspector at Philadelphia?
Answer. It would be a very difficult matter to decide. I offered
to Mr. Dobbin to do it for one half that which was paid.
Question. Would a compensation of $2,000 a year be sufficient?
Answer. I do not think it would.
Question. Would $3,000 be sufficient?
Answer. Hardly; because he must necessarily employ three or four
persons. He must have an office; he must have a clerk and two or
three others to assist him.  You can estimate that as well as I can.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you suppose that $4, 000 would cover everything?
Answer. It might, possibly; that you must judge of. I should think
$5,000 a very small compensation for the labor to be performed, and
the expenses attendant.
Question. Should the coal agent reside at Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. He should be a practical man?
Answer. Yes, sir, or he does more injury than good.
By Mr. Grosbeck:
Question. You think $5, 000 would be a small compensation?
Answer. Yes, sir, for a large business of this kind, as a large portion of that sum would be required for assistants.
Question. How large a business do you suppose it to be?
Answer. Well, I do not know-30,000 or 40,000 tons, I should
suppose.
Question. Your estimate of the amount of salary and of labor is
based upon that?
Answer. Yes, sir. I do not suppose that, the present year, the
amount of coal will be as great as last year; because large quantities
were required for the Paraguay expedition, and for foreign depots.
This is mere conjecture; but I suppose that large amounts have been
sent out during the past year, and that is the reason of my estimating
the average at 30,000 or 40,000 tons.  They have probably sent out
amounts large enough to last for a number of years.  I think it would
be better to allow the coal agent a percentage than a salary; and
when the amount purchased is very large, the percentage can be
reduced.
Question. Should you think there would be a very material difference between the present year and the last?
Answer. I should suppose there would be, from the fact that we
always ought to have a large amount of coal in depot, so that we
should not be compelled to send for it at times when we should have
to pay extraordinary freights. Besides, it takes a long time to get
the coal there when it is wanted. I should judge that the depots
were very well filled, or else they would not require so much as I
have stated.
Question. What reason can you give why you think a percentage
would be better than a salary for the coal agent?
Answer. In my experience I have found that persons upon a salary




COAL AGENCY.                       135
were more apt to neglect their duties than if paid according to the
amount they have to do.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
BENJAMIN H. SPRINGER recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have you any explanation which you desire to make in
reference to the testimony you have given before this committee?
Answer. When I was examined on Saturday, the question was put
to me whether my compensation as coal agent had ever amounted to
$2,000 a year. I answered in the negative; I feel it due to myself
to say that I was in error there. I have received more than that,
but it was under different circumstances. In 1853 I did receive more,
but it was in consequence of a commission which I received in part
for inspecting coal shipped by Howland & Aspinwall.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Will you explain to the committee about that arrangement with Howland & Aspinwall; I mean in regard to their agency?
Answer. I am perfectly familiar with the commencement of that
matter; how it terminated I cannot say. In 1852, I then being coal
agent, Mr. Graham appointed Howland & Aspinwall, at the instigation of Commodore Perry, the especial agents for furnishing the
Japan squadron with coal.  Rumor said that it was all to go from
England; and in fact it was said that orders had gone out for the
purchase to be made.  The delegation from  Pennsylvania remonstrated, in a memorial to the Secretary of the Navy, against this
being done.  However, they were commissioned in April, 1852, to
buy this coal; they were to furnish all the coal required for that expedition, and to receive 10 per cent. on the gross amount of the
charges, including insurance and freight. A clause was inserted in
that agreement that, for any coals shipped from the United States,
there should be retained out of this 10 per cent. the usual commission
for the agent here.  A further point in the agreement was that the
coal was to undergo inspection by the commandant of the squadron,
or some one under his authority, and they were not to receive any
compensation until the return of that inspection had been made.
But two or three cargoes were shipped when I was named as the
agent to inspect the coal, and upon my certificate of inspection,
Howland & Aspinwall received their money here.  These are the
principal facts of the case. I will say that I received a part only of
my commission on this coal, which that year made my entire compensation exceed $2,000; but the great bulk of my commission on
that coal was withheld.
Question. Did you ever assert that claim before any court?
Answer. I was before the Court of Claims here, and they adjudged
it against me.  But then you all know what a decision of the Court
of Claims amounts to.  My counsel informed me that Mr. Blair admitted that if I had ever shipped any coal to foreign ports before
that time, I should have received this commission claimed by me,
and that fact was proved by me.




136                        COAL AGENCY,
Question. - How much did the commissions of Howland & Aspinwall
amount to?
Answer. I do not know what particular sum they received; but
they received at the rate of ten per cent. on all the costs and charges
of this coal.
Question. Did they receive ten per cent. upon the original cost of
the coal, the lighterage, freight, and insurance?
Answer. Yes, sir; upon all expenses that might accrue.  Their
commissions must have been very heavy if they insured, for a person
insuring the freight and cargo may insure it for what amount he
pleases.  I know that I offered to Mr. Gra.cham  to do it for 21 per
cent., but my offer was not accepted.  Another arrangement was
made with Howland & Aspinwall, in 1853, for 6 per cent.; that was
after I was removed.  And, by the way, according to the clause
which gave them commissions upon "all expenses that might ensue, "
which clause I remember perfectly, they might have charged. according to their contract, a commission on the demurrage, if there was
any; I do not know whether there was any or not; but, under some
circumstances, the demurrage is pretty heavy.  I recollect that during the Mexican war the demurrage upon the coal sent out there
amounted, in some cases, to much more than the freight, and even
the value of the vessel, too.  Messrs. Ilowland & Aspinwall shipped
during their agency, including anthracite and bituminous, nearly
35,000 tons.
B. H. SPRINGER.
No. S0. —WILLIAMI W. PEIRCE, BOSTON.
FEBRUARY 14. 1859.
WILLIAM W. PEIRCE called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. Naval storekeeper in the Boston yard.
Question. By whom were you appointed?
Answer. Secretary Toucey.
Question. What have you to do with the coal received at that
yard, in your capacity of naval storekeeper.
Answer. I have the custody of it; I attend also to the receipt of it.
Question. Do you receive a bill of lading when the coal is sent
there, and do you inspect it?
Answer. I do.
Question. Do you weigh the coal to see whether it corresponds?
Answer. Always.
Question. By whom has the coal been shipped this last year?
Answer. The anthracite coal ha.s been shipped by Tyler, Stone &
Co., of Philadelphia.
Question. How did the weights correspond with the bill of lading?
Answser. Of the whole quantity there were only two which fell
short of the bill rendered, and some of them over ran.  Those two




COAL AGENCY.                       137
which were deficient in quantity had a deduction upon the bill of
freight, so that the government only paid for what they received.
Question. How did the weight of the coal average on the whole?
Answer. The average was correct.
Question. What is the quality of the coal?
Answer. Very good; it is said by engineers to be superior to that
received in former years.
Question. Was it received in good condition?
Answer. In a very good condition.
Question. Are you a judge of coal yourself?
Answer. No, sir; not so as to be deemed an expert.
Question. Do you know anything about the amount of freight paid
upon this coal; whether it was reasonably low, or too high?
Answer. I know by comparison with coal dealers in Charlestown
that the same price was paid' by them at the same time.  Freights
were very low there.
Question. Under the system that you pursue, would it have been
possible for those that sent you this coal to defraud the government?
Answer. No, sir; not in the weight of the coal. We were very
particular about that.  We had the scales tested by the maker; and
the weights were examined by ourselves in person, and also by the
person who brought the coal.
Question. Does it undergo inspection at your yard?
Answer. No, sir; it is certified to by the coal agent. In former
years, when there has been a difficulty, the commandant has ordered
a survey; not upon any received from Mr. Tyler, however. That was
two or three years ago.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. When was the last inventory taken at your store?
Answer. Not since 1850, I think. I do not remember exactly.
Question. What is the reason that no inventory has been taken
since then?
Answer. There used to be a custom to have an annual survey; but
it has been done away with. I know that in 1844 there was an inventory taken, and I was myself appointed to the survey.
Question. Is that any reason why there should not be a survey?
Answer. No, sir; except that it would occupy a great deal of time.
It would take seven or eight months to take an account of the stores
there, without going into the timber, and perhaps the hemp. It
would be a very great work to take account of the timber.
Question. What number of hands would be required to do it in
that time?
Answer. We had about twelve men employed in weighing, and
one person to take the account. I judge we should require as many,
from having had some experince in it myself.
Question. Is there any mode of ascertaining the number and value
of the articles?
Answer. Our books show that.  We have everything enumerated
upon our books.
10 A




138                       COAL AGENCY.
Question. Is there any account taken of articles returned by vessels upon their return from a cruise?
Answer. Yes, sir; they are surveyed and entered just the same as
if they came from the contractors.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you give your personal attention to the duties of the
office?
Answer. Yes, sir; constantly.
Question. What force have you in your office?
Answer. Two clerks and a waiter.
Auestion. Do you find so much force necessary?
Qnswer. I do, sir. There is one point I should mention. We
manufacture in our yard the cordage for all the yards, which makes
a great deal of clerical labor in keeping the accounts.
Question. Does it increase very much the duties of your office?
Answer. Yes, sir; very much.
WM. W. PEIRCE.




INDEX TO PA RT 1.
COAL AGENCY.
Page.
<John Lenthall  ---- -----             --- ----          -       -------                    3
Charles H. Hunter-............ -— 49
Lawrence Getz. —--. —-—. —-—. ——, —------—.-. —---------—.-.-.   61
John F. Smith             — 66
C. Nichols Beach --- ---- ------—,-                               -,,          72
John G. Repplier    -                                                                      89
George P. Nevin —- --                                                                      96G
W. W. W. Wood, United States navy-. —-__..-.-. —.-_.._..-_....____    102
George F. Tyler -................... 104
Diller Luther ----—.. —-------—. —-—.-... —-—.                                       112
Charles P. Hayes --—. —-.....  —. --. —.. — ----..-. —            -    117
Charles Sinnickson ------- -        ---      -----       --  ---------                    120
Eugene Borda ----... - -.. --------      -----         --- -  --               124
Benjamin H. Springer -  ---                                                               128
William W. Pierce.- - -.. —         _-            -  -          -    - -    --   -     136








PART II.
TESTIMONY
IN RELATION TO
CONTRACTS FOR FURNISHING LIVE-OAK
FOR THE
NAVAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.
B








CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
No. 35.-GEORGE PLITT, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
GEORGE PLITT called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you take an active part in the election of 1856?
Answer. Tolerably so; as active as I could.
Question. What were your terms of intimacy with the President?
Answer. They were quite intimate.
Question. Are you related to the President?
Answer. Not at all, sir. I have been acquainted with him and he
has been my friend for thirty odd years.
Question. I will ask you whether you was treasurer, or held any
office, in the democratic club or association of Pennsylvania or Philadelphia? I do not know what the exact name of the association is.
Answer. I was the treasurer of the State Central Committee.
Question. Do you know Mr. W. C. N. Swift?
Answer. I do, sir, very well.
Question. When did you first make his acquaintance?
Answer. A number of years ago. He is distantly connected with
my wife by marriage. His wife's brother is married to a niece of Mrs.
Plitt.
Question. Did Mr. Swift take any active part in the election of 1856?
Answer. Yes, sir, he did.
Question. To what extent did he contribute to the necessary expenses of that election?
Answer. Well, I do not know as that is exactly a fair question; a
gentleman has a right to contribute as much as he pleases.
Question. I ask you the question in connexion with another matter?
Answer. I will leave it to your own sense of propriety. I have no
objection to state, but it is a private matter altogether.  [Upon consultation the members of the committee decided that the question
was a proper one.]  He contributed from his own and other sources,
including collections that were made in the State of Massachusetts,
directly to me over sixteen thousand dollars, five thousand of which
I know he got from  one gentleman, an old line whig, and I do not
know how much more he got from others.
Question. Did you receive it from him as treasurer?
Answer. Yes, sir. I received part of it from him directly; and
through his influence I received five thousand dollars from another
gentleman.
Question. Did you introduce Mr. Swift to Mr. Buchanan?
Answer. I think I did, sir.
Question. They are acquainted, then?
Answer. Oh yes, sir. I think I may claim the credit of making Mr.
Swift a democrat at that time.
Question. When was that?




4                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. Two years before the nomination; in 1854, or somewhere
along there.
Question. I will ask you if you sought to place him in a good position with the President?
Answer. I did, sir; in the very best position I possibly could.
Question. Did you and Mr. Swift enter into any understanding or
arrangement in regard to contracts for live-oak?
Answer. I have a written agreement with Mr. Swift, dated in April,
1854, during Pierce's administration, by which I was to aid him all I
could with the departments in furnishing them with live-oak. And
during Pierce's administration, and long before, during Fillmore's
administration, he furnished live-oak for the departments?
Question. Was this written contract made at the time you introduced him to the President?
Answer. No, sir; it was two years before; it was in April, 1854.
I introduced him to the President, although perhaps he might have
known him personally before, upon our return from the Cincinnati
convention.
Question. What was the purport of that agreement?
Answer. It was that he was to give me ten per cent. on the gross
amount of the contracts he should make with the department. I was to
aid him with my influence in every possible way. That was while Mr.
Dobbin was Secretary of the Navy; and I spoke to Mr. Dobbin frequently
and introduced him to gentlemen whom I thought of the highest honor,
probity, and correctness, as I did not intend to do anything that was
wrong. Mr. Swift was to give me ten per cent. upon all contracts he
made, and I frequently, during Pierce's administration, used my
influence in his behalf. But I do not know that he obtained a single
contract, except he had to compete for it through proposals in the
newspapers.  I do not know that he got one in any other way.
Question. Did he pay you according to his agreement?
Answer. No, sir; he has not, I am sorry to say; and therefore, as
I intend to make this a matter of prosecution hereafter if he does not
pay me, I will submit to the committee that probably my testimony
might affect my claim upon him hereafter.
[The Chairman informed the witness that his testimony could not
affect his claim.  Mr. Ritchie stated that testimony taken here was
not subject to the order of any court; the records of the House of
Representatives were not permitted to be used as evidence.,
Question. Did he ever render you an account of his contract?
Answer. No, sir; supposing that agreement was still in force under
the present administration as it was under the former one, I had
taken pains to make him acquainted with every one of my political
friends; and after all that, I suppose he found after awhile that he
could do without me, and so turned me adrift.
Question. Does he not claim to have paid you?
Answer. He says it is charged against me on his and his partner's
books.  He is in partnership with Mr. Perry, of New Bedford, and in
a note to me he said he considered that as a debt.
Question. Considered what as a debt?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   5
Answer. He loaned me three hundred dollars in Boston; I was
there on a visit to Nahant, one of the watering places near Boston,
and I told him I was a little short of funds and did not want to draw.
He asked me how much I wanted and gave me a check for three hundred dollars.  That is all I have had of him, unless he considers that
what he gave me as treasurer of the State Central Committee was a
part of what was due me on his previous agreement.
Question. You did not so regard it?
Answer. I did not, indeed; if I had, I should have kept it.
Question.  Was this arrangement between you and Mr. Swift made
known to Mr. Dobbin?
Answer. It was not.
Question. Was it made known to the chief clerk, Mr. Welsh, or to
ally of them?
Answer. No, sir; I never mentioned the matter; I thought it was
no sort of use.
Question. Did they know that you was interested in the matter?
Answer. I do not think any of them knew that.
Question. Did you communicate the fact to the President?
Answer. No, sir; not until after Mr. Swift declined to pay me.
Question. When did you communicate that fact to the President?
Answer. I think it was only about two or three months ago.
Question. What action did he take upon that?
Answer. I did not want to involve the present administration in any
difficulty, and, therefore, I asked the President whether there would
be any objection to my prosecuting Mr. Swift in court for this claim.
The President looked at the agreement made in 1854, and said he
could not see any objection to it. He had of course no advice to give,
and told me I might do as I pleased about it.
Question. Previous to that time, you had not communicated the
fact to the President?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. At the time you introduced Mr. Swift to Mr. Buchanan,
what did you tell him?
Answer. Only that Mr. Swift was an old line whig, who had come
over to our party, and a gentleman who was taking an active part in
his election, that is about the substance of it.
Question. Did you tell him the amount Mr. Swift had contributed?
Answer. No, sir; not at that time.
Question. Did Mr. Buchanan know the amount?
Answer. I think he does now; I think I mentioned it to him.
Question. I will ask you whether you said any thing to Mr. Toucey
about this agreement?
Answer. Nothing at all.
Question. What did you say to Mr. Toucey?
Answer. In introducing Mr. Swift, I told Mr. Toucey, that he was
a gentleman whom I should be very glad to have him aid in any way
that he could, legitimately of course-that he was my very warm
friend, who had contributed very liberally towards the election of
1856, and that he had a number of old line whig friends in Massa



6                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
chusetts who were equally liberal, some of them at least; and I thought
such gentlemen ought to be patronized, of course.
Question. I will ask you if that agreement was applicable to liveoak contracts only, or to all contracts that should be obtained?
Answer. The agreement was entirely as to live-oak timber, of which
he had a very large quantity, all cut and ready for delivery.  Indeed,
at one time, when he found that he could not dispose of the whole of
it here, under Pierce's administration, he wanted me to go to England
and try to sell it for him. I told him we ought to keep all our own
live-oak timber here in our own country for our own ships, and I
advised him against selling it in England, telling him that he might
dispose of it under the next administration. Mr. Swift is a whaler in
New Bedford, and I think he commenced this contract business under
the particular patronage and auspices of Joseph Grinnell, who was then
a member of Congress under Fillmore's and also under Harrison's
administrations-I think as far back as that, although I am not certain.
Question. I will ask you what assistance you gave Mr. Swift in
obtaining contracts last summer?
Answer. Not any at all; I did not think any additional recommendation necessary; the contracts were made without my knowledge.
Question. At this time he had become acquainted with all the influential men?
Answer. Yes, sir; and so he thought he could do without me, but
I did not feel that I ought to be thrown over in that way.
Question. I will ask you whether you think the contracts of Mr.
Swift, with the government, could have been obtained without your
influence?.
Answer. That would be a very hard matter for me to say; I do not
know how far my influence about the contracts extended; I do not
think the Secretary of the Navy could have done anything else than
give them to him, because, from what I can learn, he was the lowest
bidder under the regular advertising system.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. I will ask you one or two questions, to make your explanation mo:'e full. You say that Mr. Swift contributed over $16, 000?
Answer. It was over $16,000 that I obtained through him; that is,
I obtained $5,000 from one gentleman, being introduced to him by
Mr. Swift.
Question. You credited that to Mr. Swift's agency?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And without that it was about $11,000?
Answer. There was about $11,000, and I think there was some
$1,600 more that I knew of, that might have come through his
influence.
Question. Do you know how much of that Mr. Swift himself gave?
Answer. I always supposed that he himself gave ten thousand
dollars, but in this I may have been mistaken. He was a very liberal
man, and said he would give fifty thousand dollars to have Mr.
Buchanan elected, if it were necessary.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     7
Question. When did he become a democrat, before Mr. Buchanan's
administration or after?
Answer. He became a democrat during Pierce's administration.
I used to go to New Bedford every summer, and he was a very liberal
man, and used to drive me over to Newport; and I talked to him
about Mr. Buchanan, and, of course, in that way he became a warm
friend to him, and acted as such; going to Cincinnati, and doing all
he could to induce his old line whig friends to support Mr. Buchanan
too.
Question. Can you fix, with any distinctness, the first time that
Mr. Buchanan knew anything about the arrangement between you
and Mr. Swift?
Answer. I think I can tell with considerable certainty. I received
a letter from Mr. Swift, dated the 15th of October last, and in that
letter, for the first time, he repudiated this agreement. I then came
down to Washington, and it was between the 15th of October and
the 15th of November that I told the President about it and showed
the President the written agreement, asking his advice about the
matter.
Question. You consulted him in relation to your remedy?
Answer. Yes, sir; the President, very properly, told me that it was
no affair of his; it was an agreement made long before he came into
power, and if my attorney thought I could recover in a court of justice, I ought to do so.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Toucey knows of it to this
day?
Answer. I do not think he does, unless the President himself may
have mentioned it to him.  I know that Mr. Toucey asked me the
last time that I was in Washington about Mr. Swift, saying "Your
friend, Swift, I am afraid, has failed in delivering one of his last
contracts at the Pensacola yard; and if so, I intend to annul it."
He telegraphed down that very day to see about it, and since I have
been here this time I have understood that the vessels were actually
outside the harbor and were detained by yellow fever from coming
in and delivering the timber according to his contract. So Mr. Lenthall told me.
Question. In what you have already stated as having been said to
the President and the Secretary of the Navy, is that all you ever did
towards getting from this administration these contracts for Mr. Swift,
or did you at any other time, in your intercourse with the President
and the Secretary of the Navy, intercede for Mr. Swift?
Answer. Frequently, when his name would be mentioned, I would
remark that he was a very good fellow, and I was sorry he should
be disappointed; he was anxious to get some appointments in Massachusetts, in all of which he was disappointed, and I felt some
sympathy for him.  I frequently spoke of him in that way.
By the Chairman:
Question. You considered yourself bound in duty and honor to do
all you could to aid him in obtaining these contracts?
Answer. Yes, sir; to do everything I could; of course, within the




8                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
rules and regulations of the department, for I have been too long an
officer of the government in the Post Office Department not to know
that anything that was not strictly right I would not so far degrade
myself as to ask the head of a bureau to do.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you distinct in your recollection of the time at which
you mentioned this matter to the President?
Answer. Yes, sir, very distinct. It was between the 15th of Oc.
tober and the 15th of November last.
Question. Was this the first time he ever knew of the arrangement?
Answer. It was.
Question. Were you the agent of any company in obtaining a contract from the government?
Answer. I was the attorney of the Atlantic Works of Boston.
Question. Did they obtain the work?
Answer. No, sir, although I thought them entitled to it.
GEORGE PLITT.
No. 36.-JOSEPH GRICE, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
JOSEPH GRICE called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation and business?
Answer. My business is that of commission merchant and lumber
dealer.
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In New York.
Question. Were you a bidder for the live-oak under the advertisement of June 14, 1858?
Answer. I was.
Question. In what name did you make your bid.  In your own
name?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you successful?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How did your bid stand with regard to bids from others?
Answer. It was second; the bid next to the lowest, for three of
the yards for which I bid.
Question. For which yards?
Answer. The Brooklyn, the Charlestown, and the Kittery yards?
Question. What is the usage and custom  of the department in
awarding contracts when the lowest bidder fails to complete the conditions of the contract?
Answer. It has been the custom of the department that when the
lowest bidder fails to comply with the terms of his agreement the




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     9
department awards the contract to the next highest bidder, looking
to the guarantors of the lowest bidder for the difference in the price.
Question. What contracts would have been awarded to you under
this arrangement?
Answer. I am the next highest bidder on the Brooklyn, Charlestown
and Kittery yards.
Question. Who were the lowest bidders?
Answer. Messrs. Buxton and Lawrence, of Maine.
Question. Would the non-compliance of Buxton and Lawrence
with their contract have entitled you to the contracts for these three
places?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is the aggregate amount of live-oak embraced in
the bids for the three yards?
Answer. It was 25,000 feet for each yard.
Question. What is the average price per foot at which you bid?
Answer. I cannot tell you exactly.  My average was somewhat
like $1 15 to $1 20 a foot.
Question. Please state the aggregate of live-oak for the three yards
which you bid for-the aggregate in feet and in money both?
Answer. The total was something like 75,000 cubic feet for $87,450.
Question. What would be the average price per foot?
Answer. About $1 16- per cubic foot.
Question. Can you tell me in what document are published the
details of your bid?
Answer. It is to be found on page 552 of the third volume of the
message and accompanying documents for the present session.
Question. Have you been long engaged in the lumber business?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. For the government?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many years have you been a contractor for the
government?
Answer. Since the year 1840.
Question. How long have you been engaged in the business for
yourself?
Answer. I have been engaged in it since 1840; my experience would
date as far back as 1834, for I was engaged under my father then.
Question. What was the time allowed for the delivery of this liveoak under contracts made previous to those under the advertisement
of June last?
Answer. The time heretofore allowed has been, all the way, from
one to three years, depending upon the quantity wanted, &c.
Question. And that time was stated in the former advertisement
calling for bids?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What has been the custom of the department in allowing
the contractor to deliver this live-oak beyond the time allowed under
the contract?
Answer. The custom of the department, as far as my knowledge




10                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
extends, has been, when the contracts expire, not to close down
upon the contractors, but to allow the yards to receive the timber
from them, even after the time under the contracts had expired.
Question. Did you ever know any case in which a shorter time was
prescribed in the advertisement for the delivery of the lumber than
one year?
Answer. No, sir, I never did.
Question. How long does it generally take, after the contract is
made, for the live-oak dealer to supply the article?
Answer. It has been the custom with the "live-oakers," with
myself, at least, in fitting out our men, to do it in the fall of the year,
for we can work in no season but the winter in the live-oak forests of
Florida and Louisiana.  We would cut our oak in the months from
October to April, and then commence deliveries in the following
spring, continuing it through the summer.
Question. If a contract is made in August, 1858, then you would
commence cutting your timber in October and November, and commence delivering it the following spring and summer?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is the live-oak required by the government of a peculiar
character?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What peculiar requirement in relation to the time of its
cutting is made generally?
Answer. In contracts made in former times there were stipulations
requiring the live-oak to be cut in certain months of the year when
the sap is down, as it was considered that the timber cut when the
sap was down was more valuable than timber cut when the sap was
up; and they confined us, therefore, in the cutting of this timber, to
the time between the first of November and the first of March.
Question. What peculiarity is there in the size of the live-oak required by the government?
Answer. They are more particular in their descriptions of timber
than is the case when we supply it to the merchant service, and, as
a general thing, they require moulded timber.
Question. Do you mean cut out to a certain size or pattern?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Irregular shapes?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Does the advertisement specify the different sizes required?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When was your attention called to the advertisement of
last year?
Answer. I think likely it was called to it immediately upon its
publication.  I take the " Union" and look at it for such things, and
suppose I saw this at once.
Question. What peculiarity did you notice in that advertisement?
Answer. The shortness of the time allowed for the delivery of the
timber.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    11
Question. What was that?
Answer. The advertisement required the first half of the timber to
be delivered on the first of September, 1858, and the other half on
the first of February, 1859.
Question. Was it within human possibility for a person to cut and
deliver this live-oak between the awarding of the contracts and the
first of last September?
Answer. Not to cut and deliver it. It would be utterly impossible
to comply with such a requirement, unless the party had the timber
already on hand.
Question. What, then, induced you to bid for it?
Answer. I bid, presuming on the usages of the department, which
I supposed would extend that courtesy to me which had been extended
to all other contractors under similar circumstances.  I knew it was
utterly impossible for me to deliver the timber according to the advertisement, but I knew that my arrangements were such that I could
deliver it by the first of February?
Question. And you thereupon made a bid?
Answer. Yes, sir.  And I will say here that it has been the usage
of the department, when a contract is made for an article, and the
time even expires, if the article is not needed for the immediate uses
of the government, not to enforce the observance of the contract
strictly to the time, but to allow further time to deliver it. This has
generally been the case, unless the article is needed for immediate use.
Question. Had any live-oak dealer in the United States the particular kind of live-oak described in that advertisement on hand at the
time the advertisement was published?
Answer. There was some timber lying in store of the navy yard
which I was at during the summer, which timber I was told by officers
of the yard did belong to certain individuals.
Question. To whom?
Answer. Part of it to Mr. Bigler and part of it to Mr. Swift.
Question. Did that timber fall within the terms of the advertisement?
Answer. The description in the advertisement corresponded very
well with the timber that I saw in the yard.
Question. hlow came it to be lying in the yard?
Answer. I understood that it was some timber which had been sent
there under former contracts and had not been received, and it
comes to lie in the yard in that way.
Question. Does the government usually allow live-oak dealers to
store their timber on the government docks?
Answer. That has not been my experience.
Question. Have you known it to be done in any other case?
Answer. No sir, 1 have not; there is an order, so the commandant
of one of the yards informed me, that the surplus and rejected timber
must be removed from the yard before the bids for the accepted timber would be signed.
Question. Did you learn from any of the officers of the government,
why this timber was allowed to remain there?
Answer. No, sir.




12                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. If the usual time had been asked for by the department,
how much less, if any, could you have furnished this live-oak at?
Answer. I would have furnished it for about 12 to 15 per cent.
less than what my bids were. I made my bids upon the calculation
that I should furnish the timber by the first of February; I calculated
in that way, and made my bids accordingly.
Question. Do you know whether the bidders to whom had been
awarded the contract for the live-oak to be furnished at the Brooklyn,
Charlestown, and Kittery yards, executed their contracts?
Answer. Mr. Lawrence informed me that they had executed their
contracts.
Question. Was he the lowest bidder?
Answer. He was one of the firm, Buxton & Lawrence, who were
the lowest bidders.
Question. What became of their contracts?
Answer. He said nothing more than that his contracts had been
executed.
Question. Did you ascertain from the department whether these
contracts had been filed there?
Answer. Hearing that this contract had not been executed, I wrote
to the chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repairs, Mr. Lenthall,
during the latter part of August or the fore part of September, that
I learned that the lowest contractors had failed to comply with the
terms of the contract, and I asked him to let these contracts be
awarded to me, acording to the usages and customs of the department, as the next highest bidder; to this he replied, in substance,
but I have not the letter with me, that the department had given instructions regarding these contracts which had been carried into effect.
I did not consider that exactly an answer to my letter, and not understanding it exactly, I wrote again, repeating my first letter, of which
I had kept a copy; to that Mr. Lenthall replied that my letter of
such a date had been received; that was all; there was nothing
further.
Question. Have you that correspondence here with you?
Answer. I have a copy of my letter to Mr. Lenthall, but not of his
letters in reply.
Question. Do you know to whom the furnishing of this live-oak
was awarded?
Answer. I understood, and also see by the advertisements published, that it was finally given to a Mr. Swift.
Question. Was Mr. Swift the next lowest bidder under that advertisement?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you ever know a case of that kind to occur before?
Answer. It has never occurred within my experience.
Question. Do you know of any parties in the live-oak business
failing to make bids in this case on account of the peculiarities of
this advertisement?
Answer. I do.
Question. Who were they?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  13
Answer. Mr. James M. Griffin told me he would have made a bid
had the time allowed been longer.
Question. Have you ever had any conversation with Mr. Swift on
the subject?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever had any conversation with the department upon this subject?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have they given you no explanation upon the subject?
Answer. Nothing more than the replies I have received from Mr.
Lenthall, as I have stated.
Question. Have they, under these new contracts, received this old
lumber from Mr. Swift?
Answer. I have been so informed.
Question. Have you been in any of the navy yards recently?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was this timber removed from where you had seen it
before?
Answer. One pile that I saw was not.
Question. Had any portion of the timber you had seen been removed?
Answer. Some of it had been.
Question. Were you informed at the navy yard that it had been
taken in under the new contract with Mr. Swift?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When had this timber been piled up in the yard?
Answer. The timber in the Philadelphia yard, when I stopped as
I was passing through that city, had been piled up there some time
in the month of July, I think; though I will not be certain about that,
as I did not charge my memory with it.
Question. Was it piled up under shelter when you saw it then'?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What would be the effect of exposure upon this kind of
timber?
Answer. The effect of exposure to the sun and rain has, of course, a
great tendency to deteriorate the value of the timber.
Question. When the government receives live-oak what does it do
with it?
Answer. They have now adopted the principle or plan of storing
it under sheds; formerly they used to store it in docks.
Question. They store it away under shelter until they have occasion
to use it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Does the timber become injured when stored away in
sheds in this way?
Answer. Not to the extent, of course, as when exposed to the
weather.
Question. When exposed is it sure to become injured?
Answer. Yes, sir; the sun cracks it, &c.




14                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Was this live-oak advertised for needed for immediate
use?
Answer. I cannot say, of my own knowledge.
Question. What was the supply of live-oak at the different yards
you visited?
Answer. The officers in charge represented to me that they had a
good supply.
Question. Do you know whether this timber has been used, now
that it has been obtained?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question. Would it be proper to use live-oak green, not seasoned
at all?
Answer. They use- it sometimes when it is freshly cut, as well as
when it has been seasoned.
Question. Have you been in the different store-rooms in the yards
for this timber?
Answer. Yes, sir; in some of them I have.
Question. What was the supply in comparison with former years?
Answer. They seemed to have very good supplies received under
contracts made before these of last summer.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. How long has it been since you have seen this timber
delivered by Mr. Swift?
Answer. I have seen some of it within the last two weeks.
Question. What proportion of that timber had been used between
the time you last saw it and the time when you before saw it?
Answer. I could see no diminution in the bulk myself.
Question. The pile was still there the same as before?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you been a live-oak contractor for a number of
years?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. With the government?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you always complied with your contracts?
Answer. I have finished up all.
Question. Within the time specified?
Answer. Not always.
Question. How many times, in your contracts, have you come within
your time? Have you in every case fallen through?
Answer. Not in every case.
Question. How has it been with you as a general thing?
Answer. We have been a little beyond the time.
Question. Do I understand you to say that your bid was the lowest
price at which you could afford to furnish this timber, provided you
could have been allowed until the first of February?
Answer. I said I calculated to deliver the timber by the first of
February, and I made my bid accordingly.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   15
Question. Had these men, Bigler & Swift. their live-oak timber
stored away in all these yards?
Answer. So I was informed; it was surplus and rejected timber
from their former contracts.
Question. Have you been in all three of these yards, the Brooklyn,
Philadelphia, and Kittery yards, since these contracts were made?
Answer. I have been in the Brooklyn and Philadelphia yards, but
not in the Kittery yard, since last July.
Question. How long since you have been at the Brooklyn and
Philadelphia yards?
Answer. I was in the Brooklyn yard some four or five weeks since.
Question. At that time you say that there was one pile of Mr.
Swift's timber which had not been removed; what proportion of it
had been removed?
Answer. I did not see any diminution in the bulk of that pile; that
pile did not embrace all the timber that Mr. Swift delivered there
under his contract.
Question. What proportion did that pile of timber embrace?
Answer. I can say no further than that I was told that there was
in that pile of timber some 5,000 or 6,000 feet.  This pile was in
the Philadelphia yard, not the Brooklyn yard.
Question. What was the amount he contracted to deliver there?
Answer. I presume the whole amount for that yard was 25,000
feet.
Question. Then you mean to say that that pile of 5,000 feet had
not been removed?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you know whether the remaining 20,000 feet has been
received and used?
Answer. I can tell that some of it has been received, but I cannot
tell whether it has been used or not, or how much of it has been used.
Question. How was it in the Brooklyn yard?
Answer. I saw the timber there lying scattered around in the
yard, not in a pile.
Question. Was that Mr. Swift's timber?
Answer. It was pointed out to me as his.
Question. When was it received there?
Answer. I think a cargo was about being delivered then.
Question. Did you see this the last time you were there?
Answer. No, sir; this was on the occasion previous to the last.
Question. When was that?
Answer. Some time in the fall; I cannot tell exactly.
Question. Was it subsequently to his getting his last contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. He was then delivering timber under it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has there been an unusual quantity of work done in the
yards during the last year?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Up to the present time?




16                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many new vessels are on the stocks at Charlestown?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. How many are on the stocks at Brooklyn?
Answer. I was told by Mr. Delano, the naval constructor, that
there was one ship.
Question. How many at Philadelphia?
Answer. But one there now; so I was told.
Question. Is that as large as vessels heretofore built?
Answer. Not so large as the majority of the vessels previously
built.
Question. Did that vessel require different sizes of timber from the
former vessel-smaller sizes?
Answer. It would, for a portion of her frame, require a different
size of timber; although the scantling and the siding of the frame
now being built, I suppose, would correspond very nearly to that at
other yards.
Question. Did you ever supply the government with timber when
you were not the lowest bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How was that?
Answer. That was under the administration of Mr. Polk, when
John Y. Mason was Secretary of the Navy. A case of the kind came
up on a live-oak contract, where the lowest bidder failed to comply
with the terms of his agreement. Commodore Skinner at that time
was chief of the bureau. I made application to him in relation to this
matter, I being the next highest bidder. He referred me to the Secretary of the Navy.  I applied to him, and Mr. Mason, under the
advice of the Attorney General, (I do not know who was the Attorney
General at that time,) decided that the contract should be awarded
to me, as I was the next highest bidder; and the contract was given
to me accordingly under that decision.
Question. Was that the only case that you remember when you
furnished the government with timber where you were not the
lowest bidder?
Answer. No, sir; I have had other contracts awarded me when I
was the next highest bidder.
Question. Have you ever supplied the government with timber
purchased of you upon open purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When you were neither the lowest nor the next to the
lowest bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Under whose administration?
Answer. I furnished some under the administration of Mr. Polk;
some under the administration of Mr. Pierce; and, I think, some little
under the present administration.
Question. What kind of timber did you furnish then?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    17
Answer. I furnished white oak plank; some yellow pine timber,
and some other woods.
Question. Did they merely purchase the timber of you, or did they
authorize you to procure it and deliver it in the yards?
Answer. It was a contract given out by the agents of the yard;
in one instance it was by the commandant of the yard, and in another
instance it was by the Bureau of Construction to get it and deliver it
there.
By the Chairman:
Question. Were there any bids called for at all?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Had there been bids for these very materials?
Answer. No, sir; they were obtained under directions to offer them
at open purchase.
Question. I wish to understand this matter.  What I understand
to be a purchase in open market is where a man purchases an article
already in the hands of the seller.  Now I want to know whether
you had the material ready for delivery, or did you procure it and
deliver it after you received the order to supply it?
Answer. As a general thing the order was given to me, and I procured the material and delivered it. Sometimes I have it on hand.
but in a majority of cases I have to procure the material after the
order was given.
Question. Was the price fixed beforehand?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you subpoenaed here in this city?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you know upon what subject you were to testify
when you were subpoenaed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then how did it happen that you brought with you the
letters that you wrote to Mr. Lenthall, and not what he wrote to you'?
Answer. These papers happened to be lying in my office, and I
picked them up in the hurry of leaving, when I had not time to make
an extended search.
Question. Can you obtain Mr. Lenthall's letters when you return
home and send them on here?
Answer. I can, and will do so with pleasure.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you know you were to be subpoenaed before this
committee when you left New York?
Answer. No, sir: I came on for another purpose.
Question. When did you first learn that you would be wanted here?
Answer. Two days ago.
FEBRUARY 5, 1859.
JOSEPH GRICE recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You have been government contractor for some time,
and are acquainted with the practice of the government in regard to
2B




18                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
contracts, and I want you to say what is the practice of the government when a contract has been made with an individual for material,
timber, or any other material, and the contract has been executed,
and the man fails to comply with the contract, what is done then?
Answer. The practice of the government in such a case, so far as
my knowledge extends, has been to purchase the article in the market,
and the difference in the price is charged to the contractor and his
sureties.
Question. Do you know whether Buxton & Lawrence entered into
a contract to supply the timber at Brooklyn and Charlestown?
Answer. In conversation with Mr. Lawrence, of the firm of Buxton & Lawrence, he told me that they had executed their contracts
according to the terms of the advertisement.
Question. You stated yesterday that that contract was set aside.
Answer. Yes, sir; so I understood.
Question. And you applied for the contract as the next lowest
bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And you stated that the contract was given to Mr. Swift.
Can you tell upon what terms that timber was obtained?
Answer. I did not get it directly from the Secretary of the Navy,
but I got it from Mr. Beach.
Question. Do you know, of your own knowledge, upon what terms
the government got the timber from Mr. Swift?
Answer. Nothing of my own knowledge, only what I have seen in
the document here, and what I have heard.
Question. Do you know, of your own knowledge, that Mr. Swift
furnished the timber to the government?
Answer. I know he furnished a portion of it only.
Question. Will you look over these tables (see appendix "A" and
"B" attached to this deposition) and state how the terms there stated
as those of Mr. Swift compare with the proposition of Buxton &
Lawrence?
Answer. To do that I would have to go into a little calculation,
because here the estimates of the bidders give the total amounts, not
the price per foot.
Question. Can you not tell the average price per cubic foot by
a calculation?
Answer. I could tell what the average is. [After a pause.] The
price of the contract with Mr. Swift is the same as that with the
original contractors, Buxton & Lawrence, as per documents.
Question. How does the price of the contract with Mr. Swift compare with that of your bid?
Answer. My bid was about $1 162 a foot and theirs is $1 09.
Question. Now if timber was wanted by the government in some
emergency, do those who usually supply such timber have it on hand,
or do they have to cut it and then deliver it?
Answer. They do not, as a general thing, have it on hand.
Question. Do you have to resort yourselves to the timber regions
to get out timber?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    19
Answer. We do, sir.  In connexion with that it might be proper
to say that, as a general thing, live-oak is an article not to be had in
open market the same as white pine or white-oak lumber is to be
had. I know I had but little on hand at the time this advertisement
was published-some 3,000 or 4,000 feet-and that was all that I
knew of in the New York market.
Question. How is it with regard to white-oak timber?
Answer. There is generally a supply of it on hand-a supply of
what is called western oak, which is principally used in the merchant
service.
Question. Did you state explicitly yesterday that when you made
your bid you put it at the lowest amount at which you could have
afforded to furnish that timber, provided you could have been allowed
till the first of February to furnish it?
Answer. Yes, sir. If I had been allowed a longer time I could
have afforded to furnish at a lower rate; but I could not have furnished it by February at a lower rate, on account of the higher price
of freight during the winter season.
Question. If you had expected to furnish it by the first of September could you have agreed to furnish it at the rates you proposed in
your bids?
Answer. No, sir. I did not make a bid with that expectation at
all, for it was impossible to do it.  It is not expected that we will
live up to these contracts.  Contracts run on, sometimes, over a year
beyond the time fixed in these contracts.  But the contractors are
allowed to go on and deliver.  In fact, it is sometimes exacted by the
department that the contractors shall go on and deliver even after the
time fixed in their contracts has expired.
Question. Do you know of any case in which bids have been received
when it was known that they were made with the distinct understanding on the part of the bidder that he was not to comply with
the contract?
Answer. No, sir; no further than what I have said about this contract requiring timber by the first of September last.
Question. You have stated that it was the practice of the department to allow men who did not come up to their contracts further
time to fulfil them-I wish to know whether it was the practice of
the department or whether it has in any case accepted bids and made
contracts with gentlemen who made their bids with a distinct understanding at the time that they would not comply with them?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Suppose proposals are offered for furnishing material of
a particular sort, and one man bids, expecting to comply literally
with his contract, and another man does not intend to comply with
it, do you think it would be quite fair to make the award to the man
who bid with a distinct understanding not to comply with the contract, instead of giving it to the man who bid expecting to fulfil the
contract? I mean if the terms offered are equal.
Answer. If there had been no custom or usage in the department




20                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
that would lead a man to expect anything less than the contract, it
would be right to give it to the man who offered in good faith.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you think there would be any use in issuing proposals at all, which were adapted to one man's wood pile, and which
it was not expected any other man could fulfil?
Answer. No sir, it would not, and I would say that it was remarked by contractors generally at the time that, "the advertisement
was made to fit."
By the Chairman:
Question. Can you furnish a copy of the advertisement of 1857
and the advertisement of 1858?
Answer. Yes sir, here they are.-(See appendix "A and B" attached to this deposition.)
Question. Will you please furnish the correspondence between you
and Mr. Lenthall, in regard to these contracts?
Answer. I will do so.-(See appendix 1, 2, 3, and 4, attached to
this deposition.)
JOSEPH GRICE.
APPENDIX.
No. 1.
NEW YORK, September 10, 1858.
SiR: Having learned that the lowest bidders for live-oak, under
recent advertisement for deliveries at the navy yards, Kittery, Charleston, and Brooklyn, have failed to execute their contracts, and that
my offers for same yards are the next highest, I ask that the same
3 may be awarded to me, in accordance with the usage and custom
of the department in such cases.
Respectfully yours,
JOSEPH GRICE.
Mr. JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c.,
Navy Department, Washington, D. C.
No. 2.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, d&c., September 18, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 16th has been received.  The department
has given instructions with regard to the contracts for live-oak, which
have been carried into effect.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
JOSEPH GRICE, Esq., New York.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    21
No. 3.
NEW YORK, September 23, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 18th instant has been received. It does
not give a reply sufficiently explicit to mine of the 10th. And I again
ask that the contracts for live-oak, to be delivered at the yards therein
mentioned, be awarded to me agreeable to the usage and custom ot
the department in such cases.
Respectfully yours, &c.,
JOSEPH GRICE.
Mr. JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, c&c.,
Navy Department,  Washington, D. C.
No. 4.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c.. September 25, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 23d has been duly received.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
JOSEPH GRICE, Esq., New York.
A.
PROPOSALS FOR LIVE-OAK.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., Jfay 2, 1857.
Sealed proposals for delivering 50,000 cubic feet of promiscuous
live oak in each of the navy yards at Charlestown, Massachusetts;
Brooklyn, New York; Philadelphia, and at Gosport, Virginia, will be
received at this bureau until the 15th of June, 1857.
These proposals must be endorsed Proposals for live-oak, that they
may be distinguished from other business letters.  The offers may be
for one or all the yards, but must be for the whole quantity at any
yard, and, as required by law, must be accompanied by a suitable
guarantee, the form of which is herewith given.
Sureties in the full estimated amount will be required to sign the
contract, and, as additional and collateral security, 15 per cent. will
be withheld on the amount of each delivery until the contract is
completed.
In all the deliveries of the timber there must be a due proportion
of the most difficult and crooked pieces, otherwise there will be withheld such further amount, in addition to the 15 per cent., as may be
judged expedient to secure the public interest until such difficult




22                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
portions be delivered.  The remaining 85 per cent., or other proportion of each bill, when approved in triplicate by the commandant
of the yard, will be paid by such navy agent as the contractor may
name within thirty days after its presentation to him.
It will be stipulated in the contract that if default be made by the
parties of the first part in delivering all or any of the timber named
of the quality and at the time and place provided, then, and in that
case, the contractor and his sureties will forfeit and pay to the United
States a sum of money not exceeding twice the total amount therein
agreed upon as the price to be paid in case of the actual delivery
thereof, which may be recovered from time to time, according to the
act of Congress in that case provided, approved March 3, 1843.
The 50,000 cubic feet to be delivered in each yard will be in the
following proportions: say 8,000 cubic feet of kelsons and pieces
suitable for lower stems, stern posts, stern-post knees, fore deadwood,
aprons, all siding 18 and 20 inches, and hooks siding 14 and 16 inches.
These pieces to be in number in the proportions in which they enter
into the construction of a ship-of-war, conforming substantially in
shape, length, and character with those heretofore received with
frames of corresponding siding, the moulds of which can be seen at
any of the yards named.
32,000 cubic feet of the siding of 13 and 15 inches, in about equal
quantities of each, and 5,000 cubic feet of a siding of 12 inches; all
these pieces being in length from 13 to 17 feet, having a natural and
fair curve of from 13 to 30 inches or more in that length; and twothirds the number of the pieces to have from the mean to the maximum crook; also, 5,000 cubic feet siding 13 and 15 inches, in length
from 17 to 20 feet.
All to be sided straight and fair; the 15-inch timber and under
showing a face of not less than three-fourths the siding, to be cut
from trees grown within thirty miles of the sea, of which satisfactory
evidence will be required by the commandant of the yard; to be delivered in the respective yards at the risk and expense of the contractor, subject to the usual inspection, to the entire approval of the
bureau; and one-half to be delivered on or before the 1st day of
August, 1858, and the remainder on or before the 1st of July, 1859.
Form of offer.
1, -, of the State -, hereby agree to furnish and deliver at the United States navy yard at      - fifty thousand cubic
feet of live-oak timber, in conformity with the advertisement of the
Bureau of Construction of the date of May 2, 1857, viz:
8,000 cubic feet, suitable for principal pieces, sided 18 and 20 inches
at - per foot.
32,000 cubic feet curved timber, sided 13 and 15 inches, length 13
to 17 feet, at -  per foot.
5,000 cubic feet curved timber, sided 12 inches, length 13 to 17
feet, at - per foot.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     23
5,000 cubic feet timber, sided 13 and 15 inches, length 17 and 20
feet, at - per foot.
Total value.
Should my offer be accepted, I request to be addressed at,
and the contract forwarded to the navy agent at, or to me
at       for signature and certificate.
(Date.)                                                 A.B.
Form of Guarantee.
The undersigned,, of, in the State of,
hereby guaranty that, in case the foregoing bid be accepted,
will, within ten days after the receipt of the contract at the post office
named, or navy agency designated, execute the contract for the same
with good and sufficient sureties; in case said        shall fail to enter
into contract as aforesaid, we guaranty to make good the difference
between the offer of the said  -  and that which may be accepted.
C. D.
(Date.)                                                 E. F.
Witness,       G. H.
I hereby certify that the above named C D and E F are known to
me as men of property, and able to make good their guarantee.
(Dated.)
(To be signed by the United States district judge, United States
district attorney, collector, or navy agent, and no other.)
(B.)
PROPOSALS FOR LIVE OAK.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, Equipment, &c., June 14, 1858.
Sealed proposals for delivering 25,000 cubic feet of promiscuous
live-oak timber in each of the navy yards at Kittery, Charlestown,
Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Warrington, will be received
at this bureau until 3 o'clock, the 14th day of July, 1858.
The proposals must be endorsed Proposals for live-oak, that they
may be distinguished from other business letters. The offers may be
for one or all the yards, but must be for the whole quantity at any
yard, and, as required by law, must be accompanied by a guarantee,
the form of which is herewith given.
The 25,000 cubic feet to be delivered in each yard will be in the
following proportions, viz: 5,000 cubic feet siding 18 and 15 inches;
10,000 cubic feet siding 14 and 12 inches; and 10,000 cubic feet siding
9 and 10 inches, in about equal quantities of each siding.
The timber siding from 15 and 18 inches may be in length from 18
to 25 feet, and such of the 18 inch as is fit for keelson pieces may be
longer; the 12 and 14 inch timber in length from 17 to 20 feet, and a




24                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
large proportion of all the foregoing may be straight; of the 9 and 10
inch timber, the length may be from 10 to 14 feet, and three-fourths
of the quantity to have a natural and fair curve of from 12 to 30 inches
or more in the length given, and one-half the number of these pieces
to have from the mean to the maximum crook. All to be sided straight
and fair, and have a face of not less than the siding size. The timber
must be cut from trees grown within thirty miles of the sea, to be delivered in the yard at the risk and expense of the contractor, subject
to the usual inspection, and to the entire approval of the bureau.
One-half the quantity must be delivered on or before the first day
of September, 1858, and the residue on or before the first day of
February, 1859.
The department will award the contract in each case to the lowest
bidder, reserving the right to decline making any contract for a purchase and delivery at any navy yard if it shall then deem it unnecessary or disadvantageous to the public service.
Sureties to the full estimated amount will be required to sign the
contract, and, as additional and collateral security, 15 per cent. will
be withheld on the amount of each delivery until the contract is completed.  And the remaining 85 per cent. of each bill, when approved
in triplicate by the commandant of the yard, will be paid by the navy
agent at the point of delivery within thirty days after its presentation
to him.
It will be stipulated in the contract that if default be made by the
parties of the first part in delivering all or any of the timber named,
of the quality and at the time and place provided, then and in that
case the contractor and his sureties will forfeit and pay to the United
States a sum of money not exceeding twice the total amount therein
agreed upon, as the sum to be paid in case of the actual delivery of
the whole. which may be recovered from time to time, according to
the act of Congress in that case provided, approved March 3, 1843.
Form of offer.
I,  -, of -, in the State of, hereby agree to
furnish and deliver in the United States navy yard at, twentyfive thousand cubic feet of promiscuous live-oak timber, in conformity
with the advertisement of the Bureau of Construction of the date of
-- une, 1858, for the sum of, viz:
5,000 cubic feet sided 15 and 18 inches, at -  per foot. $10,000 cubic feet sided 12 and 14 inches, at -  per foot.. -
10,000 cubic feet sided  9 and 10 inches, at -  per foot. - 
25,000 cubic feet sided.
Total value.......................................
Should my offer be accepted, I request to be addressed at 
and the contract forwarded to the navy agent at  -—, or to me at
--, for signature and certificate.
A. B.
July -, 1858.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     25
Form of Guarantee.
We, the undersigned,, of', in the State of 
hereby guaranty that, in case the foregoing bid be accepted, - will,
within ten days after the receipt of the contract at the post office
named, or navy agency designated, execute the contract for the same,
with good and sufficient sureties; in case said       shall fail to
enter into contract as aforesaid, we guaranty to make good the difference between the offer of the said        and that which may be
accepted.
C. D.
E. F.
_~, 1858.
Witness, G. H.
I hereby certify that the above named C D and E F are known to
me as men of property, and able to make good their guarantee.
~-, 1858.
NEW YORK, September 16, 1858.
SIR: Having learned that the lowest bidders for live-oak, under
recent advertisement for deliveries at the navy yards Kittery,
Charlestown, and Brooklyn, have failed to execute their contract,
and that my offers for some yards are the next highest, I ask that
the same may be awarded to me in accordance with the usage and
custom of the department in such cases.
Respectfully yours,
JOSEPH  GRICE.
Mr. JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c.,
Navy Department, Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, September 18, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 16th has been received. The department
has given instructions with regard to the contracts for live-oak, which
have been carried into effect.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
JOSEPH GRIcE, Esq., New York.
NEW YORK, September 23, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 18th instant has been received.  It does
not give a reply sufficiently explicit to mine of the 16th, and I again




26                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
ask that the contracts for live-oak, to be delivered at the yards therein
mentioned, be awarded to me, agreeably to the usage and custom of
the department in such cases.
Respectfully yours,
JOSEPH GRICE.
Mr. JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau of Construction, &c.,
Navy Department, Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, September 25, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 23d has been duly received.
I am, respectfully, your obedient,
JOIN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
JOSEPH GRICE, Esq., New Yorkc.
No. 37.-TESTIMONY OF HENRY G. BEACH, BALDWINSVILLE, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
HENRY G. BEACH, called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Baldwinsville, Onondaga county, New York.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. My business is that of lumberman.
Question. How long have you been in that business?
Answer. All my life; since I have been old enough to attend to
any business.
Question. And how old are you?
Answer. I am about forty-five years old.
Question. Have you ever had any contract with the government?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Of what firm are you a member?
Answer. I had a contract with the government as a member of the
firm of Coates, Degraw & Beach.
Question. Did that firm submit a bid for the live-oak under the
advertisement of June, 1858?
Answer. We did.
Question. Was there any peculiarity about that advertisement?
Answer. Yes, sir, there was.
Question. In what particular.
Answer. The advertisement required the timber to be delivered
upon very short notice.
Question. How short notice?
Answer. Well, sir, my recollection is that the advertisement stated
Ihat bids would be received up to the 15th of July, and that the




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    27
department would require that one-half of the amount of live-oak
advertised for should be delivered by the first of September.
Question. Was it possible for this live-oak to be cut after the
awarding of the contract and be delivered at the time required?
Answer. In my judgment it was not-indeed, that appeared upon
the face of the advertisement.
Question. Would any man skilled in your business undertake to
comply with that advertisement unless he had on hand the particular
kinds and dimensions of timber specified in that advertisement?
Answer. No, sir; he would not, if he expected to comply literally
with the terms of the contract.
Question. Did the advertisement require timber of specified sizes
and dimensions?
Answer. It did.
Question. Do you remember now how many sticks of each size
were required, or what those sizes were?
Answer. I do not now.
Question. Is this an abstract of the various bids offered then?
[Showing witness tabular statement on page 583 of volume 3 of the
message and accompanying documents of this session.]
Answer. Yes, sir; and I see our name and bid there.
Question. And the sizes were 15 by 18 inches, 12 by 14 inches,
and 9 by 10 inches?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you file a bid under those specifications?
Answer. We did.
Question. How came you to file a bid when you knew you could
not comply with the terms of the contract?
Answer. Well, sir, I have been a contractor for furnishing a
department of the government for twenty years; not under the Navy
Department, but under the ordnance department.  Before filing a
bid, I visited the navy yard at Brooklyn, to ascertain how contractors
had been treated; whether they were expected to live up strictly to
the letter of their contract, or whether lenity was shown to them;
whether they were permitted to comply practically with the terms of
their contract-that is, to meet the wants of the government only.
From what I ascertained at that yard, I felt authorized to make the
bid we did.
Question. With whom had you conversation on the subject?
Answer. With Captain Delano, the naval constructor, and with
others there. I was also shown the books there; and I examined
them %nd found that where men who had contracts were delinquentsthat is, they had not furnished their timber at the time required-the
custom was this: If the contractors supplied the substantial and immediate wants of the government, it was all that was required of them.
If a man made a contract to deliver timber to the government, and
failed to deliver it when they needed it, then they went into the
market and purchased it, and charged against the contractor the
difference in the price, whatever they had to pay.
Question. Or give it to the next lowest bidder?




28                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. No, sir; they said the custom was substantially this: they
made the contractor and his sureties stand the difference in the price.
If they had to purchase the entire quantity, they held the sureties
for the difference.
Question. You were therefore induced to make a bid, upon receiving this information?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was this the first bid you had ever submitted to the
Bureau of Yards and Docks?
Answer. No, sir; I had made one or two bids before.
Question. Did you ever receive a contract from the Bureau of
Yards and Docks before?
Answer. I had received a small contract for delivering timber at
the Brooklyn yard, which I had fulfilled.
Question. Who was the lowest bidder for the live-oak required at
Warrington, or Pensacola, as it is more generally known?
Answer. We were, for the one the advertisement names at the
Warrington station, which is at Pensacola.
Question. Did you enter into your contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the result of it?
Answer. The result was that we immediately took steps to fulfil
that contract, that is, to comply with the wants of the government
as fast as it could be done.  One of our firm immediately went on to
Florida to inquire and ascertain what were the wants of the government, and he then made an arrangement to comply with those wants.
The naval constructor at Warrington, Captain Porter, informed my
partner that but a small portion of that timber would be needed immediately, and said to him that sixty days would be in time. He
made arrangements to supply immediately the few sticks which the
naval constructor said he might want in the construction of a vessel
which he said he had on the stocks; as for the balance of it, he had
no knowledge when it would be required.  My partner then came
home; but before he reached home we had received notice that our
contract, not having been complied with, had been annulled, and a
new one made with other parties.  Now we had sent this partner of
ours on to Warrington with the knowledge and consent of the department; that consent I did not get, and I do not know it of my own
knowledge; but one of the partners came on here, and another one
went on there, with the knowledge of the department here, to fulfil
that contract.
Question. What were the names of these partners?
Answer. The one who came on here was Mr. Coates; the one who
went on to Warrington was Mr. Degraw.
Question. To whom was this new contract awarded?
Answer. I understood that it was awarded to a Mr. Swift-Mr. W.
C. N. Swift, of New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Question. From whom did you understand that?
Answer. From Mr. Lenthall, at the department.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    29
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Lenthall
or with Mr. Toucey in regard to this matter?
Answer. I have.
Question. Did you converse with Mr. Lenthall or with Mr. Toucey
in regard to the action of your partner who went on to Pensacola?
Answer. I have had conversations with both of them.
Question. Did you tell them what your partner had done there?
Answer. I did.
Question. What did they reply to that?
Answer. In every conversation that I had with Mr. Lenthall his
replies were always evasive.  I could not get anything direct from
him.  I complained to him that we had been badly treated in the
matter; after one of our partners had been sent to Florida under the
sanction of the Secretary of the Navy. He said he had no knowledge
of that; and when that question came up before Mr. Toucey, he disowned any knowledge of it until Mr. Coates called his attention
directly to it. I was present at the interview with Mr. Toucey when
Mr. Coates was also present, and when Mr. Coates called his attention
to the matter and recited the very conversation that was had at the
time, which I can repeat if required.
Question. Give what Mr. Coates said to Mr. Toucey in your
hearing?
Answer. Mr. Coates told Mr. Toucey that Mr. Degraw went on to
Pensacola with his sanction.  Says he, "I came on here on the first
of September, the very day upon which one-half of this timber was to
have been delivered. I called upon you for an extension of the time,
saying that it was impossible for any body to fill this contract within
the time.  You replied to me that you could not extend the time;
that you were not in the habit of doing so. I then said to you that
if our contract is to be annulled for non-fulfilment I want to know it
now; because I do not want to expend any more time or money upon
it.  But if we are to be treated as other men have been, and we are
to comply with the wants of the government, we are ready to undertake to do that. And I said to you, had not one of us better go on to
Florida and ascertain what are the wants of the government there.
And to that, Mr. Toucey, you replied, you had better do so and report
to the department." This conversation Mr. Coates repeated, and
then Mr. Toucey admitted that it was so. Upon that having taken
place on the 1st of September, my partner, Mr. Coates, came home,
and we sent Mr. Degraw on to Florida and he reported to the department what he had done.  But the very day that our first delivery
was to have been made, we received notice that our contract was
annulled.  We were permitted to deliver up to the fifteenth of September.
Question. Does not the contract say the first of the month?
Answer. The terms of the contract were, that we were to deliver
one half of the timber on the first of September and custom carries
that up to the middle of the month, the 15th. If the contract had
said "by the - day of September," then it would be on the 1st day
of the month; but it said " on the 1st of September," and that carries




30                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK
it up to the 15th. We received the notice on that day or, I think
now that it was on the 16th.
Question. Have you that notice with you?
Answer. I have not.
Question. What was the purport of it?
Answer. It was this: we were notified that our contract not having
been complied with, had been annulled and a new one made with
other parties. The notice was a very short one and I have given the
purport of it, and I think very nearly verbatim.
Question. Was your partner then in the south?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long after that did he return?
Answer. I think he returned about the 20th of the month.
Question. When was this interview concerning which you have
just testified?
Answer. It was some time in October last; I cannot now recall to
mind the exact day.  We had two interviews with Mr. Toucey, two
days in succession, and what I have related occurred on one of those
days.
Question. Did Mr. Toucey, in these interviews, claim that this
live-oak was needed for the special exigencies of the service at Pensacola?
Answer. Perhaps I would better state the conversation. 1 had most
of the conversation with Mr. Toucey myself. We opened our case
by papers which had been sent to the department the day before.
Mr. Toucey first replied to our papers, and after his reply I took up
the other side of the question.  Mr. Toucey said that the government
understood its own wants best, and they were not to be questioned.
They meant what they said when they advertised for a thing. In
reply to that, I told Mr. Toucey that we so understood it; that before
making the bid we had made the investigation of the manner in which
parties had been and were treated; and that we had come to the conclusion that the substantial wants of the government were all that we
were required to fill; that if we could live up to that, it would be all
they would require; and I said I felt that I had a right to conclude
that, for this reason, if the government did need this timber so
promptly, they should not have used up nearly all the time that intervened between the opening of the bids and the making of the contract in canvassing the bids, which would hardly require a moment's
time.  More than three weeks had elapsed from the opening of the
bids upon the 15th of July to our notification upon the 8th of August.
Our notice of acceptance was dated upon the 6th of August, and if
my recollection serves me, we had then ten days, by the terms of the
advertisement, to execute the contract, which we did not take, for
we executed it upon the same day that we received it and sent it to
the department. I said to Mr. Toucey, if the government requires
so prompt a delivery they should not have used up so much of this
precious time, and, having done that, we had reason to suppose they
would not require it.  Having ascertained at the station that they did
not want the timber, we proposed to comply with their wants, and




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   31
furnish the timber as fast as they needed it.  We felt that we had a
right to complain of the treatment. That was all the conversation.
Question. Did your partner make any arrangement for getting out
the timber?
Answer. He did, sir.
Question. When were those arrangements stopped?
Answer. Those arrangements were made conditional; if he returned
or gave notice then the man was to go on. He did not do anything.
Mr. Degraw or myself were to return immediately. Although we had
to do it at the hazard of our lives, (the yellow fever prevailing, and
everybody with the means of getting away from that section of the
country fleeing,) still we went there, and would have gone again.
Question. Did Mr. Swift deliver any portion of the live-oak you
were to deliver, or has he up to this date?
Answer. I have information from Mr. Grice with regard to it, but
do not know anything about it myself, unless it is that I called upon
Mr. Lenthall yesterday, and Mr. Lenthall told me that within four
weeks they had received a telegraphic despatch from the commandant
at the station that a vessel had arrived with a cargo of that timber.
Question. Could you, in the execution of your contract, have delivered all that live-oak by the 1st of February?
Answer. We could; I have no doubt of it.
Question. When could you have delivered the first cargo?
Answer. I should not have regarded it as practicable to deliver the
first cargo before the 1st of December.
Question. Could you have delivered it by that time?
Answer. We could, sir.
Question. Under the arrangements made by your partner?
Answer. Yes, sir. We had procured the timber, and it was within
a very short distance of the station-within ten miles of it. We had
secured the timber and made a bargain for it at three different points,
from 6 to 12 miles from the station.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What loss did you make from this operation?
Answer. It is hard computing the loss. Our expenses up to the
time we were here in October were a little over $1,200. Since that we
have been continually pursuing the matter. This is the second time
Mr. Coates has been here since.
Question. You say that your partner at Pensacola was informed that
certain timber would be required there soon, and made arrangements
to supply that want. Why did he make those arrangements conditional?
Answer. The reason that he made it conditional was that he was to
go on there immediately after he came home.
Question. But why did he postpone the work of preparation for
getting out the timber, and make the arrangement conditional until
he returned, if he had the contract already in his hands?
Answer. I cannot answer that question, only that he proceeded
prudently in the matter. We were proceeding to execute a contract
after the time had expired, after we had been refused an extension,




32                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
but it was upon the presumption that we would be treated as others
had been.
Question. When was it that your partner went there?
Answer. My partner went there after the 1st of September-I
think about the 5th of September.
Question. When did you get the contract?
Answer. The contract was received and executed at Fulton, in
Oswego county, on the 8th of August, and returned to the department.
Question. What were you doing between the 8th of August and
the 1st of September? You say you did not begin to make arrangements; was not that a delay and neglect in a contract so urgent as
this?
Answer. You should bear in mind that at that time the climate at
Pensacola was such that no prudent man ought to risk his life there.
Question. Did not you do it?
Answer. We did do it after we found it necessary; but we did not
suppose the government would require a man to go into that climate
at that season of the year. So we corresponded with the department,
writing to them and asking information in relation to it.  We also
visited the navy yard at Brooklyn.
Question. When your partner went down to Pensacola and consulted
with the commandant in relation to the timber which the government
would want, from time to time, why did he make the arrangement
conditional?
Answer. Because we had an abundance of time for it. He was to
deliver these few sticks within sixty days fiom that time, and he had
abundance of time to come home and see his partners upon the subject.  If it had been required in ten days there would have been no
conditions about it; but we had an abundance of time.
Question. I understand that for these few sticks he made the
arrangements conditional, so that they did not go to work immediately
to get them out?
Answer. The person had the timber on hand.
Question. Your partner did not buy it then?
Answer, No, sir, he did not buy it; but he made the arrangement,
so that, upon giving notice after he got home, the timber was to be
delivered.
Question. When was he to deliver the timber?
Answer. Whenever Mr. Porter required it, Mr. Porter said he
should only want a few sticks for that vessel, and should not require
the timber to be delivered for sixty days, for the reason that the
weather was such that he could not keep any men there. He had no
men at work; but he thought he could resume work in about sixty
days.
Question. Did you ever make any arrangements at all for the
delivery of the entire quantity contracted to be delivered?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When?
Answer. Mr. Degraw made those arrangements at the time.  We




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   33
expected to go on to deliver the timber, but he secured the timber
and made the arrangements. We were moving upon an uncertainty
all the time in that.
Question. How much time was consumed in canvassing the bids?
When were they put in, and when were they opened and decided upon?
Answer. They were to be received upon the 15th of July, I think.
The date of the notice that our bid had been accepted was August 6about two weeks.  There were seven or eight bids in all.
Question. Was any time designated in the advertisement when the
bids would be opened?
Answer. I do not think there was.  My impression is, that the
advertisement stated that these bids would be received until a stated
hour upon the 15th of July.
Question. When did the advertisement state that the contract
would be awarded?
Answer. I do not recollect that it stated the time.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You have been a long time a contractor with the government; have you usually been in time, or otherwise?
Answer. I never failed with a piece of timber. I was always in
time.
Question. In your present contract with the Bureau of Construction
have you exactly come up to the time?
Answer. Yes, sir; I furnished the entire amount, or had it ready,
within the time for the first delivery. We delivered a portion at one
time and a portion at another; but it was complete long before the
time was up.
Question. In supplying timber did you always get it out yourself,
or did you purchase it from timber-cutters?
Answer. We superintended the getting out of our timber always.
I expected to take my own force of men that I have employed for
years to get out that timber.
Question. How long does it take to go to Pensacola from New York?
Answer. From our place, at that season of the year, it would require
about eight or ten days.
Question. And as long to return?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When did Mr. Degraw set out for Pensacola?
Answer. About the 5th of September.
Question. At what time did he return?
Answer. About the 1st of October.  He was gone twenty-five or
thirty days.
Question. I think you stated the 20th of September?
Answer. Perhaps I did; but I think, from the time that he was
gone, that he must have returned about the 1st of October.  I know
that Mr. Coates was here the 1st of September and came immediately
home, and that the very next day Mr. Degraw started for Pensacola.
Question. Is there any telegraphic communication between Washington and Pensacola?
Answer. I presume there is.
3B




31:                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. When he had made his arrangements there, could he
have telegraphed to the Navy Department?
Answer. I do not know; I presume he could.
Question. You say that in the conversation between yourself, Mr.
Coates, and the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary at first denied
that the previous conversation had occurred. What did he say about
it?-that it had passed his mind?
Answer. When Mr. Coates refreshed his memory and repeated his
language he admitted that it probably was so. He did not deny it
then.
Question. Did he give any further reason then for not waiting until
Mr. Degraw's return?
Answer. He gave a reason for that in the first instance-a reason
for taking away our contract and giving it to other parties. The
reason was that the government had been annoyed very much by
irresponsible men, who had no design to fulfil their contracts, who
knew nothing about it, but who would bid and enter into a contract,
and if they found it was convenient, and they could make money out
out of it, they would go on; and if not, they would back out. This
had annoyed and disappointed the government very much.  In reply
to that I stated to the Secretary that I knew my business; that I had
been a successful contractor with the government, and had furnished
the most difficult kind of timber to furnish for twenty years, the gun
timber for the ordnance department; and I referred him to Colonel
Craig for the facts in regard to it. I told him that I had a good
standing among contractors, and had always fufilled my contracts.
Question. Has your firm been successful in making money? Is it a
strong firm pecuniarily?
Answer. We assured the Secretary of this; that we made the bid
in good faith, and had the brains and money to carry it out as speedily
as any other set of men, We have been successful in some instances;
not very, in this.
Question. Are you men of wealth?
Answer. No, sir; we are not wealthy men.  We have the means
to carry on our business. We have means of our own and credit to
carry out anything we undertake. In that I may say we are a strong
firm. We can command means.
Question. When Mr. Lenthall told you that that vessel had come
into Pensacola, did he give any reason why it had not come in sooner?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he say anything about its having been detained by
yellow fever?
Answer. No. sir; nothing of the sort.  He only said that they had
received a communication from the commandant stating that a cargo
of that timber had come, and inquiring whether it should be received.
He had replied, giving orders to receive it.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You said that it was from grounds of prudence that
your partner made this arrangement conditional.  I want to know
what you mean by that?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   35
Answer. I mean to be understood by that, sir, that we were in
doubt about this matter.  We did not know. We came here and
applied to the Secretary to get an extension of time, that we might
go on understandingly; that we might understand distinctly how we
were to be treated. He said we could have no extension of time;
that the department were not in the habit of giving it. We said we
were ready to comply with the substantial wants of the government.
We stated to him then what we had ascertained from the navy yard
at Brooklyn was the treatment of other men.  All that we asked was
to be treated as others had been.  We wanted that understood. He
said, I can give you no extension of time.  There was an uncertainty
about it, to my mind; we felt so; still we felt confident that we should
receive the same treatment, and it would all come out right.  We
would go on, and get our timber, and comply with the wants of the
government.  We were taken entirely by surprise.  We had the utmost confidence that we should go on and fulfil the contract, We did
not cherish a doubt about it scarcely,
Question. You had an apprehension?
Answer. It was not certain, and we could not get any assurance
that we should have this lenity.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you a relative to Mr. or Mrs. Toucey?
Answer. I am not to either that I know of; I may be and not know
it. I understand that the Beach family are connected, and it may be
that I am. I will state now that when the question was asked me if
I had ever submitted a bid to the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and I
answered that I had, that it was a misapprehension; I meant the
Bureau of Construction.
HENRY G, BEACH.
No. 42.-SAMUEL P. BROWN, ORLAND, MAINE,
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
S. P. BROWN was sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Orland, in Maine.
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. I am a lumber merchant and dealer.
Question. Are you a member of the legislature at this time?
Answer. I am, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether you were a contractor to furnish
live-oak to the government during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1858?
Answer. I am a contractor, but the contract was made in 1856.
Question. When was it to be filled?




36                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. In one and two years.
Question. Did you bid to furnish live-oak to the government for
the year commencing July 1, 1858?
Answer. I made an offer for live-oak under advertisement issued
last June, which I think was the only one issued.
Question. State whether the table here printed (in the Report of
the Secretary of the Navy, p. 552,) exhibits your bid correctly.
Answer. It does, sir..
Question. Were you a successful bidder?
Answer. I was not.
Question. What peculiarity, if any, was there in the terms of the
advertisement for bids?
Answer. There was one circumstance about the advertisement
which made it appear very peculiar, and that was the length of time
given for the delivery of the timber.
Question. What time was allowed by the terms of the advertisement?
Answer. One-half the timber was to be delivered before the 1st of
September, 1858, which gave, from the time of the execution of the
contracts, only some ten days for the delivery of the timber. Although the bids were issued some forty days before, the successful
bidders were not notified, to my knowledge, until some 20 days after
the bids were opened, and then were allowed ten days to complete
their contracts and file them; and from that time about ten days remained for the delivery of the first half of the timber.
Question. Was it possible for the contractor to do this?
Answer. It was, if the timber was already landed at the yards; in
no other case.
Question. Is this live-oak all cut in Florida?
Answer. On the Gulf of Mexico principally; some little upon this
side, in Georgia.
Question. Who was the successful bidder?
Answer. William C. N. Swift, of New Bedford.
Question. What does he furnish the government?
Answer. Live-oak timber altogether, I believe.  I am not aware
that he furnishes any other kind.
Question. Did he furnish live-oak timber during the year ending
June 30, 1858?
Answer. He did, sir.
Question. Do you know of his storing in the docks or yards of the
United States any live-oak not included in this contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To what extent?  What amount, and where?
Answer. I do not think I could tell anywhere near the exact amount,
but at Charlestown I know he had a cargo, and I should say a goodsized cargo-some six or seven thousand feet. At the Brooklyn yard
I know that he had considerably more than that.  I think he sent a
whole cargo of timber, of which only one piece was received, under
his contract, and he was trying to negotiate for the sale of his tim



CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    37
ber. Captain Delano, the constructor, had been asked about the price
of such timber, and he requested me to look it over, and asked me
what I thought of the price. Captain Delano told me that he had
reported it to the department.
Question. Was that timber within the contract?
Answer. It was not; he had contracts at the yard at this time.
Question. In what respect did the timber vary from the contract?
Answer. In the diminished size of the pieces.
Question. Were they more or less valuable than those contracted
to be delivered?
Answer. Less valuable, because they were smaller.
Question. Was Mr. Swift allowed to pile this timber in the yard?
Answer. He was, sir.
Question. Were you allowed the same privilege when your timber
did not come within the contract?
Answer. I was not.
Question. What was you required to do with yours when it did
not come within the contract?
Answer. At the time I was delivering white-oak timber at the New
York yard, I had several pieces which were not according to the
contract, and which were rejected. I got my bills and carried them
to the commodore. Captain Root, then acting, told me that he could
not approve them until every piece not according to the contract was
taken out of the yard.
Question. Why was this privilege granted to Mr. Swift, and not
to you?
Answer. I do not know. The next day I asked Commodore Kearney
about it. He told me that it was so; that he had an order from the
department, and could not approve the bills.  I asked him why this
partiality was shown; why Mr. Swift was allowed to pile up cargoes
there, while I could not be permitted to land one stick? Commodore
Kearney replied that the timber was received under instructions
from the department, and he knew nothing further about it than that.
Question. Who was in connexion or partnership with Swift in this
business?
Answer. In his contracts I think he is connected with no one but his
brothers.
Question. Had you any conversation with Mr. Swift in regard to
this live-oak timber?
Answer. I had, at different times.
Question. State the conversation which you had with him, and
when and where it took place.
Answer. I think about the middle of June, 1858, I had one conversation with him; that was after this advertisement was issued by
the department. I told him that I was disappointed to see this advertisement come out; I knew that it was got out for his benefit and
for that of Mr. Bigler, and that the way they were managing the
thing would not give satisfaction. I advised him, for his own reputation, to go to the Secretary and induce him to withdraw that adver



38                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
tisement, and let him purchase his timber, if he wanted it for immediate use. He told me he had been trying to induce the Secretary to
do that same thing, but the Secretary told him that he had no authority
to purchase this timber. He had made up his mind that he could
not do it without advertising; but the advertising arrangement was
such that nobody could offer for it but himself, because he had timber
in the yards, and he knew that no other man could fill the offer, and
it would only be trifling to make any offer. I stated to Mr. Swift
that I should make an offer to take the contract in good faith, and
then should ask the Secretary for an extension of time.  Says
he, "He will not grant it."'"Well, then," said I, "let him do it,
and I will report the thing to Congress next winter.'
Question. Did you make your bid?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Did other parties make bids also?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who are those bidders, as you find them in the report?
Are they engaged in that business? Are they well known dealers in
such timber?
Answer. I am acquainted with all, more or less, excepting Coates,
Degraw & Beach.  I do not know whether they are dealers in that
kind of timber or not.
Question. Who was interested with Swift in the present live-oak
contract?
Answer, Mr. James Bigler.  He told me that the arrangement
with Mr. Swift was that Mr. Swift was to receive his timber in his
own name and pay him for it, at the Kittery navy yard and some
other yard,
Question. Did he mention any other yard?
Answer. Yes, sir, he mentioned the Philadelphia yard.
Question. Was this arrangement between Swift and Bigler carried
out?
Answer. It has been.
Question. Did the advertisement for bids for live-oak, issued June
14, 1858, correspond in any respect with the description of lumber
Swift had delivered at the navy yard?
Answer. I should think it might, in some respects. I should think
there would be a small portion of it which would be of the same dimensions with his contract, but it would be very little.
Question. What peculiarities were there in the advertisement last
June, besides the time?
Answer. The timber required was unusually small, and an unusual
quantity of straight timber and short timber were required. It was
a kind of timber the government has never been in the habit of
purchasing much.
Question. Was it a kind of timber which Swift had upon the dock?
Answer. It was, sir, mostly.  I am not aware that the advertisement covered all that he had upon the docks, but it covered the
principal part of it.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   39
Question. Is that a desirable kind of timber?
Answer. It is desirable for any purpose it can be used for.
Question. It is not so valuable?
Answer. It is not so desirable for the government on account of its
size. It is not near as valuable for private yards either. It is a kind
which does not sell for near as much as larger timber.
Question. Was you at the Kittery navy yard in 1858?
Answer. I was.
Question. What conversation did you have with Commodore Pope?
Answer. At that time I was delivering timber, and had some conversation with Commodore Pope, who was commandant of the yard.
He stated to me at one time that Mr. Bigler had a cargo of timber
there, and there were only some two or three pieces in it which could
be received under his contract. The contract was nearly full, and
he refused to receive the cargo and would not let him land it without
positive instructions from the department.  Mr. Bigler told him, in
my hearing, that the department had agreed to purchase his timber
at a certain price. He had come to Washington and made an arrangement with the department to take it, and wished the commodore to
take his word for it. Commodore Pope refused to take it without
instructions from the department.  Mr. Bigler telegraphed to the
department, and I think I went to the telegraph office with him. He
received a letter or despatch from the department, which the commodore told me he did not consider a positive order to receive it.  He
would not receive it then until he got a letter from the department
giving him positive instructions. He had the letter in his hand, and
said that the department gave him positive instructions to receive
this into the yard. This same timber was advertised for in a few
days.  I have no doubt, at least, that it will be taken as a part of
that required under that advertisement.
Question. To whom was the timber under this advertisement
awarded at first?
Answer. To Buxton & Lawrence, Samuel B. Grice, and Coates,
Degraw & Beach.
Question. You say that they could not comply with their contract?
Answer. No, sir; it was an impossibility.
Question. Did the department vacate their contracts on the 1st of
September, or soon after on account of non-compliance?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you learned this from the department or any officer
of the department?
Answer. Yes, sir; I know from the chief clerk that the contracts
were annulled at Pensacola.  Messrs. Buxton & Lawrence had
executed a contract and brought it on here and put it into Mr. Appleton's hands; but I was informed by the chief clerk of the Bureau of
Construction that it was not put in in time.
Question. Do you know the reason why Mr. Appleton did not file
that contract?




40                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. I do not.
Question. To whom was the furnishing of this timber afterwards
awarded by the department?
Answer. To William C. N. Swift.
Question. Has he now the contracts for the delivery of the live oak.
Answer. He has, unless some of his contracts have been annulled
by the department.
Question. Was this old live oak taken in under his new contract?
Answer. At some of the yards it has pretty much all been taken,
if not all. I have not been at all the yards; I know it was taken at
the Kittery yard, at Charlestown, and at Philadelphia; pretty much
all of it. I presume some of the pieces were left out.  There is
always some rejected timber. But the principal part of the timber
has been taken.
Question. Has Swift complied with his contract of last year, fully?
Answer. He had not, at the time that these contracts were made.
Question. Have you any information from the department showing
whether he has complied with this new contract made in September.
Answer. He has not if the terms were the same as those of the
first contracts, as I understood they were. I was at the Pensacola
yard, and the constructor there informed me, in the commodore's
office and in the presence of the commodore, that he had not delivered
a piece of timber under that contract.
Question. And yet, by the terms of the contract one-half was to
be delivered by the first of September?
Answer. Yes, sir; one-half by the first of September, and the
other half by the first of February.
Question. What has been the usual course pursued when the lowest
bidder fails to enter into or comply with the contract?
Answer. When the lowest bidder declines or neglects to fulfil the
contract, it has always been the custom, to my knowledge, for the
last 12 years, in all lumber contracts, to give it to the next highest
bidder.
Question. Under this arrangement, who would have received the
contract upou the failure of the lowest bidder?
Answer. Samuel B. Grice, at the Pensacola yard.
Question. This you know only by reference to the printed record?
Answer. That is all, sir.
Question. Was Swift the next bidder in any case?
Answer. He was not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you a member of the legislature of Maine?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Of what politics, if you please?
Answer. That is pretty hard telling; I was elected as a kind of
independent candidate; perhaps the largest portion of my constituents
were republicans.
Question. What was your opposing candidate?
Answer. An administration democract.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   41
Question. You have been a contractor with the naval department
for timber for the last ten years?
Answer. Yes, sir; I should say so; the records will show the time.
Question. You failed to get any contract at this last bidding?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. You were estopped by some peculiarity in the advertisement for live-oak timber last summer?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Nevertheless you put in a bid?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Did you make your bid as low as you would have done,
had that peculiarity not existed; did you put in your bid at the lowest
rate, allowing a reasonable time to finish it?
Answer. I did not; if I had had two years, or one year, I should
have offered at a less price.
Question. How much is the usual time?
Answer. I have never known contracts to be made for less than
two years, before the last.
Question. Did you put on additional prices in order to enable you
to deliver at the time called for by the advertisement?
Answer. In the first place, I took pains to ascertain how much of
this timber would be wanted, and I supposed if it was not wanted, I
could get an extension of the time; I knew I could deliver it this
winter, which I supposed would be in season; but I bid at a higher
rate, with that understanding that I could deliver it this winter,
because I knew it would be much more expensive to force so much
timber into the yards in so short a time; if I had been allowed one
or two years, I could have operated with smaller crews.
Question. You bid at the lowest price that you could have afforded
to bid if you had been allowed six months?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. But at a higher price than if you had had two years to
deliver in?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To whom was the bid for Kittery originally assigned?
Answer. To Buxton & Lawrence.
Question. Was their bid lower than yours and all others?
Answer. It was the lowest bid, sir.
Question. Then so far as Kittery is concerned, if the timber came
up to the requirements of the department, the government lost
nothing; they took the lowest bid?
Answer. Yes, sir; they took the lowest bid.
Question. And it was a bid to furnish it lower than you could have
furnished it if you had been allowed six months?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To whom was the contract awarded at Charlestown?
Answer. To Buxton & Lawrence.
Question. Were you a bidder for Charlestown?
Answer. I was.




42                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. And at Brooklyn, the same?
Answer. At Brooklyn the same.
Question. Suppose the government had been able to wait one or
two years, how much could you have fallen below the bids of Buxton
& Lawrence; under your present belief would you have bid lo er
than they did?
Answer. Yes, sir; considerably lower.
Question. How much lower do you think?
Answer. I could not say exactly; I should say that 90 cents a foot
would pay for that timber with one and two years to deliver it, their
average price is $1 09.
Question. At those three yards, did Buxton & Lawrence enter into
the contract?
Answer. I understand that they entered into the contract, but that
it was not filed in time with the Secretary.
Question. At how many yards did they fail?
Answer. At all three yards. They were all made one contract.
Question. At these three yards, Kittery, Charlestown, and Brooklyn, was the contract afterwards given to Mr. Swift?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who appears to be the lowest bidder at the Philadelphia
yard?
Answer. Samuel B. Grice.
Question. Was the contract awarded to him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You were a bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was the contract entered into with Mr. Grice?
Answer. It was.
Question. Is that contract in existence at this time?
Answer. It was afterwards annulled by the department?
Question. Who got the contract there, afterwards?
Answer. Swift.
Question. How was it at Gosport?
Answer. The same.
Question. How was it at Pensacola?
Answer. Coates, Degraw & Beach got the contract there.
Question. Is that still in existence?
Answer. No, sir; that was annulled, and given to Mr. Swift.
Question. Who is Mr. Beach?
Answer. I do not know either of the parties, sir.
Question. Do you know whether he is a connexion of the Secretary
or not, or of his wife or family?
Answer. I do not know that he is.
Question. Who is Mr. Bigler?
Answer. Mr. Bigler is a lumber dealer in Newburgh, New York.
Question. Is there any relationship between him and the senator?
Answer. He has told me that he was a very distant relative.
Question. Where was it that your timber was refused admission
and Swift's admitted?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   43
Answer. At the New York yard.
Question. Who was the commandant there?
Answer. Commodore Kearney.
Question. Did the same thing happen at Charlestown, Massachusetts?
Answer. Yes, sir; and Mr. Bigler had timber at the Kittery yard
which was received when it failed to comply with the contract.
Question. Do you know any reasons the department had for getting timber with unusual expedition, and having it delivered sooner
than usual at any particular time last summer; in other words, was
there more building and repairing than usual going on in the yards?
Answer. There was.
Question. Do you know how many vessels were in the yards?
Answer. I do not know; I think I could tell; but this kind of
timber was not much of it used, and I suppose has not been.  These
new sloops were built of white oak instead of live-oak, which was
unusual.
Question. Do you mean the seven commenced last year?
Answer. I refer to the sloops ordered at the last session of Congress.
Question. Those just commencing?
Answer. Some of them are nearly done, I think.
Question. Are the frames of all of them white oak?
Answer. I do not know; I can say that at Kittery, Charlestown,
and New York, I am certain they are white oak; I do not know about
the others. I understood, I think, from Mr. Lenthall, that the bottom
timber was ordered to be of white-oak.
Question. When you stated that the commandant at Kittery had
received a letter from the department, did you mean from the Secretary of the Navy, or from the chief cf the Bureau of Construction?
Answer. He told me that he received it from Mr. Lenthall, the
chief of the Bureau of Construction, but that it stated it was by order
of the department, or the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. Where does Mr. Swift live?
Answer. New Bedford.
Question. Have you been to the navy yards recently?
Answer. I have not been to the northern yards since the first or
middle of November.  I have been south since then.
Question. Do you know how much of that timber of Swift's has
been used?
Answer. I could not tell; but the frames of the sloops are all up.
They may have used some in repairs. I do not know how much has
been used?
Question. When you spoke of smaller timber did you refer to timber
suitable for smaller vessels, or too small to be used in any vessels at all?
Answer. I mean timber adapted to smaller vessels.
Question. Were those sloops built last year as large as those built
heretofore, or were they in fact smaller vessels?
Answer. They were smaller.
Question. If the government had advertised for suitable timber




44                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK
for these sloops would it not necessarily have advertised for smaller
timber?
Answer. I presume they had timber enough in the yard that was
small enough.
Question. Do you know that?
Answer. I know that the sloops were all in frame at the three
yards I have spoken of, and that except at New York they had
enough on hand. There they purchased a little outside of the contracts.
Question. Was this timber Mr. Swift had in the yards smaller than
that advertised for?
Answer. The advertisement was for small timber, and this came
within the advertisement.
Question. Do you know where this Mr. Beach lives?
Answer. In western New York, I think.
Question. Judging from your own course and your own views, and
so far as you know the views of other gentlemen who bid, were the
bids put in as low as if the proposals called for timber at six months
instead of by the first of September?
Answer. I do not think the bids were as low.
Question. You stated that yours was as low as if you had had six
months?
Answer. I do not think you understand me exactly.  You asked
me if I would furnish the timber the same as at six months.  Still, in
making this price, I knew I should have to come on to Washington to
ask the Secretary for an extension, and anticipated trouble about it.
I was satisfied that the Secretary was prejudiced in favor of Mr.
Swift-I supposed so.
Question. What made you suppose so?
Answer. I knew he had the timber advertised for Swift & Bigler's
benefit.
Question. Why did you bid then, if you knew that?
Answer. I was determined to go into it and fight it out.  If my
bids were not the lowest I would step aside.
Question. Then you did not bid as low as if you had been allowed
six months?
Answer. I did not.
Question. How much lower would you have bid if you had been
allowed six months?
Answer. The only difference would have been with regard to this
trouble. Of course it would be an extra expense to come to Washington to get an extension of time.
Question. Were you disappointed when you failed to get the contract?
Answer. I was not.
Question. Is this the first time you have been without a contract
for some years?
Answer. I have a contract now.
Question. When will it expire?
Answer. The time may have expired, but it is not yet filled.  I




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    45
had a contract last September, being third bidder.  The others
failed, and in September Mr. Lenthall gave me the contract.
Question. Where was that?
Answer. At Pensacola.
Question. Who had taken that contract before?
Answer. There were two Pensacola men below me.  The first one
failed and it was then offered to Mr. Anderson, of Pensacola, the
second bidder.  He declined, and then the contract was offered to
me.  The contract was made and forwarded to me, the first notice I
had stating that these two parties had declined, being lower than
mine.
Question. When were those proposals made?
Answer. Last summer; as early as June or July, I think. That was
for white pine.
Question. You say that although a good deal of timber was required
to be delivered by Mr. Swift by the first of September, yet it was not
delivered by the first of September, do you know when these other
contracts were annulled?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know when the contract with Buxton and Lawrence was annulled?
Answer. It was not annulled at all. They failed to fill the contract
in time.
Question. Did that cause any delay in making a contract with
another gentleman?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long did they have to wait for Buxton & Lawrence
to contrac?
Answer. If they did not file the contract in ten days, they could
go to the next highest bidder.
Question. How long did they wait for the next highest bidder?
Answer. No time at all.  They annulled Mr. Grice's contract, and
as soon as the time had expired and Buxton & Lawrence had failed
to file their coatract, they turned round and made the contract with
Mr. Swift at all the yards.
Question. When was this done?
Answer. About the 15th of September, I think.
Question. Then, if the contract was made after the 15th of September, how was it possible that he should deliver the timber or any
part of it before the 1st of September?
Answer, IHne had it already delivered.
Question. Does the timber deteriorate in value from being kept in
the yard for a year?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is it less valuable?
Answer. Yes, sir; it rents very badly, cracks open very badly from
lying in the,un.
Question. Did they expose it to the sun or put it under shelter?
Answer. They put it under a shelter as far as possible.




46                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Is it the custom of the government to keep live-oak
timber on hand several years in order to season?
Answer. I have known them to have timber on hand for fifteen
years.
Question. Has it been the habit of the government to have the
timber prepared a year or two before use, and to keep it on hand?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is it necessary that timber should be allowed some little
time to season before being used?
Answer. I have no doubt that timber is better to be docked a short
time in the water, and then put into a shed and seasoned there.
Question. How long should it season?
Answer. It should be docked from three to six months, and then
seasoned for six months or a year.
Question. Was there any other seasoned timber in the market?
Could they have got seasoned timber from no one else than Swift &
Bigler?
Answer. A good deal of their timber was green and not seasoned.
Question. They had timber in their yards?
Answer. Yes, sir; the government had timber in their yards which
had been seasoned for fifteen years.
Question. To what extent?
Answer. The report of the Secretary of the Navy will show.  It
was a pretty large quantity.
Question. Does not live-oak timber decrease in value lying solong?
Answer. Probably not much.  Other timber does, and probably
live-oak does some. Of course, it would decay slowly, or not so
rapidly as most other kinds of timber.
Question. Did you feel a little offended in consequence of the course
pursued last summer in relation to these contracts?
Answer. I was not.  I was not the lowest bidder.  If I had been,
perhaps I might have felt offended.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK                      47
No. 50.-SAMUEL B. GBICE, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.
SAMUEL B. GRICE called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. I am a timber dealer and contractor.
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia, sir.
Question. Did you propose for the delivery of live-oak timber under
the advertisement of the Bureau of Construction, dated June 14, 1858?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. State whether or not you were the lowest bidder; and for
which of the yards?
Answer. I was the lowest bidder for the Philadelphia and Gosport
yards.
Question. State whether or not you executed the contract with the
department for those yards?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Did you deliver any timber under the contract; and if so,
when?
Answer. I delivered a cargo of timber at the Philadelphia yard
early in September, which was landed at the yard.
Question. How many feet?
Answer. There was in the invoice about 2,700 feet, but it was not
all received. I think not more than half of it was received, if I remember now.
Question. What was the amount of live-oak to be delivered under
your contract at each yard?
Answer. 25,000 feet at each yard.
Question. Had you any other live-oak on the way waiting to be
received?
Answer. I had a cargo of live-oak that subsequently arrived at the
yard, which was not received.
Question. When was that?
Answer. That was subsequent to my first delivery, and in September, about the 16th.
Question. Why was it not received?
Answer. On the account that the time for the delivery by the contract had expired.
Question. Did you have any correspondence with the department
upon the subject?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. What was the purport of that correspondence?
Answer. I was informed by the bureau that the terms of my contract not having been complied with, a contract had been made with
other parties.  I applied also to the commandant of the yard to receive my timber, but he refused to do so, by order of the bureau as




48                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
he staled, to which I entered a protest both to Commodore Stewart
and to the Bureau of Construction.
Question. Was there any further correspondence on the subject?
Answer. Upon my protest to the bureau, I was informed by the
Bureau that the protest should be addressed to the Secretary, as his
orders came from there. There was no further correspondence than
that; I made no reply to that letter.
Question. State whether your contracts were annulled or not; and
if so, when, and for what reason?
Answer. The contracts were annulled by the letter from the bureau
dated on the 16th of September, on the ground included in my previous reply, that the terms had not been complied with, and a contract had been made with other parties.
Question. Please produce that correspondence, if you have it.
Answer. I have some of it; I do not know whether I have it all, or
not.  [See Appendix, for correspondence.]
Question. State any difficulties in the way of procuring and delivering live-oak by the first of September last-between the date of
the award to you and the first of September.
Answer. Live-oak timber is an article that is not kept on hand,
while other kinds are; it is a very rare circumstance, at any rate. It
is usually cut after the contracts are made. I never knew any other
instance than this, to the contrary. It is procured in the States of
Florida and Louisiana, now; and it would be impossible to cut it within
that time, as expeditions have to be sent from here to those places to
procure it; and from the middle of August, about which period my
contract was made, up to the first of September-leaving but two
weeks, or at the most sixteen or seventeen days-it would be preposterous to suppose it could have been delivered unless persons had
the material on hand at the time. There was no timber on hand to
supply so large a contract, that I know of, except lots lying in the
navy yard, and a small lot that I had the command of in the city of
New York, which was the timber referred to as having been delivered
under the contract, not in the navy yard.
Question. What efforts were you making, or what steps were you
taking, to execute the contract as soon as possible?
Answer. I had made arrangements with a gentleman in New York
to fit out an expedition to proceed to Louisiana; they were to have
sailed from the 1st to the 10th of October, to procure the timber, and
although we did not expect to deliver it by the 1st of September, we
expected to have delivered the whole of it by the 1st of February,
which was the linal period.
Question. State whether any parties had any live-oak at any of
the navy yards of the United States; and if so, who, and in what
quantities?
Answer. There was a quantity of live-oak in the Phiiadelphia
navy yard; a quantity of about ten thousand feet belonging to Mr.
Swift, as I understood. In the Gosport navy yard, where I was in
the month of August, I learned that there were some thirty thousand
ieet there belonging to Mr. Swift and Mr. Bigler, in the aggregate.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     49
Question. Did you see it?
Answer. I saw some timber there that was pointed out to me as
belonging to the old contractors; it was understood that it was Mr.
Swift and Mr. Bigler; I saw no timber at other yards.
Question. What was the quality and size of that timber in comparison with other live-oak timber furnished to the government?
Answer. The quality in shape was inferior, the timber being
straight, or a large proportion of it straight, which is very unusual
for shipbuilding purposes; for live-oak timber the difficulty is to
get it crooked enough, as crooked timber is required for a large portion of ship building; the quality in size was inferior, as much of it
was of smaller dimensions in the sidings of it or the thickness of it.
Question. State whether there was any peculiarity in the advertisement of June 14, 1858, that attracted your attention?
Answer. There was great peculiarity in it; it was in the short time
allowed for the delivery of the timber, and it was in the size of the
timber, as also the expression that a large proportion of a certain
size might be straight; that was an unusual expression so far as my
experience went.
Question. How did the timber of Swift & Bigler in the navy yards
correspond, as to size and description, with the timber described in
the advertisement?
Answer. In the Philadelphia yard it corresponded so nearly-this
ten thousand feet which I spoke of-as to be all received under that
contract, with the exception of a very few sticks, as I understood.
I refer to the contract which was subsequently made with Mr. Swift,
when mine was annulled.
Question. If the advertisement of June 14, 1858, had given the
usual time, or had given six months' time, within which to deliver
the timber described in that advertisement, how much less, if any,
would you have bid for its delivery-either in per centage or in cents,
I do not care which way you make it?
Answer. If it had given the usual time, I should have been willing
to take it for fifteen per cent. less. If it had only given six months,
or till the 1st of February, I do not know that I should have taken
it for any less. It would have brought it all into the present winter;
and the difficulty in the navigation of the Delaware river, particularly
in January and February, would have rendered it very difficult to
deliver it in that time.  The usual time is from eighteen months
to two years.
Question. What amount of stock of live-oak was then in store in
the navy yards?
Answer. I am hardly prepared to answer that question except from
hearsay.
Question. After your contract was annulled, with whom was the
new contract made, if any?
Answer. New contracts, I understood, were made with Mr. William
Swift.
4B




50                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. How did the live-oak of Mr. Swift happen to be in the
yard?
Answer. It was the accumulation of timbers not received on contracts of previous dates and yet existing-as I presume not received
on account of its shape and size.
Question. Was it usual to allow the timber contractors to store
their refuse timber in the navy yard?
Answer. There is an order of the Bureau of Yards and Docks
against it, and I have been compelled to remove timber before receiving my bills in such quantities as then in yards was very unusual.
I know of no instance parallel to it.
Question. Do you know upon whose orders that was done?
Answer. Captain Carr, of the Philadelphia yard, told me that they
were ordered to pile it up in the Philadelphia yard at the expense of
the contractor; that there had been a correspondence upon the subject?
Question. Were you in the Navy Department on or about the 14th
of July, 1858?
Answer. I was, sir.
Question. Did you converse with the chief of the bureau, Mr. Lenthall, about opening the bids?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was said?
Answer. The chief of the bureau told me that in the absence of
the Secretary, in consequence of sickness, he could not open the
bids, and could not until his return. I observed to him that it was
usual for the bids to be opened below. He said it was the Secretary's
own matter, and he could not take the responsibility of opening them;
and I said nothing further.
Question. Is that the substance of what was said?
Answer. That is the substance of it.
Question. Did you have an interview with the Secretary of the
Navy upon this subject, and if so when?
Answer. I did, sir, sometime in September, from the 12th to the
15th.
Question. What was the purport of that interview? State what
was said upon both sides?
Answer. I told the Secretary, naming the object of my call, that
it was quite impossible to procure the timber within the time named
in the contract.  I knew it was impossible.  He told me that it was
his intention to annul the contracts; and observed to me that he wished
gentlemen to know that when the department made a contract, or
named a time for delivery, the department was presumed to know when
they would want the article, and he would expect them to come up
to that time; that there were parties, or a party, (I cannot say which
term he used,) who would supply the material at the same price that
I was to have, and thus save me from loss, as far, I presume he
meant, as damages to the government was concerned, upon the contract. That was the gist of my conversation with the Secretary.
Question. What did you say to him with regard to difficulties in




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  51
complying with the contract, in delivering the live-oak at the time
specified, if anything?
Answer. Nothing further than that the time was too short for delivery. I might be permitted to add that I stated to him that it was
the usage, in my experience, for the government not to urge these
things where the material was not positively required; and upon such
usage 1 had made my bid, supposing it would not be required within
those dates, and I would have it on hand by the time it would be
required.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How long have you been a dealer in live oak?
Answer. I first went into the live oak business in 1838 with my
father.
Question. When was it that you delivered a cargo at Philadelphia?
Answer. In September; I cannot tell the exact date; it was between
the 1st and the 15th of September.
Question. How many feet were there in the amount delivered?
Answer. The amount received was about 1,300 feet; only about
one-half of the timber put ashore was received.
Question. Did you ever say anything to the Secretary after your
contract was rescinded? You say you protested to Mr. Lenthall, and
he advised you to address your communication to the Secretary, did
you say anything to the Secretary?
Answer. Not afterwards. I do not recollect any conversation with
the Secretary subsequent to that.
Question. Are you aware that the Secretary was in a great hurry
to procure this timber; were you not aware at the time that he was
hurrying this matter very much?
Answer. I had nothing but the advertisement to govern me; I
judged from that that they were hurrying.
Question. Did you learn from no one that he was hurrying in
getting out these ships in reference to some difficulties? Were you
not advised that he was anxious to have these ships launched as soon
as possible?
Answer. I know from common rumor that he wanted the ships
launched as soon as possible, but that had no reference to this live
oak; this has not gone into any of the ships that have been built or
are being built.
Question. Do you know that it has not?
Answer. The vessels were built of white oak, at Gosport and
Philadelphia.
Question. Do you know of what they are built?
Answer. Rumor says they are built of white oak.
Question. What was this live-oak timber wanted for?
Answer. I cannot say, sir. For prospective purposes, perhaps.
Question. You think it was not wanted for these ships?
Answer. It was not put in them; they were not built of it. This
very fact shows that, for some of the ships, or one at Philadelphia, I
know, has been launched, and the contract has expired but a few days




52                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
since. The ship was launched in the middle of January, and completed, so far as her hull and frame are concerned.
Question. What preparations did you make for the performance of
this contract?
Answer. I had made such arrangements that the party immediately
interested would have started for Louisiana from the 1st to the 10th
of October.
Question. Did you make any arrangements to do anything at all
during the month of September?
Answer. I delivered the department what I had the command of,
in the month of September:
Question. Did you intend, at the time you signed the contract, to
make an effort to perform the contract according to its terms?
Answer. It was my intention to deliver the timber I had command
of by the 1st of September. The contract required me to deliver onehalf by the 1st of September, and the other half by the 1st of
February.
Question. Did you intend, when you made that contract, even to
make an effort to deliver half of the timber during the month of September?
Answer. I intended to make this effort; I expected to have bought
the timber then on hand in the navy yards.
Question. Did you make any effort to buy that timber?
Answer. I made no application to the owners of the timber.
Question. Then you did not make any effort, you did not make any
attempt to execute the contract according to its terms?
Answer. To the first of September; no sir.
Question. Were you advised at the time you executed this contract,
by the Secretary of the Navy, that you would have other time than
that fixed in the contract itself granted you?
Answer. No, sir; I had not seen the Secretary on that subject.
Question. Had he held out any inducements whatever, that you
would be indulged in the time of delivery?
Answer. He had not, sir.
Question. I understand you to say that you made your bid with
reference to the expectation on your part that you would deliver by
the 1st of February, and fixed your price accordingly?
Answer. Yes, sir; I did not expect to finish it by the first of September, but by the final period.
Question. Suppose you had determined to execute the contract
according to its terms, how much more would you have charged than
your bid?
Answer. It would be impossible to execute it.
Question. Just answer me that question. You have been asked
how much less you would have charged if the time had been extended;
now I want to know how much more you would have charged if you
had been required to execute it according to the terms.
Answer. As there would be only one way of complying with the
terms, I should have brought my figures to such a price as would have




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  53
left no doubt about securing the timber then in the yards, belonging
to Bigler & Swift. I cannot say how much it would have taken.
Question. Would you not have charged fifteen per cent. more than
your bid, if you had signed it with the intention of executing the contract according to its terms?
Answer. It is impossible to answer that question, from the very
fact that it would be impossible to procure the timber, except from
the parties who had it in the yard.
Question. How do you know that it was impossible to procure it
from them if you did not apply to them?
Answer. I do not know that it was impossible to procure it from
them.
Question. You cannot answer the question, how much more you
would have charged if you had intended to execute your contract
according to its terms?
Answer. I cannot, sir.
Question. It would have been considerable more, would it not?
Answer. Any price might not have put it there; as the timber was
then growing in the southern States, it would have been impossible,
under any contracts, to have brought it there in that time; there were
but seventeen or eighteen days between the period of the date of the
contract and the 1st of September.
Question. You say the timber in the yards was an accumulation of
rejected timber; how do you know that?
Answer. I said it was the accumulation of deliveries not received
on other contracts.
Question. Well, how do you know that?
Answer. From having been told so by the inspector of the Philadelphia navy yard, and from my own knowledge of the business in
the yard. The inspector of the Philadelphia navy yard told me that
of one cargo he had received but six pieces, under an existing contract withl Mr. Swift.
Question. Are you speaking now entirely of that which was in the
Philadelphia navy yard that had not been received?
Answer. I heard the inspector at Gosport say that the timber then
in the yard belonged, a part of it, to Mr. Swift, and a, part of it to
Mr. Bigler.  That was in August.
Question. When was it that you saw the secretary and told him
that it was impossible to procure this timber in time?
Answer. It was between the 12th and 15th of September. It was
one of those days when I was in Washington.
Question. What else did you say to him about it?
Answer. I told him it would be a serious matter if the (contracts
were annulled and taken from me. It was my expectation when I
made the contract to furnish the timber when it should be required.
I thought I would know when they would want it, and I knew at the
time of bidding that I could not deliver it by the first of September,
unless I bought that on hand. The contract could not have been
fulfilled, except by those who had the timber on hand.




54                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. You had no conversation with the owners about procuring it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I want to know why you could not have procured it from
them at exactly the same price at which they furnished it to the government?  You made no effort, you say?
Answer. I do not know whether I could have procured it from
them or could not.
Question. That timber, I understand you to say, was such as met
the requirements of the advertisement?
Answer. I observed that the timber was taken on Mr. Swift's subsequent contract-the most of it.
Question. Did that timber come up to the requirements of the advertisement?
Answer. I did not measure it. I do not know. It was received at
the yard.
Question. Do you think, in quality, shape, and otherwise, it was
equal to the requirements of the advertisement? What is your opinion
about it?  Do you think the government was right in accepting such
timber as that under that advertisement?
Answer. A part of it, sir, might have been accepted under that
advertisement.
Question. What part?
Answer. A certain size; that which allowed straight timber.
Question. What portion of it?
Answer. The advertisement said that a large portion might be
straight, of a certain size. I think that size is twelve or fourteen
inches thick, I am not positive.
Question. You think such timber as that was being furnished
would make a good compliance with the advertisement?
Answer. I think the timber furnished, being straight, complied
with the advertisement.  That which was thinner, and required
crooked timber, did not comply with the advertisement.
Question. What proportion of this timber was of that kind?
Answer. I did not learn.  The advertisement gives ten thousand
feet of timber-at least three-fourths crooked.
Question. I thought you saw it?
Answer. I cannot tell by looking at timber-passing by it-how
many sticks, or what is the proportion.
Question. I understand you to say that you fixed your prices with
reference to delivery upon the 1st of February, and not with reference to delivery prior to that time?
Answer. The 1st of February I calculated to have the timber delivered. I thought we could do it by that time.
Question. Did I understand you to say that it is the usage of the
government not to require compliance with a contract within the
specified time?
Answer. No, sir; you did not understand me.  I said that when a
contract is not fulfilled at the time, it is not the usage to annul it,
unless the timber is really and positively required.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   55
Question. If there was anything in the state of the case to make
it proper to require this timber at the earliest point of time, was it
or was it not entirely proper to rescind your contract and make provision for an earlier supply than you could furnish?
Answer. I should think it would be; in case of war, for instance.
Question. I understand you to say that you proposed to deliver a
second cargo, and it was rejected?
Answer. It was not permitted to be landed.
Question. On the ground that the contract had been rescinded?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When was it that you tendered the second cargo?
Answer. The vessel was reported upon the 16th or 17th of September, but in consequence of the wharf being taken up by other
vessels she could not get into the yard.  Upon the 18th of September I wrote to Commodore Stewart, telling him that the vessel had
been there since the 16th, and applying for a berth to discharge the
vessel. Upon that day he had received orders not to receive any
timber from me.
Question. What amount of timber had you there upon the 18th in
this vessel?
Answer. It was a small cargo of 70 or 80 pieces of timber, the
balance of the timber I had in New York; there might be 700 or
800 feet; it was a small vessel, with nothing else in her.
Question. Did the cargo you delivered, amounting to about 1,300
feet, and the cargo you afterwards tendered, amounting to 800 feet,
exhaust your immediate supply?
Answer. They did, sir.
Question. That was all then, as I understand it, that you could
have delivered before the first of February?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Where else would you have procured it?
Answer. I intended that we should have timber in Philadelphia by
December.  By sending out in October the people to do our work,
we expected to deliver the first cargo in December, and to continue
to furnish it, so that we should have it all in by the first of February.
Question. At what time in October did you intend that they should
leave?
Answer. Between the first and the tenth of October; that was the
usual time of sailing.
Question. Where should you have obtained the timber?
Answer. We should have gone to Louisiana, sir; part of it we
intended to procure from Florida.
Question. What was the earliest time that you could have landed
timber, so obtained, at the Philadelphia yard.
Answer. I could not safely say earlier than the latter end of
December.
Question. Could you have done it by the latter end of December
with the plans you had made?
Answer. I think we might, sir; our calculation, I recollect distinctly, was to have a cargo there by the last of the year or the first




56                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
of January, providedthe river was navigable, and the obstruction o f
the ice did not prevent; in that case we should have sent it to
Gosport, where the ice would not interfere.
Question. But in no event would you have delivered more before
the last of December, than the 1,300 feet which you did deliver, and
the 700 feet which you tendered?
Answer. Not unless we had bought of gentlemen who had timber
on hand.
Question. Did you ever offer to purchase?
Answer. No, sir; we were ready to hear from them.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who determines the question whether timber is receivable under a contract, whether it comes up to the specification
or not?
Answer. The inspector; if there is any question between him and
the contractor it is referred to the constructor.
Question. If you had delivered a cargo of timber, the last of December, 1858, or the first of January, 1859, when would that timber
have been suitable for use, immediately?
Answer. It is sometimes used immediately; but it has been the
custom to throw it into the docks that the sap may be extracted; it is
thrown into the mud, and after undergoing the process there it is
piled into the sheds.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What do you suppose was the fair market value of that
timber in the yard, belonging to Swift, and afterwards received under
contract with the United State?
Answer. For the merchant service, outside of government wants,
I should think from 80 cents to $1 per foot, agreeably to its size and
shape; that has been the price at which we have sold; 80 cents is a
pretty good price.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you furnish that sort of timber, live-oak, for the
merchant service?
Answer. Yes, sir; we have sold a good deal for the merchant
service.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is there much live-oak used in the merchant service?
Answer. Not as much as there has been; but there has been a
good deal sold.
Question. Taking into view all the competition that usually exists
both for the government and for the merchant service, what should
you consider that timber worth?
Answer. I could hardly answer the question, because I never
knew any of that kind sold to the government. In the larger timber
the difference might be 10 to 15 per cent. on account of the inspection.  The smaller timber I do not know about.
Question. What do you mean by a difference of 10 or 15 per cent.?
Answer. A difference of price against the government.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     57
By the Chairman:
Question. Do you mean that the large timber is worth 10 or 15
per cent. more than the small timber?
Answer. No, sir; the large timber would be worth, under the
government survey, and in their peculiar shapes, perhaps 10 per
cent. more than the ordinary timber used in the merchant service.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. In estimating the price to the government therefore, you
would add 10 or 15 per cent. for the larger timber?
Answer. I think I should add 10 per cent., sir. We have sold
small timber, from 9 to 12 inches, to Mr. Webb for 70 cents per foot.
Question. What did you bid to furnish this small timber to the
government for?
Answer. I think the smallest timber was $1 06, ranging up to
$1 28, according to size.
Question. Was that a reasonable price or not?
Answer. I left'a margin upon it for a fair profit?
Question. Was it a fair price or not at which to furnish that timber
to the government?
Answer. It was a fair price, sir; I should not have made the proposition but for a fair price. It was not exorbitant.
SAM. B. GRICE.
PHILADELPHIA, August 4, 1858.
SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, advising me of the acceptance of my offer to furnish liveoak timber for the yards at Gosport and Philadelphia.
Presuming there will be no detriment to the interests of the government if contracts for each yard, separately, are made, I beg leave
to request you will so direct them to be prepared.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL B. GRICE.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c.,
Washington, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., August 6, 1858.
SIR: Two contracts have this day been forwarded to the navy agent
at Philadelphia, for live-oak timber deliverable at the respective navy
yards at Philadelphia and Gosport, which you will please execute in
conformity with the terms of the advertisement.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
SAMUEL B. GRICE, Esq.,
Philadelphia.




58                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., August 3, 1858.
SIR: Your offer to furnish live-oak under the advertisement of the
14th of June, 1858, by direction of the department, is accepted for
the navy yards at Philadelphia and Gosport.
A contract will be immediately made out and forwarded to the navy
agent at Philadelphia, as requested in your offer, which you will please
have executed according to the advertisement, and returned to the
bureau without delay.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
SAMUEL B. GRICE, Esq.,
Philadelphia, Pa,
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
Philadelphia, August 9, 1858.
SIR: Please to take notice that I have in my office two contracts,
for the delivery of live-oak timber at the navy yards at Philadelphia
and Gosport, for execution by you. You will therefore have the
same duly executed at my office, within ten days, agreeably to my
instructions from the Bureau of Construction, &c., under date of
August 6, 1858.
Very respectfully, yours, &c.,
WM. BADGER,
Navy Agent.
SAMUEL B. GRICE, Esq.,
Philadelphia.
Contracts executed August 11, 1858, before Charles Freeman, and
delivered to Mr. Badger August 14.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, dc., September 16, 1858.
SIR: I am instructed by the department to inform you that, as you
have not complied with the terms of your contract for live-oak, a new
one has been made with other parties.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau.
SAMUEL B. GRICE, Esq.,
Philadelphia.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    59
PHILADELPHIA, September 18, 1858.
SIR: In reply to your letter of 16th instant, this day received, I
have to say, that against anything therein contained prejudicial to
my interests in matters of my live-oak contracts with the navy department, I solemnly enter this, my protest, of which you will please
take notice.
Respectfully,
SAMUEL B. GRICE.
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c.,
Washington, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., September 22, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 18th has been received, and as the Hon.
Secretary of the Navy has directed the course pursued, it should be
addressed to the department.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
SAMUEL B. GRICE, Esq.,
Philadelphia.
PHILADELPHIA, September 18, 1858.
SIR: I have had, since the 16th instant, a quantity of live-oak timber ready to be discharged, on account of my contract for same with
the Navy Department.
I respectfully request you will give me a place to discharge same
without further delay.
Respectfully,
SAMUEL B. GRICE.
Corn. CHARLES STEWART,
United States Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
PHILADELPHIA, September 21, 1858.
SIR: Having applied to you for a place to discharge a cargo of liveoak timber which I had brought to the Philadelphia navy yard in
pursuance of a contract which I have with the Navy Department, dated
August 14, 1858, and having been refused by you a place or permission to land the same, I hereby enter this my protest against your
refusal, of which you will please take notice.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL B. GRICE.
Com. CHARLES STEWART,
Commanding U. S. Navy Yard, Philadelphia.




60                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
COMMANDANT'S OFFICE, U. S. NAVY YARD,
Philadelp7ia, September 21, 1858.
SIR: I have received your letter of protest against my refusal to
permit you to land a cargo of live-oak timber therein referred to, and
in reply have to inform you that I have acted in the matter entirely
in consonance with my orders from the Navy Department.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant.
Mr. SAMUEL B. GRICE, Phikldelphia.
No. 52.-JAMES BIGLER, NEW YORK, N. Y.
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.
JAMES BIGLER called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. Lumber dealer.
Question. Have you been a contractor to furnish lumber to the
government?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long have you been a contractor?
Answer. For the last twelve or fourteen years.
Question. For what sort of lumber?
Answer. Almost all kinds-white pine, white oak, live oak, white
ash, black walnut, maple, mahogany. I believe almost every kind
that is used.
Question. What has been your promptness and efficiency in fulfilling your contracts?
Answer. I suppose that by applying to the department you can
learn about that. I believe I have almost generally furnished my contracts up to the time specified, and a little ahead; sometimes a little
behind; but in the general way I believe I have furnished them ahead
of the time.
Question. What is the last contract that you have had?
Answer. I have a contract now for white pine at the Gosport navy
yard; and black walnut, mahogany, and two or three other kinds of
hard woods at the Brooklyn navy yard.
Question. Were you a bidder to furnish live oak under the advertisement of June last?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. At how many yards did you propose to supply live-oak
timber?
Answer. I think I bid for all the yards but Pensacola.
Question. What was the result? did you get a contract in either case?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    61
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Why not?
Answer. For the best reason in the world, I suppose; because my
bid was too high.
Question. Who got the contracts?
Answer. I think a Mr. Grice was one of the contractors, and Lawrence and somebody down east got a contract, and a man in the western part of the State of New York did also.  They were the first, I
think, who got contracts.
Question. Who got the contracts ultimately?
Answer. Mr. Swift.
Question. Have you any connexion in business with Mr. Swift?
Answer. No, sir; no direct connexion in business with him. I have
some little interest or connexion with him in regard to this live-oak
contract.
Question. What is that connexion?
Answer. When that live-oak contract advertisement came out, from
the nature of the advertisement I saw very plainly that I could not
fill it, and I was averse to bidding for it. I had seen the Secretary
and Mr. Lenthall upon the subject, and I repeatedly offered them my
timber. I had timber in three or four yards that I had left over from
my last contracts which I had just closed.  I had in all some 30,000
or 40,000 feet in the various yards, including 4, 000 or 5,000 feet then
on its way from Louisiana.  I offered to sell them the timber I had
on hand.  They asked me for a report of what timber I had, and I
gave it to them.  About the time this contract was to be bid for,Mr.
Swift wanted to know if I would keep out of his way in case he would
buy my timber of me. I said that was all that I wanted, to sell my
timber, and I did not care whether I sold it to him or to the government.  He said if I would not bid against him he would take my
timber if he got the contract, and in that case he would give me
what he got himself. I therefore put in my bids so high that I thought
there was no chance of their being accepted. I had my bids already
prepared for I was coming on here for the purpose of making bids for
some of the yards.  But I should have put in bids on my own account
only for those yards in which I had timber, knowing that it would be
impossible to furnish timber according to those specifications for all
the yards.
Question. Did Mr. Swift take your timber according to his agreement?
Answer. He has taken all my timber, at least my timber has all
gone into the yards. I cannot say that he has carried out his agreement, if that is what you want to know.
Question. Has he received your timber?
Answer. It has been received by the government, all except a cargo
now in the Philadelphia yard that I have not got the bills for.
Question. Upon what grounds is the government receiving timber
from you?
Answer. They do not receive from me, but from Mr. Swift.
Question. You mean that they receive your timber from Mr. Swift?




62                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. Yes, sir; as Mr. Swift's timber.
Question. Had you a fixed price with Mr. Swift?
Answer. I was to receive the same price for my timber that he got
for it as delivered at the various yards.
Question. What was the nature of the conversation you had with
the Secretary? Was any indication given of any particular purpose
they had in view in drawing up this advertisement?
Answer. When the thing was first talked of, the Secretary of the
Navy said he did not think that he had a right to take the timber
that I had urged him to take. I will say now that I had, in fact, been
encouraged that this timber would be received on open purchase, as all
other kinds of timber were taken from contractors. Where they furnished timber and it was good timber, and there is a surplus of any
particular kind, it has been always the case that the government would
purchase it at the contract price, or at such a price as the chief of the
bureau would agree upon, if it was the kind of timber they wanted.
For that reason I supposed that I was perfectly safe in furnishing
this surplus of timber, as there was every appearance that timber
would be required for the vessels of the government. I was then
getting out a specified amount of timber for four ships; it was all
cut to a specific shape or build, and consequently anything that was
not the exact shape required would be a surplus.  Sometimes we
would cut out two pieces of the same shape and size, as we had different gangs of men at work, and both gangs would cut out the same
kind or piece of timber, as one would not know as the other had cut
it out. As I knew that this timber would be required in all human
probability, I felt perfectly safe, in fact, in having something left
over.
Question. What do you mean?  Your live-oak timber?
Answer. Yes, sir. After I got my contracts filled, I went to the
Secretary of the Navy to get him to buy my timber upon open purchase.  He gave as a reason for not buying it upon open purchase,
that it was against the law to buy timber upon open purchase, except
for immediate use. Mr. Swift went to him on the same score; that
he had timber over, which he wished to sell to the government. This
induced the Secretary, I suppose, to make this advertisement to cover
about the amount of timber that we had. There was nobody else in
the business who could supply the amount and kinds of timber called
for, and we did not suppose there would be any opposition to us; and
when the advertisement came out I was very much surprised that it
was in that shape; for it was in a very bad shape for me, as I had
only about enough timber to fill out the call for two of the yards.
This was bad for me in this way; for instance, if I put in bids for
all the yards, I might get Pensacola or Philadelphia, where I had no
timber; and then I would be obliged to move it from another yard at
great expense and trouble. This induced me to make the arrangement with Mr. Swift to avoid the expense of removing my timber
from one yard to another.
Question. Did the Secretary intimate that he had any purpose in




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  63
preparing this advertisement to cover the timber of yourself and MrSwift?
Answer. I understood him that it was his calculation that it would
just about cover the amount.
Question. When was that?
Answer. During the last summer.
Question. Before the advertisement came out?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who made that statement to you?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy himself. He said he did not
think he had authority to buy my timber; he did not wish to do anything about it but what would be entirely straight, and he did not
feel authorized to make a purchase of this timber without advertising; and then if we put in for it-he knowing that we were the
only persons that had the timber-at a higher price than they
thought was a fair price, that he would not take it at any rate; mind
you, I had already offered my timber to the government.
Question. Do you know who fixed the amount of timber in the
advertisement?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Was anything said in the conversation with the Secretary
about the amount of the timber?
Answer. He only asked the amount of timber I had; or Mr. Lenthall, for him, asked me to give a statement in writing of what timber
I had, and where it was; I understood that he got Mr. Swift to give
him the same statement, so that he knew exactly what we had.
Question. How does the price which you asked the government
compare with the price which Mr. Swift receives?
Answer. He gets more than I offered the timber for.
Question. What is his price, and what was yours?
Answer. I think his average price is about $1 12 a foot, and I
offered my timber to the government for $1 10. For instance, he
gets $1 17 or $1 18 at Norfolk and Philadelphia, and $1 09 at New
York, Boston, and Kittery; I cannot tell you the average at Pensacola, for I never had any information about it, and have paid no
attention to it.
Question. Do you know what Mr. Swift offered to sell his for to the
government at open purchase?
Answer. I think he said to me that he could get no more than I
had offered mine at; that as I had fixed the price for mine he would
have to be governed by that price, although he thought he ought to
have a great deal more money for his timber.
Question. How much timber did you have?
Answer. About 35,000 feet.
Question. In different yards that was the amount you had altogether?
Answer. Yes, sir; I had timber in three of the yards only, Boston,
Kittery, and Gosport.
Question. You have stated that you cut the timber, knowing that
it would be needed by the government. How did you know that?
Answer. I had every reason to believe that it would be needed for




64                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
the government, from the fact that the appropriation for the six
vessels and then for the last seven or eight vessels was passed during
the time my men were cutting out timber, while I was closing up my
four frames which I had already contracted for.
Question. Was it really needed during the last year?
Answer. I can tell you what makes me think that it was needed:
they actually used up a part of my timber in some of the yards before
this advertisement came out; they had to have it.  At Kittery they
used up between three and four thousand feet of my timber.
Question. At what other yards did they use any?
Answer. They used some at Norfolk.
Question. That was before the advertisement came out, was it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. That was bought of you by private contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; they gave me the same as for some other surplus
timber. They gave me, on an average, $1 30 a foot, though my contract price was $1 65 a foot; that was, however, for specific pieces
of timber, as I had contracted to get out four entire ship frames.
This last timber that I had offered for $1 10 a foot was promiscuous
timber, not of any particular shape, size or length.
Question. Do they use live-oak in repairing vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir; a great deal.
Question. Were there many vessels under repairs in the yards?
Answer. I think they used about 7,000 feet in Kittery in repairing
vessels.
Question. During what time?
Answer. During the time I was putting in timber.
Question. This last timber?
Answer. It was for the vessel now building that they used some
3,200 or 3, 300 feet of my timber.  They used that before this advertisement came out.
Question. Have they used any since?
Answer. I do not know; the moment this matter was settled between
Swift and me, my timber was all put in as his timber under his
contract.
Question. Have you been in any of the yards since then, and noticed whether they have used any of this timber or not?
Answer. I have been in the yards at Philadelphia and Norfolk.
Question. Have they used up any of the timber there that Mr.
Swift has furnished under this contract?
Answer. They have in Norfolk.
Question. How much?
Answer. I cannot tell you, for I paid no particular attention to it
then.
Question. When were you at Norfolk?
Answer. About the first of January last.
Question. Some of it was used then?
Answer. I do not know; I was delivering white pine there then,
there was no live-oak matter there, for I had got along with itbefore
that time.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     65
Question. Did you understand that this particular specification or
proposal from the Navy Department, contained in the advertisement
of June last, was in a measure of personal favor to you and Mr.
Swift-was designed for that purpose?
Answer. I do not know what you may call it; I supposed they
wanted our timber, and the idea was to get it in some way that
would be according to act of Congress in receiving it, as they would
receive any other kind of stuff from any other kind of contractor. I
have been a contractor for four years; there has not been a contractor that I know of who has not delivered more or less extra
timber in the yards, and it has always been taken heretofore by the
department it was of a kind required. I have got out in my time
some 150,000 feet of live-oak; it was impossible to get out that
amount without getting some over; because we had to get out
enough to be sure and fill the contract, and allow some sticks to be
put aside; and if we happened to come across a stick like that called
for in the contract, we often took it, because there was some constantly being used.
Question. Are you prepared to express an opinion whether the
necessities of the government were such as to allow it to wait for this
timber the usual time for persons to go to the live-oak regions and
get it out, and bring it here, and deliver it, before it would need it
for use?
Answer. The best evidence I have on that point is, that they
actually used up a part of my timber before they could wait for the
advertisement to run out; they used some 3,000 feet of it at Kittery.
The constructor wrote me that he must have it or let his vessel wait.
I happened to have some of the very kind of timber that the government wanted for this smaller class of vessels-timber siding ten and
twelve inches; some of it was crooked timber, valuable timber; but
they did not pay me as much for it as I would have got under my
contract.
Question. Taking Mr. Swift's arrangement with the government
all around for supplying this timber to all the yards, what is your
opinion of the price he receives; is it a fair and reasonable price?
Answer. No man could have got the timber any lower and made
any money.
Question. Suppose persons were allowed further time to get it,
until the first of February?
Answer. They could not have filled the contract by the first of
February.  Mr. Swift has not filled his contract yet, and the first of
February has passed.
Question. What has he done towards filling his contract?
Answer. He has put in my timber and his timber which was in the
yards, and I believe he is just now beginning to deliver some other
timber. He has filled his contract to a considerable extent.
Question. What proportion of his contract did the timber which he
had in the yards amount to?
Answer. In Norfolk it would have made more than enough; I
removed some of it to Philadelphia. In New York, I think, he would
5B




66                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
have had enough, if the timber had all been good, to fill his contract.
In Kittery, there was none delivered except what I had delivered
there. At Boston he had nearly enough. At Pensacola he had none.
Question. You say he went on to fill his contract to a considerable
extent?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And has he delivered the most of the timber called for
by the specifications?
Answer. Yes, sir, a great deal of it.
Question. Do you know of any reason why he has not delivered
timber at Pensacola?
Answer. I cannot tell you any reason.
Question. You have been a long time a government contractor.
What has been the practice in the different navy yards in relation to
timber that did not stand inspection? What has been done with it?
Answer. It was the business of the contractor to take it out.
Question. Did they always require him to take it out?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you always required to take yours out?
Answer. Yes, sir. I never left any over any length of time under
my contracts.  I have been extremely fortunate; in the contract for
the whole four ships' frames that I got out timber for, I do not think
I had a dozen sticks rejected.
Question. Where did this timber come from that you let Mr. Swift
have? you said that was in the yards?
Answer. That was not rejected timber; that was surplus timber:
the quality was all right, but it was more in amount than I was to
deliver.
Question. How was it with Mr. Swift's timber? was that rejected
timber or surplus timber?
Answer. Some of both, I think.
Question. Some surplus timber and some rejected timber you mean
to say?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Where did he have this timber?
Answer. At all the yards but at Kittery; he delivered none there;
that was my timber there; he had had no contract there previously.
Question. In the conversation you say you had with the Secretary
of the Navy, before the issuing of these proposals, when you proposed to sell him your timber, did he say he wanted that sort of
timber that you offered him?
Answer..He said he was satisfied that the timber was wanted, and
he knew ithad always been the rule to receive the surplus timber of
contractors;;he said that he knew I had always been a faithful contractor, and hemdid not see why I should not receive a preference; he
said that if.I had had a few dozen sticks he would take them without
an advertisement, but as I had a large amount he was unwilling to
take the timber without an advertisement, according to act of Congress.  I urg~ed every reason I could think of why the timber should
be taken.  I was not aware, when 1 first went to him, that they had




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    67
used any of my timber; they had used it unbeknown to me; after I
found that out, I used that as a reason why the department should
take my timber, that they had used up about one-third of my timber
in that yard; the constructor had written to me that he wanted to get
some of my timber, at the same time that he was using it; but he did
not let me know that he had taken any of it; that I heard afterwards
from a private source.  I urged that upon the Secretary as a reason
why he should take ny timber; he said it was a good reason why the
timber should be taken in the Kittery yard, because it was wanted
there.
Question. How did your price for that compare with what Mr.
Swift is getting under his contract?
Answer. I got $1 30, the same as I had had in one or two of the
other yards for surplus timber; but then that was 35 cents less than
my average price for the timber for the four ships.
Question. When you have a small remnant of timber left over from
a contract, do you expect less or more than you have had from the
government for the timber furnished under contract?
Answer. The same price as under contract if the timber is equal
in quality. You deliver a load of white pine, yellow pine, live-oak,
or any other kind of timber, and some of the pieces will be more
valuable than others; some of them may be larger, longer, crooked,
or of some other peculiar and valuable shape. If the timber is of
that character, then you expect more than the contract price; if not
of that character, not of a good average character, then you expect
less. for it.
Question. If you had had the timber yourself, would you have
undertaken to fill these contracts at the different yards at a lower or
a higher price than Mr. Swift gets?
Answer. I should have put in my bid at the price I had offered my
timber to the department, at $1 10, which is but a little less than
Mr. Swift is getting.  If I had put in, I should have put in at a little
lower price than he did, for fear some one would get in below me.
Question. But it seems that you really put in at a higher price;
how was that?
Answer. I did that because I did not want to get the contract, as
Mr. Swift had bought the timber of me, if he got the contract.
Question. You say that no man could cut this timber at the price
Mr. Swift delivers it, and make any money.  Why is that?
Answer. I had already got this timber out, and I could not sell it
anywhere.  Government was the only purchaser to whom I could
expect to sell it.  If I had undertaken to get this timber out in the
usual time, in a year, I would merely have to let my timber stay in
the yard for a year, and then deliver it; and the interest on my
money was worth some eight or ten cents a fbot, so that by selling it
nlow at $1 10 a foot, it would be doing as well as selling it a year
from now at $1 18 or $1 20 a foot.
Question. Then you mean that in proposing to sell it at a less price
you would not have got your usual profit upon your timber?
Answer. Yes, sir; I would have been glad to have sold it at the




68                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
lowest price than to have kept it on hand longer. If it had been
taking the whole contract, I would not have taken it any lower than
it is taken now.  But then I would not have proposed for the thing
unless I could have had ample time to have got out the timber.
By the Chairman:
Question. What acquaintance have you with Mr. Swift?  How long
have you known him, and how intimate have you been with him?
Answer. The first time I ever saw him was the first time that I ever
bid for any of these contracts, about three years ago.
Question. Where does he reside?
Answer. In New Bedford.
Question. What is his business?
Answer. He is in the whaling business. He is an old contractor,
as I understand it; and his father was a live-oak contractor before him.
Question. What was the quantity of timber that Mr. Swift had at
all the yards at the time this advertisement was issued?
Answer. He said he had 135,000 feet.
Question. At the different yards?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How did the description of his timber compare with that
embraced subsequently in the advertisement?
Answer. That that was good, I think, would come up to it.
Question. Was the advertisement made so as to cover and describe
your and Mr. Swift's timber?
Answer. I so supposed it; that is only a supposition, though.
Question. Did it cover and answer the description of timber belonging to you and Mr. Swift?
Answer. Yes, sir: Mr. Swift had some timber in the yard that was
not more than six inches siding; it did not cover that, or any such
timber as that; he had some very defective timber, poor timber; the
advertisement did not cover that; but it did cover all his merchantable
timber.
Question. What was there peculiar in the advertisement in regard
to the kinds of timber desired, the size, shape, length, &c.?
Answer. I hardly know what you mean.
Question. Did the advertisement, in describing the timber desired,
correspond to previous advertisements?
Answer. No, sir; it called for smaller timber.  The advertisements
before called for no timber less than 12 or 13 inches. This called
for timber siding 9 and 10 inches.
Question. When did you first commence to negotiate with Mr.
Swift about this timber; when and where?
Answer. Here, in this city, the day the proposals were to be put
in.  He wrote me to meet him here, and I did so. I came on here
prepared to bid for what I knew I could supply, and no more. But
after I got here Mr. Swift offered to buy my timber from me.
Question. What was the price he was to give you?
Answer. The price he should get for it under his contract, should
he succeed in getting one.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    69
Question. Was there any dispute upon that point?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he not claim that you should ask less, for reasons
which he gave you?
Answer. I do not know as that was a part of the understanding.
Question. Did he not claim that you ought to take less than he was
to receive, for certain reasons which he gave you. I do not ask for
these reasons, but I ask you if such was not the fact?
Answer. I do not know but what he said he had been to a great
deal of trouble and expense, or he would be, to get the thing through;
any way, he wanted me not to put in at a price that would prevent
him from getting the contract.
Question. Did he not insist that you should take from him less than
he was to receive from the government?
Answer. No, sir; he was willing to give me the same price that he
should get.
Question. What expense and trouble did he tell you he had incurred
in the matter?
Answer. I think he said he had no explanations to make on that
point.
Question. Did you ask him?
Answer. I intimated to him that I should like to know, but I did
not learn anything upon the subject.
Question. Did you communicate this understanding to the Secretary, or to any one connected with the department?
Answer. Not until some time after that,
Question. How soon afterwards?
Answer. I think it must have been nearly a month; I should think
it was.
Question. Did you not tell the chief clerk, or some one connected
with the office, that you and Swift had arranged the matter between
yourselves?
Answer. I think I did say to Mr. Johnson, the day we were waiting for the bids to be opened-Mr. Lenthall, I think, was not well,
or the Secretary was not well, or something was the matter-I said
to Mr. Johnson that it was a matter I did not care about any way;
that Mr. Swift would get it any way, and if he did I did not care
about it, as my timber was all sold to him.
Question. Who is Mr. Johnson?
Answer. Mr. Lenthall's chief clerk.
Question. Did you inform Mr. Toucey about it then?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. When did you inform him?
Answer. I think about three weeks or a month afterwards. I said
that I thought it was wrong for people to take a contract when they
knew they could not fill it, as it was only throwing away the time,
keeping the yards without the timber they wanted to use. Then was
the time I said they were actually using my timber, and I thought
that was a reason why this timber should have been taken in the first
place without all this trouble and bother. And it was then I said to




70                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
him that I did not care how he arranged the matter if he would give
the contract to Mr. Swift, for it would make no difference to me, as
he had agreed to take my timber.
Question. How long was this before the contract was awarded to
Mr. Swift?
Answer. I think about a week or so; it was about the time.
Question. Were any of the contractors on here at the time?
Answer. I did not see any of them.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. At what time was this timber used at Kittery which you
have spoken of?
Answer. It was in August, I think, just about the time the advertisement was running out, before the contracts were awarded. They
used part of my timber there before I knew anything about it at all.
By the Chairman:
Question. While the advertisement was pending?
Answer. I think it was, before or afterwards.
Question. About that time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was it subsequent to the time that you had the conversation with the Secretary of the Navy about this timber?
Answer. I think I had the conversation with him some time after
that, because I know I used that as an argument why they should
buy the timber of me.
Question. You refer now to the latter conversation, do you not?
Answer. I had seen the Secretary several times before that, and
urged him to take my timber.
Question. You had seen him upon the subject before the timber
was used at Kittery?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the usual time allowed contractors to deliver
live-oak?
Answer. From one to two years, unless it was wanted for immediate use.  I have known timber to be called for for immediate
delivery.
Question. Had you ever known any case in which a contract was
made for the delivery of timber in less time than one year?
Answer. I have not been a live-oak contractor, except within the
last three years.
Question. Have you, within the last three years, known a case
except this one.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you ever hear of any other?
Answer. I do not know that I have.
Question. Was it not understood between you and Mr. Swift, and
live-oak dealers generally, that this advertisement was framed for
the purpose of preventing competition, ard to enable the Secretary
to contract directly with Mr. Swift?
Answer. I always understood it so; that is, not for Mr. Swift alone,




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    71
for up to the time when I came here, after the advertisement was
out, I thought it was for both of us.
Question. It may be considered rather a delicate question to ask
you, but the question has been referred to several times before me.
I will ask you, are you any relation to Senator Bigler?
Answer. I suppose I am; my father was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; I was born in New York, where my father had moved. I
do not know how near the relationship is; I believe, however, ours
are the only two families of that name in the county.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. When you made your bid did you know what Mr. Swift
had bid or had intended to bid?
Answer. I knew it was above his bid; but I did not know what his
exact figures were.
Question. How did you know it was above his?
Answer. After I had made this arrangement with Mr. Swift I said
to him, I will put my bid in above yours. Says I, what shall I make
it?  He says, make it $1 30 or $1 32, and I will bid under you.
Question. It was agreed between you, before you put in your bid,
that he should bid under you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. If these outside bidders had not come in and interfered
with these arrangements, and Mr. Swift had been the lowest bidder,
how much higher would it have been than under the contract that
was really awarded to him?
Answer. Mr. Swift and I had agreed that we should have $1 25 a
foot for our timber.  What his bid was I never knew.
Question. What is the average that he gets now?
Answer. About $1 17.
Question. Making a difference of about eight cents a foot?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I thought I understood you to say that the average was
$1 12 cents a foot.
Answer. So it is.
Question. You just now said that it was $1 17.
Answer. I mean that some of it is for that price.  It is $1 17 at
Norfolk and Philadelphia, and $1 09 at Boston, New  York and
Kittery, making an average of about $1 12.
Question. You say that you were encouraged to get out this surplus
timber.  What do you mean by that?
Answer. I had been encouraged that it would be taken.  I was
not encouraged to get it out, because I could not help myself.
Question. You were encouraged that it would be taken; what do
you mean by that?
Answer. I told the Secretary of the Navy that I should have some
duplicate pieces of timber, some timber over, as different gangs of
my men would each cut out the same sized or shaped piece, sometimes, and that we would cut out some extra pieces to have them fit




72                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
in if some should prove poor.  The Secretary said to me, we have
always taken your other stuff that you had over, and we will this if it
is good timber.
Question. Has it been the practice of the government heretofore
to take timber that you had over, at the prices of the contract under
which you had furnished timber?
Answer. Yes, sir; in all cases and with all contractors.
Question. Has that been the practice of the department?
Answer. Yes, sir, for all the time that I have been connected with
them as a contractor.
Question. How long is that?
Answer. Twelve or fourteen years.  The very form  of contract
says a contractor shall furnish any additional quantities required;
most of the contracts say that the contractors shall furnish any
additional quantities required at the same price; some of them say
they shall furnish 25 per cent. additional if required.  It is the
usual way of making contracts to say that they shall furnish additional
quantities required at the same prices.
Question. What has been the practice in regard to keeping your
timber in the yards, and for how long has that practice prevailed?
Answer. I can tell you how they have done with me.
Question. How is that?
Answer. If we have had surplus stuff over-stuff that is merely a
surplus, and that has not been rejected-they have always given us
our bills, and then we have written to the chief of the bureau to
receive the amount of surplus timber, if the constructor and the
commandant of the yard approved of it, and said that it was wanted
or required; so that we have never been obliged to remove any of
our surplus timber, though we have always been obliged to remove
all our condemned timber.
Question. Then you say that it has been the practice of the government to allow this surplus timber to remain in the navy yards?
Answer. Yes, for a reasonable time, until we could write and see
about it. I have had to remove it when they have said they had
enough and did not require it.  But in almost all cases they have
received it.
Question. I want to ask you about the price that the government is
required to pay to Mr. Swift for this timber.  Is it a high or a low
price, taken in reference to a reasonable time to get it out? Is it a
fair price or an extravagant price?
Answer. I think it is certainly not an extravagant price. It is
lower than any timber of that sort has been contracted for, I think,
for a good many years.
Question. Where the usual time has been given?
Answer. I think it is.  I know that Mr. Swift found a great deal of
fault with me for putting the price down so low, when I offered mine to
the government, as he was obliged to take that price too; however,
I had put it down as my price.
Question. You have said that this timber was sometimes wanted
immediately?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   73
Answer. Yes, sir. I have furnished it at various yards, when timber
was required right off; when they want it immediately they always
buy it upon open purchase,
Question. Is there any intimacy between you and Senator Bigler?
Answer. No, sir; I never spoke to him in my life.
Question. Did you ever have him approached in your behalf?
Answer. No, sir, I never had any conversation with a congressman
in my life upon the subject of contracts, or with any other officer
of the government. I never got a contract through any political
influence, or any other influence, except that of being the lowest
bidder, in no instance whatever.
Question. What kind of a man is Mr. Swift for responsibility as a
contractor?
Answer. I think he is extremely responsible. He has that reputation.
Question. And for punctuality?
Answer. I do not know anything about that.  I never knew anything about his contracts except this one.
Question. I do not know as you have said anything to the point as
to the immediate need of the department for timber at that time?
Answer. You mean this particular kind of timber, I suppose.  At
Kittery there was a very decided necessity for it, and so in Norfolk
they used some of my timber there.  Another I know of, when they
wanted to use the timber, and they applied to Mr. Lenthall to let
them use it, and he would not consent to it.
Question. Do you know of any other places where they were in
such immediate need?
Answer. No, sir.
Bvy Mr. Bocock:
Question. What price were you to get under your former contract
for this particular timber?
Answer. One dollar and sixty-five cents a foot.
Question. If the government had followed the general practice and
taken your surplus timber at the contract price, what would you have
received for it?
Answer. They would not have taken this at contract price.  This
surplus was promiscuous timber; the other was cut to a pai ticular
shape, ready to be put into the frame of the ship at once without
extra work upon it. This was promiscuous timber cut with no other
design than to be used for various purposes.
Question. There is one statement of yours that I feel it my duty to
question you further about. In answer to a question you have said
that you have always understood that it was the purpose of the department, in framing these specifications in the advertisement, to
exclude competition and to take your and Mr. Swift's timber.  Do
you say that it was the object of the department to prevent other
people from coming in and underbidding you, if they could furnish
it at the time at a lower price?
Answer. If you understood me to say that, I do not think I under.




74                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
stood the question, my explanation now would be that the Secretary
of the Navy knew, and the chief of the bureau knew that there was
nobody else in all America that had the timber and could put it in at
such a time but Mr. Swift and myself. There was not any such timber
in the United States that was already got out except ours. There was
nobody else in the business but Mr. Swift and myself who could furnish it.  The Secretary knew there was no such timber any where
else in the market. But he told us distinctly that if we did not put
it in at a reasonably fair price they would not take it at all.
Question. What peculiarity was there in the specifications?
Answer. I do not remember of any.
Question. Was there a clause in the specifications which enabled
the Secretary to refuse to accept any of the bids?
Answer. Yes, sir; there was.
Question. Accompanying that he made the declaration to you that
unless your bids were reasonable, he would not take them?
Answer. Yes, sir; if I had bid for myself, I should have put in at
$1 10 as I had already offered my timber to the Secretary at that price,
and he would have considered my bid exorbitant if I had put in at
higher prices.
Question. Is it common for combinations among timber dealers to
put up the price?
Answer. There has never been any combination on my part except
in this case.
Question. Do you know of any combinations among dealers to put
up the price of timber?
Answer. Yes, sir; not upon the government particularly, but in
the trade generally.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
JAMES BIGLER recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did Mr. Swift pay you for your lumber delivered under
the contract you mentioned?
Answer. He has paid me for part of it.
Question. How much is still back?
Answer. I think about five thousand dollars.
Question. What reason, if any, does he give for retaining this sum?
Answer. One reason which he assigns is that he has not fulfilled
his contract, and the government may not pay him his percentage.
Question. What percentage do you refer to?
Answer. On all deliveries there is only 85 per cent. paid, and the
other 15 per cent. is withheld for the completion of the contract.
Question. What other reason did he assign?
Answer. Two or three other reasons.
Question. Please to state them.
Answer. After making this arrangement with Mr. Swift to have
him take my timber-some little time after that-he wanted to know
if I was going to send my men out this year to get live-oak.  I told
him that I had no idea of doing so; my principal object was to sell




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   75
the timber which I then had on hand.  In November my foreman
came to me and said it would be necessary to go down and take care
of our things that he had there-our cattle, equipments, and all our
teams, &c.; it was necessary to take charge of them, or the property
would go to waste; and he suggested to me the propriety of going
down and getting some timber.  I thought it was a good idea, and
told him  that he had better do so; and consequently they sent out
to Louisiana and got some timber-not with any particular design,
however; we knew not what we should do with it, but thought it
might be required during the coming season. Here within the last
few weeks Mr. Swift found out that I had some men in Louisiana
cutting timber, and he said that was a violation of our contract, and
that was one reason why he should not pay me.
Question. What other reason did he give?
Answer. He said he should charge me a thousand dollars for my
proportion of the expenses of getting this contract.
Question. What did he say would be the expenses incurred in
getting this contract?
Answer. He would not tell me that.
Question. Did he name to whom he had paid any money?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he tell you what the character of those expenses
was?
Answer. He said it was unnecessary to say; he said I could draw
my own inference; and simply told me that he should charge me that.
Question. What proportion does your contract bear to his whole
contract?
Answer. I had about 35,000 feet of timber in the yards, and they
wanted 125,000 feet; but in delivering this timber, as I told you yesterday, they had taken at Kittery between three and four thousand
feet of my timber, and used it, which did not come into the arrangement at all-that had no reference to the contracts.  They also paid
me for some three or four thousand feet at Norfolk, in the same way;
that did not come into this calculation at all.  I think my contract
included about 23,500 feet in round numbers; it may vary a few feet
from that. That would be all that would come into this arrangement,
being about one-sixth of the whole.
Question. What was the quality of the timber which you furnished?
Answer. The very best of timber.
Question. What size?
Answer. The sizes I furnished, principally, were from twelve to
eighteen inches.
Question. The larger class of timber?
Answer. Yes, sir. I did furnish a very small quantity of ten inch
timber; probably not over five hundred feet altogether.
Question. What was the quality of the timber furnished by Mr.
Swift under this contract?
Answer. That which they received, I think, was very good.  He
has a large amount of condemned timber in the different yards now,
sir.




76                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK,
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you ever been an active politician?
Answer. No, sir. I never had anything to do with politics in my
life. I never got a contract through political influence.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
JAMES BIGLER re-called.
By the Chairman:
Question. Mr. Bigler, I would like to have you look at this document shown you, (Senate executive document No. 21, 35th Congress,
second session, pages 24 and 25,) and state how you came to make
the offer contained in that document?
Answer. I was induced to do it by the letter of the chief of the
bureau, as you see here.
Question Was there any public advertisement in regard to that
matter?
Answer. I never knew that there was.
Question. Did any body submit a proposal besides you and Mr. Swift?
Answer. I was not aware who did. I know he did and that is all
I know about it.
Question. Do you know whether your proposal was shown to any
one?
Answer. Not that I know of.
Question. To whom was the contract awarded?
Answer. I understood some time afterwards that it was given to
Mr. Swift.
Question. I want you to state more fully than you have done, what
influences Mr. Swift brought about or used, to have the contracts
of September, 1858, annulled. I wish you to state under oath, fully,
all the information you had upon the subject from Mr. Swift?
Answer. I think I met Mr. Swift here twice. He wrote to me to
come on, and said to me that he was satisfied that those contracts,
as I very well knew, could not be filled; this was before the time had
run out at which they should be filled.  He said if they were not
filled he was satisfied that the parties would have to give them up;
the government were under obligations to him, and he thought he
could bring such influence to bear that they would give him these
contracts.  He said it was due to him  for services rendered; I told
him that I hoped he would succeed, as I felt a deep interest in it.
Question. Proceed. I am informed that you have had fuller conversations than you have stated with Mr. Swift; and I wish you to state
under oath the substance of those conversations?
Answer. That is the substance-that Mr. Swift was satisfied that
he could, through certain influences, bring about the annulling of these
contracts, and the contract would then be given to him.
Question. Did he state what influences he possessed?
Answer. No, sir; he said they owed it to him as a debt. They were
under obligations to him for services rendered; and he was confident
he could accomplish this object.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    77
Question. Did he state what the character of that debt was?
Answer. No, sir, he did not.
Question. With whom did he claim to have the influence necessary
to secure the cancellation of those contracts?
Answer. With various members of the Cabinet; and he said particularly at the White House, but he did not say that it was the
President.
Question. Did you come on in consequence of this?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was this before or after the time had expired for the
delivery of that timber?
Answer. The last conversation we had was about the time that the
contracts had expired.
Question. Now I wish to ask, at the time Mr. Swift put in his bid,
and you put in a higher bid, was it contemplated and expected by
you and him that his bid would be accepted by the government?
Answer. We thought so; I thought so and he thought so. He said
it was probable that some of these other fellows would put in lower
from what he could hear and from what he could find out. He had
been here for some days, but I did not come here until eleven o' clock
on the day when they opened the bids at three.  He said he was
satisfied that there would be several other bids put in, and he might
not get it; but he said he was sure to get it in the end, and therefore
we made a written contract, under seal, of what he would do in case
he got it.
Question. Have you that contract with you?
Answer. No, sir, I have not.
Question. What is the purport of it?
Answer. The substance of it is this: whereas the government is
advertising, and has advertised for certain live-oak to be delivered
at various navy yards, and he (Swift) has got 135,000 feet, and I
(Bigler) have got 35,000 feet; in case said Swift should get any or all
of these contracts, he would purchase my timber, provided I would
not bid against him, at the same price he should get for his.
Question. Is that the same contract to which you referred before;
you have not before said that it was in writing?
Answer. Yes, sir, it is the same thing.
Question. What did he tell you besides what you have stated as
to his influence with the government over the awarding of contracts?
Answer. I have given you the substance of what was said; there
was considerable said; I do not remember the exact words; that is
the substance of it.
Question. What degree of intimacy existed between Mr. Swift and
the officers of the government in charge of the Navy Department?
Answer. I have no reason to believe that there was any intimacy
between him and the chief of the bureau, any more than any other
contractor would have.
Question. What degree of intimacy existed between Mr. Swift and
the head of the department?
Answer. I do not know; he claimed to be a friend of Mr. Toucey's;




78                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
I do not know that he had any particular influence there himself; my
idea was, for he was a very close-mouthed man, that it was through
other influences, or through outsiders.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did he state to you the character of the services that he
alleged he had rendered?
Answer. No, sir, not at all; he said that he had done a great deal
for the administration.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. At the time you made this proposal, was there any partnership between you and Mr. Swift?
Answer. No sir, none.
Question. Was there any understanding between you?
Answer. Not in the least.
Question. Were these fair prices, at which you proposed to furnish
this timber?
Answer. That was a less rate than I was furnishing my contracts
for, which were precisely the same thing; I think it was a trifle less.
Question. Who did you say got that contract?
Answer. Mr. Swift got it.
Question. How did his prices differ from yours?
Answer. They are precisely the same thing, $2 and $1 50; only I
had it so much for curled and so much for straight, and he bid for all
together.  But there was none of the curled furnished, and so the
prices are precisely the same. I do not know why he should have
had any preference.
Question. Did you have all the timber on hand at the time?
Answer. No, sir; anybody would have had to cut it specifically.
It was particular pieces to fill contracts that had been called for.
Question. In relation to this conversation between you and Mr.
Swift, did you understand Mr. Swift to say that he had any promise
from the President or Secretary of the Navy or any other officer of
the government upon which to rely for getting this contract, or was
it simply his own opinion, from what they owed to him for what he
had done.
Answer. It was his influence; he was satisfied that he could do this
from intimations; he did not say from whom, whether the President,
the Secretary, or any member of the Cabinet.  He did not state any
particulars, but only gave me to understand that he was sure of that
contract, there could be no mistake about it, and I would be sure, if
I entered into this arrangement, of selling my timber.
Question. Did you understand him to say that this confidence of
which he spoke in that conversation was founded upon services that
he had rendered, and of what he supposed they owed him for those
services; or was it founded upon what people had told him-that he
would get the contracts?
Answer. No, sir; I did not understand him to say that he had been
told that he would get them.
Question. It was his understanding of what the government would
do for him?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     79
Answer. Yes, sir; for the services he had rendered.  It was the
influences that he could bring to bear in consequence of his services.
Question. It was his opinion of what he could do with the government, founded upon the services he had rendered?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is my idea.
Question. Did he ever tell you that the President had told him he
would get the contract?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Did he ever tell you that the Secretary of the Navy had
told him so?
Answer. No, sir; he said the Secretary of the Navy had told him
that we were faithful contractors, and there was no reason why the
timber should not be taken for the government wanted it. He thought
it was due that the timber should be taken, as it had always been
taken under similar circunstances.
Question. Does it not come within your knowledge that there is
some bad feeling between Mr. Lenthall and Mr. Swift?
Answer. I think there is.  I think he has tried to override Mr.
Lenthall, and I think Mr. Lenthall has resisted it.
Question. Does it not come within your knowledge that you are
more a favorite with Mr. Lenthall than Mr. Swift is?
Answer. I think it is very probable.
Question. This investigation has gone so far that I must ask you a
question that I should not otherwise have put to you. What are your
politics?
Answer. It would be very hard for me to tell.
Question. How have you voted? Did you vote for Mr. Buchanan?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever voted for democrats?
Answer. I voted at the last presidential election for Mr. Fillmore.
I have voted for democrats.
Question. Do you know what Mr. Swift's politics are?
Answer. I only judge from the fact of his stating that he had been
prominent in helping the election of Mr. Buchanan.
Question. How long has it been since this coolness has existed between Mr. Swift and Mr. Lenthall?
Answer. I think it existed from the time the first contracts were
taken.  The first time that I ever saw him was when I met him here;
I think it was some four years ago.  I was introduced to him by Mr.
Jarvis, who was then inspector at the Gosport navy yard. Mr. Jarvis said: "This is Mr. Swift, whose father was an old live-oak contractor, and I presume he is bidding for these contracts." That was
the first time that I ever saw Mr. Swift, but I had previously heard
that there was such a man. I was here, and Mr. Dobbin was unwell.
The bids were opened, and we were kept here a number of days
and could not find out anything about it.  Mr. Dobbin was not well
enough to come to his office, and Mr. Lenthall would not take the
responsibility.  I did not know why the contracts were not awarded,
but supposed that it was on account of the sickness of Mr. Dobbin.
I found out afterwards that there was another reason; there was a




80                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
bidder below all the rest, and one who, by right, would have had the
contract; but he was found to be an irresponsible man, and his security was not good.  Mr. Swift was very much disappointed because
my bids were a trifle under all his.  He charged me with knowing
what his bids were, for he thought it was strange that my bids
should have ranged so uniformly just under his. He got but one
ship, and I got three; and then he charged me —in a pleasant way,
however-that Mr. Lenthall had favored me.  I think he must have
charged Mr. Lenthall with it, too; for I thought Mr. Lenthall was
indignant about it.  From  that time there seemed to be a coolness
between them.
Question. IA that a correct scale of offers to furnish live-oak, under
the advertisement of the Bureau of Construction of May 2, 1857?
[showing witness the document above referred to, pages 26 and 27.]
Answer. Yes, sir; I should think it was.
Question. Who got the contracts?
Answer. Mr. Swift got all the contracts but one then.
Question. This was not the time that you referred to before?
Answer. No, sir; the contracts to which I referred were made two
years before this.
Question. What sort of a man was this Rodolphus Swift? He seems
to be the lowest bidder; why did he not get the contract?
Answer. It appears from the note that his bid, being number ten,
was received on the 16th, which was too late to receive proposals.
Question. Except Mr. Swift, who was the lowest bidder of the
three, who was the lowest bidder?
Answer. Brown & McGilvery, who offered for $68, 000.  Mr. Swift
bought them out.
Question. Has there ever been any case when you were the lowest
bidder, in which you did not get the contract?
Answer. I am not aware that there has ever been such a case.
J. BIGLER.
No. 56.-JOHN APPLETON, STATE DEPARTMENT.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
JOHN APPLETON called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Were certain contracts for the delivery of live-oak timber
sent to you by any friends of yours during last fall?
Answer. No, sir; no contracts were ever sent to me.
Question. Any papers relating to contracts?
Answer. Some gentlemen in Maine applied to me upon the subject,
and requested me to call at the Navy Department in their behalf.
They informed me that they were the lowest bidders, yet, as they
understood it, some Massachusetts contractor, who had bid higher
than they had, was about to receive the contract because these Maine
contractors could not deliver the live-oak in the short time specified.
Question. Please to state the names of any parties you refer to.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   81
Answer. I am not sure, but my impression is that the letter from
Maine came from a Mr. Berry. As it was intended that he should be
bondsman for other parties, it was in reference to them that he applied
to me.
Question. What did you do?
Answer. I went over to the Navy Department. This was the first
I had heard of them having any such contracts. I thought it my
duty, as a man from Maine, to go to the department and make some
inquiry. I went there and saw  Governor Toucey, and inquired of
him in relation to the subject. He explained to me that the advertisement had been issued some little time previously, inviting bids;
that several bids had been received; that among others, some men
from Maine had bid; that the firm of Swift and somebody else-Swift
& Bigler, I think-had bid; that the contract had been awarded to
the men in MaineQuestion. Buxton & Lawrence?
Answer. Probably those were the names. The contract had been
awarded to them as the lowest bidders, but they had failed to file their
bond. I ought to say that Mr. Berry, when he wrote to me, wrote that
he was unwilling to sign the bond for these men unless the time was
extended, for it was altogether impracticable for them to furnish this
timber unless they had another season to get it in. And it was in his
behalf, rather than that of the contractors, that I made this application to the Navy Department.  Governor Toucey said that these men
had not complied with the terms of the advertisement, had not filed
their bond, and he feared he would have to proceed against them, and
if any of the timber was needed to buy it in open market and charge
it against them under the law. I told him I thought that would be
rather hard upon them. I then asked him if the timber was really so
important for the wants of the navy as to render it necessary, in his
opinion, to give the contract to a higher bidder rather than extend
the time a little and get it at the lowest price, that was the only point
I made. I objected, in behalf of the Maine contractors, to the giving
out of that contract to persons, Swift & Bigler, or anybody else, at
high prices, if he could get it at lower prices merely by waiting a
little, provided the timber was not needed at once. I asked in behalf
of these Maine gentlemen that they should have the privilege of a
season to get out this timber, if there was no great necessity in the
matter, in order that the department and the government might have
the difference between the low and the high price. Governor Toucey
said he would think of the subject; that there were various kinds of
timber really wanted; that the advertisement was fairly made, and
that these gentlemen had bid when they had not the timber on hand,
and probably did not see their way clear to furnish it, and that it was
not dealing fairly with the government to do so; that if a man bid he
ought to be held to his bid in justice to the other bidders, or else there
was no virtue in advertising for proposals. He said he was not disposed
to do injustice to the Maine people, and would see me again about it.
I saw him once after that at the department; I went over for that
purpose. He said that since I saw him before he had received a bid
from Swift & Bigler, or from one or the other of them, in which they
6B




82                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
proposed, in order to avoid the difficulty I had mentioned to him
previously, and which he felt himself, as I understood, to take the
contract at the rate of the lowest bidder, and furnish the timber at
once. He said he did not see how the department or the government
could suffer under that arrangement, or how any of the contractors
could suffer, as it saved the interests of the government, and saved
any loss to the first contractors, as there would be no charging up
against them. He proposed to accept this low bid, and get the timber
at once, instead of waiting a year to allow it to be cut and then taking
it at the same price.  That relieved my difficulty, or rather presented
the case in an aspect that I could not very well answer, and I left
it in that way, and had no further conversation with him upon the
subject.
Question. Did Mr. Berry make any other objection to signing the
bond, except the fact that the time was too brief for the delivery of
the timber?
Answer. I do not think he did. I think that General Berry
wrote me that these Maine contractors had asked him  to become
security for them, but he was satisfied that they could not comply
with the terms of the contract, and he was not willing to put his
name upon a bond for a contract that could not be executed. He said
something about the department calling for the timber in a very short
time, adding that he supposed it might have been in consequence of
the rumors of a war just about the time the advertisement had been
issued; but as that difficulty had now passed away there was no such
immediate necessity for the timber.  He said that if I would apply
at the Navy Department and get them to extend the time for a year
he would be willing to sign the bond for his friends.
Question. Is that all you know of the matter?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have never had any conversation with Governor Toucey except to make that suggestion, and withdrew it when
he received it in that way.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you formally withdraw your objection to his proceeding to award the contract to Mr. Swift?
Answer. I do not know that I formally withdrew  it; I only felt
myself silenced as to any-further objection.
Question. Did the Secretary state the amount of timber that he
thought was necessary?
Answer. No, sir; he merely said that portions of it were necessary.
I know nothing about such matters, and can say nothing about the
quality or kind of timber.
Question. Did he say that he was satisfied that these gentlemen
had bid without any intention to comply with their contracts?
Answer. I do not know that he said that; but the idea he communicated to me was that nobody ought to make a bid under an advertisement, unless he felt that we could comply with the terms of the
bid, and that it was unfair to other contractors or bidders for him to
come in at a low price and then ask to have the time extended under
which to fulfil the contract; that was the idea communicated to me,
JOHN APPLETON.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     83
NO. 70.-TESTIMONY OF W. C. N. SWIFT, OF NEW BEDFORD, MASSo
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
W. C.  N. SWIFT called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside Mr. Swift?
Answer. In New Bedford, MAass.
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. I am a merchant.
Question. In what article do you deal?
Answer. I carry on the whaling business in New Bedford. I am
an importer of oil, &co
Question. Are you engaged in any other business?
Answer. I have also some live-oak contracts with the government.
Question. How long have you been engaged in the timber business?
Answer. I first commenced in that business when I was nineteen
years old.
Question. Have you been carrying it on more or less ever since?
Answer. Yes, sir, with intermissions of severalyears.
Question. How long have you been supplying timber to the government?
Answer. I was supplying timber to the government from 1834 to
1844, I think.
Question. You have also supplied the government with timber subsequently to that time, have you not?
Answer. I do not think I supplied this government with any timber between 1844 and 1855; I made a contract with the government
in 1855 and in 1857.
Question. The next contract after that of 1844 was in 1855?
Answer. I think that was the case.
Question. Were you an applicant before that time for contracts to
supply the government with live oak —-say from 1854 to 1855?
Answer. Yes, sir, I made application frequently.
Question. But got no contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Were you a bidder under the proposals of June, 1858?
Answer. I was.
Question. What was the peculiarity of those proposals, or was
there any peculiarity as compared with other proposals for specifications?
Answer. I do not remember any peculiarity about them.
Question. Was there no peculiarity in regard to the length of time
allowed for the delivery of timber under those proposals?
Answer. The time was shorter than usual.
Question. Do you know why that was?
Answer. I suppose the government had need of the timber.
Question. Who were the contractors under those proposals?
Answer. I was the contractor; or, at least, I got the contract subsequently.




84                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. How did it happen that you got the contract?
Answer. I suppose it was because I could furnish the timber more
advantageously than anybody else.
Question. Were you the lowest bidder among those who bid originally?
Answer. I suppose I was not.
Question. Do you know who were the lowest bidders?
Answer. I do not know of my own knowledge; I have heard.
Question. Were you here about the time those proposals were being
issued, and being made up in the department?
Answer. I do not think I was; immediately before.
Question. Did you have any conversation with the Secretary or
chief of the bureau in relation to the getting up of these proposals,
or with regard to a change in the time allowed for delivery?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Neither with the Secretary, the chief of the bureau, nor
the President?
Answer. No, sir; I do not remember having any conversation at all
upon that subject.
Question. What was the time allowed for the delivery of the first
half of the timber?
Answer. I think it was the first of September.
Question. When was the contract awarded to you?
Answer. It was some time during the month of September; perhaps about the 20th.
Question. When did you make the first delivery of timber under
that contract?
Answer. I do not remember the dates of the bills; I suppose the
time the bills were made out fixed the date of delivery.  It was some
weeks subsequent to that, as well as I remember.
Question. How did it happen that you were able to supply the
timber in so short a time?
Answer. I had a part of it on hand at the time.
Question. Where was your timber that you had on hand?
Answer. A considerable portion of it was in the navy yards.
Question. Where was the remainder of it?
Answer. Some of it was in New Bedford, some in Falmouth, and
some in Louisiana.
Question. How did you happen to have that timber on hand?
Answer. I had had a contract with the government for furnishing
certain kinds of timber, and in procuring that I got other timber which
I was aware was required by the service.
Question. What was done with that other timber?
Answer. It was sent forward with the timber which I had contracted to deliver.
Question. Is it the custom, when you are fulfilling a contract, to
have timber which is not suitable, and store it in the navy yards, or
do they require you to remove it?
Answer. It is always the custom, so far as my observation has




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     85
extended, for such timber to be received and taken by the department.
Question. How taken by the department?
Answer. In procuring live-oak timber to fill our contracts, when we
have to furnish pieces of peculiar shapes, (crooked timber, for instance, as in this case,) there are a great many other pieces which
must be procured at the same time or left to be wasted; and that would
be a policy which the naval commissioners who had charge of these
matters, and with whom for the most part I had had these contracts
previously, took into consideration; and they always took the surplus
timber from contractors.  It was the practice of the department.
And in every instance when I procured timber in that way it has been
received in the navy yards and allowed to remain there, and has been
purchased by the department when wanted.
Question. Has that been the case with other contractors, that articles not called for by the contract would be received and allowed to
remain in the yards?
Answer. It has always been the case with live-oak timber, so far as
my knowledge extends.
Question. Was there any difficulty in relation to your storing this
timber in the yards?
Answer. There was no objection that I heard of except in the
Philadelphia yard. I heard of no objection until I received a letter
from Commodore Stewart stating that the timber must be taken out.
Question. Did you have any conversation with the constructor there,
or at New York, in relation to storing timber in those yards?
Answer. I do not remember that I did, sir.
Question. What did you do when Commodore Stewart objected to
your storing timber in the yard?
Answer. I replied to him that my business was such that I could
not leave home at the time, but as soon as I could I would come on
and attend to it.  In the mean time, if he chose to have it stored
away at my expense he could do so, and leave it to the department to
decide upon the matter.
Question. What was the result; was there any appeal made to the
department about it?
Answer. I think there was; I suppose there was.  The result was
that the timber was piled up.
Question. What was there peculiar about this timber that made it
inadmissible under your former contract?
Answer. It had not the shape and form required by the contract.
Question. Do you mean that it was not crooked timber; that it was
straighter timber than was required?
Answer. Yes, sir; it was straighter timber.
Question. Was it such timber as is used in building and repairing
vessels.
Answer. It was.
Question. How happened you to get straighter timber, or timber of
a different shape, than that which your contract called for?
Answer. As I said before, in procuring crooked timber it is neces



86                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
sary to get straight timber with it, or it goulc be wasted; and this
straight timber is more required in the repairs of vessels than crooked
timber is; it is more useful for some purposes. A certain portion of
it is as necessary as the crooked timber in carrying on the service.
Question. Did you make any recommlendation to the department
about that timber, or propose to sell it in open purchase.
Answer. I did.
Question. What was the result of that proposal?
Answer. They declined to purchase it.
Question, Do you know upon what ground they declined?
Answer. I understood that the ground was that it was necessary to
advertise, although the timber was represented by the constructors in
the navy yards at Norfolk and New York, and I believe in other yards,
as being wanted.
Question. To whom did the constructors represent that they wanted
it?
Answer. To the department. I cannot say that I know it, although
I have no doubt of it.
Question. You say it was represented that they wanted it; to whom
was it represented; was it to you?
Answer. I had a conversation with those gentlemen, and understood them to say that they thought the timber was needed; and it is
the custom, I think, of the constructors and proper officers of the
yard, when articles are in the yards that are required for the service,
to report the fact to the bureau.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. What gentlemen were those with whom you had this
conversation?
Answer. I refer particularly to the constructors at New York and
at Norfolk.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When the statement was made to you by the departnient that it was necessary to advertise, were you then informed that
they would put the advertisement into a form to include your timber
and exclude other bidders?
Answer. Not at all, sir.
Question. What was the statement made to you by the department
in relation to the advertisement when you made the proposal to sell
them the timber in open purchase?
Answer. The statement made to me was, that the department
would advertise for such timber as they wanted.
Question. For the timber they wanted, or for such timber as you
[red?
Answer. For the timber they wanted. They did not advertise for
such timber as I had.
Question. When the advertisement appeared, did you represent to
other gentlemen that they need not bid, because that advertisement
was intended simply to cover your timber?
Answer. No, sir; I could not have made any such representation
as that.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   87
Question. Do you say that you had nothing to do with fixing the
time at which the first half of the timber was to be delivered, and
shaping the advertisement as it came from the department?
Answer, I do, sir.
Question. Was all your timber that you had stored in the yards
received under these proposals from the department?
Answer. It was not.
Question. How much of it was rejected?
Answer. A very large proportion of it, sir; how much I cannot
say.
Question. What has been done with that?
Answer. It is in the yard yet.  I have verbally requested the
bureau to hold a survey, and to have persons appointed to reinspect
it, believing that too great rigor has been shown in its inspection.
Question. In what yard has your timber chiefly been rejected by
the inspector?
Answer. I think more of it has been rejected in New York than in
in the other yards; but it has been rejected in several yards.
Question. Do you know whether the timber that you have supplied
under this last contract has been used by the government, and to
what extent it has been used?
Answer. I do not know that of my own knowledge. Some of it may,
perhaps, have been used in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; but I am
not positive about it from my own knowledge.' Question. What has been done with the timber; have you seen
anything done with it, so far as passed under your observation and
within your knowledge?
Answer. I have seen some of it used; I do not know that I have
seen the remainder of it stored away.
Question. You say you have seen some of it used?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. At what yard have you seen some of it used?
Answer. At the New York yard.
Question. How much have you seen used?
Answer. I have seen some of the timber of the new sloop buiilding
at New York, which the constructor told me was got from my timber.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was some of your timber taken for the new sloop now
constructing at New York?
Answer. Yes sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What sloop is that?
Answer. I do not know that she is named; it is one of those that
were authorized at the last session of Congress.
Question. Do you mean that the frame of the vessel is made of your
live oak?
Answer. Yes, sir; some of the top timbers; I would not say that
it was all of live oak, but the greater part of it is.
Question. Is the frame of that vessel made of live oak?




88                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. A part of it is made of live oak and a part of white oak;
the most of the floor timbers are white oak, I think.
Question. Did you have a sufficient quantity of timber of your own
to deliver all that was required at the first delivery, in September?
Answer. No sir; I did not.
Question. What did you do; how did you meet the requirements
of your contract?
Answer. There was timber belonging to other parties that was
used.
Question. What other parties?
Answer. To Mr. Bigler, of Newburgh, New York, and Oliver
Swift, of Falmouth.
Question. Did you make any arrangement with Mr. Bigler to get
possession of his timber?
Answer. I had an understanding with Mr. Bigler about it.
Question. What sort of an understanding? What do you mean by
an understanding? Did you have a contract or agreement with him;
and if so, what was the nature of it?
Answer. There was a contract or agreement between Mr. Bigler
and myself previous to the reception of the proposals under these
contracts, which was based upon the contingency of the acceptance
of my proposals.
Question. What was the nature of your bargain with Mr. Bigler?
Answer. The nature of it was to the effect that it would require
the timber of both of us to comply with the requirements of the
contracts, and that it should be for mutual advantage or disadvantage.
Question. How is that?
Answer. The agreement was that the timber should meet with the
same market upon the average.
Question. I do not know whether you have made that sufficiently
distinct.  Did you make any specific agreement to take his timber if
you got the contract, and did he agree to take yours if he got it?
Answer. I agreed that if my proposal was accepted I would take
his timber in upon certain terms, which was upon the principle of
mutual advantage?
Question. What were the terms?
Answer. I do not know that I can state more distinctly than that.
I do not remember.  I never have seen the writings since.
Question. Was his timber to be taken at the same price with yours,
or at a different price?
Answer. It was to be taken at the same price.
Question. Was there any alternative proposition that if his bid
should be accepted he was to take your timber?
Answer. I think not.
Question. Did you get his timber under that arrangement?
Answer. No, sir, not under that arrangement, because the bargain
or agreement was based upon the contingency of the acceptance
of my bid, which was not accepted; but subsequently we entered
into another agreement.
Question. What was the nature of that agreement?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  89
Answer. Mr. Bigler was to pay me one thousand dollars.
Question. For what-for the privilege of letting you have his
timber?
Answer. He gave up his timber to me, and I was to furnish it to
the government and give him the same price that I got for it.
Question. He was to let you have his timber and pay you a thousand
dollars, you say; upon what account was that thousand dollars to be
paid?
Answer. It was on account of the greater responsibility which I
took in the matter. The situation of things had been changed. At
the time these proposals were sent in, I had a much larger amount of
timber than I had when I took these contracts; it had been received
upon my other contracts, so that there were very great difficulties
and disadvantages to me in executing this contract; and in view of
that, and the responsibility which I took, and the expenses which I
had incurred in the matter, I told Mr. Bigler that it was right and
just in my judgment that he should pay me a thousand dollars, and if
he would do so, the original arrangement should continue; and he
said he would.
Question. Was that thousand dollars to cover the expenses you had
been at to get this contract made; did you so state to Mr. Bigler,
that he ought to pay you a thousand dollars on account of expenses
you had been at to get this thing through?
Answer. No, sir; I stated that I had been at great expense; I had
been here in Washington a great deal endeavoring to get the timber
taken; I told him that this was not a subject for argument, if he
agreed to it, it was a bargain, and if not it was not; I thought it was
right and just that he should pay me a thousand dollars; and I think
now that it should have been more, on account of the disadvantages
I labored under and the great increase of expenses in consequence
of my having so short a time.
Question. Did you not tell him that it was in consequence of the
great expenses you had been at to get this thing through?
Answer. No, sir, I do not remember having used any such expression.
Question. You say now that it was partly in consequence of expenses?
Answer. Yes, sir; I named that to Mr. Bigler as one reason why I
thought it was just; the conversation was only for a few moments.
Question. When he asked you what these expenses were, and how
they arose, what reply did you make to that?
Answer. At this time he asked no such questions that I remember.
Question. Did he ever ask you such questions?
Answer. Yes, sir; subsequently he asked some such question, and
intimated that I had paid something to get the contract; he said if I
had paid anything he wanted to know it, and I told him that I had
not paid anything.
Question. Did he ask you if you had paid anything to get the
contract?




90                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. He said something to that effect; he said if I had he
wanted to know how it was, and I told him that I had not done so.
Question. Did you not tell him that this matter of expense was a
thing that you could not explain, and could not go into with him?
Answer. I told him that there was no explanation to be made in
relation to that matter; that was the understanding between us.
This thousand dollars he agreed to pay without any argument, but
afterwards he demurred at paying it, and wanted some explanations.
I told him that I had no explanations to give; he had agreed to pay
it to me.
Question. What was the nature of the expenses that you had
been at?
Answer. I had spent a good deal of time in Washington in the
course of this business, and my expenses had been pretty large, my
hotel expenses, &c.
Question. Were there any other besides hotel expenses and travelling expenses, and loss of time?
Answer. I do not know of any.
Question. Were there any little donations made around anywhere?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was there any money given or present made to any
officer of the government?
Answer. No, sir; no present of money.
Question. Was there any present of money, or any other valuable
article?
Answer. Not to get any contract.
Question. Was there any present made by you to any officer of the
government on any account?
Answer. Well, I may have given a box of wine and a few cigarsnothing more.
Question. To whom was a box of wine given?
Answer. I think it was long before this matter was talked of; that
is my impression.
Question. To whom was it given?
Answer. I have given one to Mr. Welsh?
Question. You have given him a box of wine?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And what else?
Answer. I think I gave him a hundred cigars.
Question. Is that all that you have given him?
Answer. I said one box; it may have been a box or two of wine?
Question. Cannot you remember, distinctly, how much wine you
gave him?
Answer. I cannot; I do not know how much it was.
Question. Can you not remember whether you gave him wine more
than once?
Answer. I do not think I did; I cannot remember, and still I may
have done so.
Question. Have you given anything else to any officer of the government?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    91
AnswTer. I have not.
Question. Can you fix the time, from recollection, when you gave
this wine and cigars?
Answer. I think it is more than a year ago.
Question. Was there any understanding between you and Mr. Welsh,
when you gave him the box of wine, that he would intercede for you
to get the contract?
Answer. No, sir; there was none.
Question. You said, I believe, that Mr. Bigler's timber was received under this arrangement, in fulfilment of your contract?
Answer. In fulfilment of the agreement subsequent to the contract.
Question. Did you get timber of anybody else to aid you in fulfilling this contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; I did.
Question. Who else?
Answer. Of Oliver C. Swift, of Falmouth, Mass.
Question. How much did you get of him?
Answer. He thought he had about 16,000 feet; but how much
there proved to be of it I am not able to say. I think it was not much
more than half of that amount.
Question. Did you ever say anything to the President about getting
contracts from the departments?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Did you ever say anything to him about your services in
behalf of the democratic party, and in favor of his election, and
make any claim on that ground?
Answer. Never, sir; not a word.
Question. Did you ever speak to the Secretary of the Navy upon
that subject?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. One of the witnesses has testified that you stated you
could bring influences to bear to enable you to get this contractthat you expected that contract and could bring influences to bear to
get it.  What were those influences?
Answer. I do not remember making any such statement.
Question. Did you rely upon the assistance of the President in
getting the contract?
Answer. I did not, sir.
Question. Did you rely upon the Secretary of the Navy, thinking
that in consequence of your services to the democratic party he would
be disposed to give you the contract?
Answer. I had no reason to suppose so, from the fact that the
Secretary of the Navy had stated to me once, when I told him that
other contractors had had favors which were denied to me, and being
a friend to the administration I thought I ought to stand, in my turn,
a better chance for favors than its opponents.
Question. What favors had other persons received which were
denied to you?
Answer. In the reception of timber and the buying of timber.
Question. Buying timber in open market?




92                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. I thought so, and the Secretary told me that he never
should lay himself open to the reproach of partiality; this was a
business matter and he must treat it as such, and render equal justice
to all. In other matters, which were not business matters, he said
the friends of the administration would be entitled to consideration.
Question. Did you rely upon the assistance of Mr. Lenthall to help
you through with the contract?
Answer. I did not, sir.
Question. Did you rely upon any special favor from Mr. Welsh?
Answer. I did not, sir. Mr. Welsh has never aided me at all to
my knowledge.  He has always said that my business was bureau
business, which he had nothing to do with.
Question. How did the intimacy spring up between you and Mr.
Welsh, that led to your making him a present of this wine and cigarshow long have you known him?
Answer. I have known him for several years.
Question. Did you know him before he went into the Navy Department?
Answer. I have only known him since he was chief clerk there.
Question. Had he shown himself specially friendly to you in any way?
Answer. Not in the way of business. I have often asked him and
tried to get him to aid me, but he said it was out of the line of his duty.
Question. Did you expect Mr. Plitt to interfere with the President
and Secretary?
Answer. I did not, sir.  I never have made any application, directly or indirectly, to the President in relation to this matter.
Question. At what prices did you agree to take the contract for
the supply of timber at the different navy yards?
Answer. There were different prices; $1 09 for some kinds.
Question. What was your last proposal which was accepted by the
department? What were the prices at which you ultimately agreed
to furnish this timber at the different yards-cannot you fix it by any
standard, without naming the particular sums, say with regard to the
prices of other gentlemen?
Answer. I offered to take it at the lowest prices, whatever they
might be, provided I could have all the contracts.
Question. You agreed to take it at each yard at the prices of the
lowest bidder, provided you got all the contracts; the lowest bidder
for each yard, do you mean?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you complied with your undertaking to any extent,
with regard to supplying the Pensacola yard?
Answer. The contract has been abrogated by the department, although I think it was done unjustly.
Question. Your contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; my contract has been abrogated.
Question. When was it abrogated?
Answer. It was abrogated, I think, about the middle of December
last.  I had in Louisiana at the time these contracts were taken fifteen
thousand feet or upwards of live-oak timber, which had been procured




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    93
last year and was ready for shipment, and I expected to have shipped
it immediately to the Pensacola yard to comply with the terms of the
contract, but the yellow fever prevailed in that section of the country.  This timber was about five or six miles north of Berwick city,
and the yellow fever prevented its shipment, for vessels could not be
obtained to carry it.  As soon as the season would permit, I sent
vessels from the north to get it; but they had long passages, and were
a long time loading, and that was the cause of the delay in furnishing
it at this yard. The contract was abrogated. I represented that
vessels were under charter to take the whole amount of this timberthat is, twenty-five thousand feet, and that it was all procured ready
for delivery. The commodore of the yard, who had heard that these
vessels had been loading, or probably the bills of lading had been sent
there, advised the department that he had heard of this timber being
shipped, and the department then instructed him to receive it until
the first of February.
Question. How do you know the contract was abrogated; were you
notified of it?
Answer. Yes, sir; I was notified of it.
Question. Did you proceed forthwith to make these representations
to the department that you speak of?
Answer. I wrote a letter to the chief of the bureau as soon as I
received the notice, and telegraphed to him likewise, I think.
Question. Communicating these facts to him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much of your timber has now been delivered at
Pensacola?
Answer. I am not able to say.  The vessels have sailed, but they
have had long passages, and have been a long time loading.  Whether
there is one there now or not I do not know.
Question. Do you know whether any one of your vessels has delivered a load of timber at Pensacola?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many vessels do you know?
Answer. There were five vessels chartered, I think.
Question. How many of them do you know to have arrived?
Answer. I only know that one has arrived.  I suppose that two
must have arrived.  One vessel that was chartered to go to that yard
has been lost.
Question. One of your vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. With its load of timber?
Answer. It was a vessel that I had chartered; but she was lost previous to her taking her load of timber; that delayed the operations
likewise.
Question. Do you remember a contract in the fall of 1857 which was
abrogated, and was afterwards proposed for by you and Mr. Bigler?
Answer. Yes, sir; a contract for the New York yard.
Question. It seems from the statement that your bid and Mr. Bigler's
were at the same prices; you proposed to supply the timber at the




94                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
same price he did.  How did it happen that you got the contract
over him?
Answer. I understood from  Mr. Bigler that his bid was not in
accordance with the letter of the department; he bid for other kinds
of timber in addition to those required by the department in the
letter to him. His bid in that respect was informal.
Question. He bid not only for the species of timber required, but
for others also?
Answer. Yes, sir, for others which they did not require.
Question. Have you in any case, so far as you know, received a
contract from the department when there were others proposing to
supply the timber upon equally favorable terms?
Answer. There were none; but I would state that a contract was
made in 1856, I think, which Mr. Bigler got, for completing a frame
in Norfolk.  I wrote to tie department requesting the privilege of
bidding for it, but my request was not granted.
Question. Was there any circumstance within your knowledge
which made it particularly important for the government to have a
good supply of live oak of the sort you had on hand in 1858?
Answer. Yes, sir; in my judgment it was necessary, and if it is
proper I will state why I think so.
Question. State any reason within your knowledge.
Answer. I knew that the supply of live oak, straight live oak, promiscuous timber fit for repairing ships, was very small indeed. At
Norfolk, conversing with the constructor, I understood him to say
that he thought the repair of the two 74's which were lying in the
yard at the time (the Delaware and the Columbus, I think) would take
all the timber of that kind in the yard, so that the yard would be
entirely deficient.  I believe it to be substantially the same in other
yards. At that time there was a very great excitement in relation to
the search of our vessels by British cruisers, and it was stated that
the Navy Department had ordered our vessels to fire into and attack
these ships to prevent their doing it. There certainly was very great
danger of a collision. If that had occurred, it would have been found
that all the yards were very deficient of these materials. I think that
the department would have been very much blamed for not laying in
a store of these materials, which cannot be obtained in time of war.
Question. Do you know of your own knowledge anything about the
quantity of timber kept on hand at the British navy yards?
Answer. I do, sir.  I have had a contract with the British government, and have been at several of their dock yards; and I know that
their supplies are very much larger than ours.
Question. Which of their dock yards?
Answer. At Portsmouth and at Chatham  particularly; I have
delivered materials at those yards.
Question. Have not they a much smaller number of yards at which
to keep timber?
Answer. I am not able to answer the question.  Portsmouth and
Chatham are great depots.  The requirements of their service are
very much greater than of ours; but the English, I suppose, do not




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                     95
consider themselves liable to a blockade of their ports in time of
war, which might be the case with us.
Question. Do you say now distinctly that you never took any steps
to have any of your services to the democratic party, and your contributions to aid the election of Mr. Buchanan, made known to him
or to the Secretary of the Navy, as a ground for receiving favor as a
contractor?
Answer. I do, sir.
Question. Do you know whether this was ever so represented to
them?
Answer. To the President, to my knowledge, no representation of
the kind has been made. I believe some friends of mine called upon
the Secretary of the Navy in the early part of the administration, and
stated something of the kind to him. That is not of my own knowledge.
Question. Did they do it at your instance?
Answer. No, sir; I think not.
Question. Cannot you be certain about that; whether it was or was
not so?
Answer. I believe that I never asked any man to approach the
Secretary upon that ground.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You say that you had no contracts from 1844 to 1857?
Answer. I was mistaken.  I remember that I had a contract; I
think it was in 1855, for frigates framed at Pensacola; which I complied with.
Question. What amount of timber did you contract in 1857 to deliver?
Answer. 150,000 feet in one contract, and 15,800 feet in another.
Question. That was all in that year?
Answer. I think it was, sir.
Question. Under your contract of July 1, 1857, you had until
July 1, 1859, to deliver the timber?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Under your small contract, of November 17, 1857, you
had until July 20, 1858, to deliver the timber?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Under the advertisement of last June, at what time
were the contracts awarded?
Answer. The Secretary was unwell, and there was some delay. It
was in August, I think.
Question. What was the amount of timber to be delivered under
that contract?
Answer. 150,000 feet, I believe.
Question. One-half the timber was to be delivered by the 1st of
September, and the other half by the 1st of February.  Have you
ever known or heard of a contract to that extent with such a short
time as that for delivery?
Answer. No, sir; I know of none such.




96                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. It has not happened before in the history of live-oak
transactions, so far as you know?
Answer. I do not know of any such instance.
Question. How much timber did you furnish under this last contract?
Answer. Really, sir, I am unable to say.
Question. Can you give any guess?
Answer. I do not know that I could. There is timber lying in the
yards that will come in under that contract that has not been received.
Question. You say "they did not advertise for such timber as I
had."  Do you mean that you had no such timber as they advertised
for?
Answer. No, sir; but I had timber not included in the advertisement, and some that was advertised for I had not.
Question. Had you any that was included?
Answer. I had.  I did not mean to say that I had not the timber.
The advertisement was not made to suit my timber; if it had been, it
would have been different. That is what I meant to say.
By the Chairman:
Question. Please to look at the following table:
Contracts with Swiftfor live-oak.
July 1,1857.-Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Gosport, 150,000
cubic   feet........................................    $207,840
Time deliveries by contract, July 1, 1858; July 1, 1859.
November 17, 1857.-Brooklyn yard, 15,800 cubic feet...   25,100
Time of delivery by contract, July 30, 1858.
September 23,1858.-Kittery, Charlestown, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Gosport, Pensacola, 150,000 cubicfeet.......  166, 900
Time of delivery, by contract, one-half immediately; balance
February 1, 1859.
389,840
Total, 315,800 cubic feet; amounting to $389,840.
Does that state correctly the amounts of your several contracts
with the government for live-oak timber in 1857 and 1858?
Answer. It is a correct statement.
Question. Did you take an active part in the election in Pennsylvania for President in 1856?
Answer. I took a great interest in it.
Question. How much did you contribute towards that election in
Pennsylvania?
Answer. I do not remember, sir.
Question. About how much?
Answer. I do not remember, sir.
Question. How much did you pay yourself, or procure to be paid,
to any one to aid in the election in Pennsylvania in 1856?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    97
Answer. Really I could not state, except from the examination of
my books.
Question. Was it as much as $10,000?
Answer. It was.
Question. Was it as much as $20,000?
Answer. I think not.
Question. It was between these two sums?
Answer. I think it was, sir.
Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. George Plitt?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much of this money did you pay to him?
Answer. All of it I think, sir; most of it.
Question. Are you related to Mr. Plitt?
Answer. No, sir; I am not.
Question. What agreement did you enter into with him  at any
time?  Did you enter into any agreement with him, at any time, in
regard to his services in procuring you contracts?
Answer. I think that at some time during the last administration,
five years ago, more or less, I do not remember the time, I had some
conversation and agreement, in fact, with him.
Question. Was that agreement in writing?
Answer. I think so.
Question. Have you the agreement now?
Answer. I presume I have a copy of it.
Question. Will you please to produce it?
Answer. I cannot produce it; I have it somewhere, I suppose; but
where it is I do not know.
Question. Have you not a copy in this city?
Answer. No, sir; I have it at home, but I should not know where
to find it.
Question. What is the purport of it?
Answer. As nearly as I remember it was, that being occupied in
other matters, I could not come on here; and if he could make it
convenient to come and could negotiate a contract upon certain terms,
for certain kinds of live oak, in a certain quantity, I would pay him
a certain percentage.
Question. How much per cent.?
Answer. I think it was ten per cent.
Question. What kind of services did this contract contemplate and
provide for?
Answer. That he should come on here and represent the matter to
the department, and get a contract.
Question. How long was this before you paid him the money to aid
in the election?
Answer. It was a year or two previous.
Question. Was that contract a continuing contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you not know that he understood it as a continuing
contract?
Answer. I never understood so until recently; I understand it now.
7 B




98                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK
Question. Did you ever deny that it was a continuing contract until
last October?
Answer. It never was asserted to be a continuing contract until
recently.
Question. Is Mr. Plitt a timber merchant?
Answer. I suppose he is not.
Question. Has he ever been engaged in that business?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Did you at any time between the first of April and the
appearance of this advertisement furnish to the department a schedule
of the timber you had on hand at the navy yards last spring and summer?
Answer. I offered to the department some timber that I had lying
at the Norfolk yard some time, I think, between the periods you
specified.
Question. I will repeat the question. Did you furnish to the department a schedule of the timber you had on hand prior to the publication of this advertisement?
Answer. I made an offer to the department of the timber I had,
supposing that they would purchase it.
Question. Did you, in that offer, furnish a schedule of your timber?
Answer. In the offer, I stated the timber I had to deliver. I proposed to deliver certain quantities of timber.
Question. Did you describe that timber, the quantity and character
of it, in your offer?
Answer. I did; I presume I did; I made a proposition of the kind,
and must have done so.
Question. Was that timber afterwards taken under your contract
of September, 1858?
Answer. Some of it was.
Question. What proportion of it was, three-eights, nine-tenths, or
what?
Answer. I cannot say, sir.
Question. Was it one-tenth?
Answer. More than that.
Question. Was it three-fourths of the timber you had?
Answer. I think not; but really am unable to say. I do not know.
Question. What they did not take is still in the navy yards?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question.  How long before the advertisement of June, 1858, was
it that you made this offer and furnished the schedules?
Answer. I do not remember, sir, I suppose it was in the month of
May.
Question. What was the usual quantity of live-oak timber furnished
to the government annually prior to 1857?
Answer. During the administration of the Navy Department, by
the Navy Commissioners, under the Secretary of the Navy, before the
bureau system, the plan of adding $500,000 worth of live-oak timber
annually to the stores in the yards, was adopted, and carried out, I
believe.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    99
Question. Do you say that the government bought $500, 000 worth
of live-oak timber annually prior to 1842?
Answer. I think so. There were very large contracts given out in
1836, and always previous to that the navy commissioners bought
all the live-oak they could get at fair prices. The prices were higher
than they are now, and the expense of procuring the timber was much
less.
Question. Can you state the amount annually called for during the
administration of General Pierce?
Answer. I think it was very little. I do not know what was called
for by the bureau; but what was appropriated for by Congress, I
believe, was very little. The amount was comparatively small; hence,
arose the necessity, the absolute necessity of adding to the stock.
Question. Were the contracts awarded to you upon your bids of
1857?
Answer. Three contracts.
Question. Were you the lowest bidder?
Answer. I believe I was.
Question. Did you alter your bids after you put them in?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Was there any alteration in the bids after they were
opened?
Answer. Not to my knowledge,
Question. Have you delivered all the live oak under your contracts
of 1857?
Answer. I have not; the time has not expired.
Question. How much of it have you delivered?
Answer. I have delivered considerably more than the amount required in the contract for the first year's delivery.
Question. The balance is not yet delivered?
Answer. It is not.
Question. Have you delivered all the live oak called for under
your contract of November 17, 1857?
Answer. I have delivered it all, and delivered in duplicates many
pieces which were considered of a doubtful quality and liable to rejection.  But 150 odd pieces are deficient on account of rejections.
Question. Has that Blanchard contract been cancelled?
Answer. It has not; I have delivered every piece.
Question. Was that advertised for before it was given to.you,?
Answer. I believe not.
Question. How came you to bid for it, then, or to enter into, the
contract?
Answer. I was notified by the department that a bid would be
received from me for it.
Question. Do you know whether anybody else was notified*i?
Answer. I have understood that Mr. Bigler was notified.
Question. Do you know why there was not a public advertisement?
Answer. I think that when a contract is not complied with, it is
at the discretion of the department to give it to whom they pleaseto make it an open purchase.




100               CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Do you know whether any other live-oak dealer was
notified of the neglect of Blanchard?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. In September, 1858, how much were you delinquent upon
the Blanchard contract?
Answer. Only the pieces that had been rejected.
Question. Had you at that time delivered one-half of the timber
covered by the contract of 1857 in each of the navy yards.
Answer. I had, more than half, at all the navy yards except Philadelphia, where, in consequence of an error of shipment, there was a
deficiency of a few hundred feet.
Question. Did not the officers of the yards direct you to have your
rejected timber removed, in the summer of 1858, as it was interfering with the public interest and business?
Answer. Only in one instance was a complaint made that I am
aware of, and that was in Philadelphia.
Question. What steps did you take; did you remove it?
Answer. I proposed that it should be piled up, so as to be placed
out of the way.
Question. Did you move it?
Answer. I did not move it.
Question. Did you apply to the department in regard to this
matter?
Answer. I made a statement of the case to the department.
Question. What order was issued from the department?
Answer. I do not know, sir; I suppose an order to have it piled up.
Question. At the time you made the arrangement with Bigler was
it not understood that he was to put in a higher bid than you in order
to prevent competition between you and him?
Answer. I think it was.
Question. Did you expect to receive the contract at your bid when
you put it in, in the summer of 1858?
Answer. I do not think I did, sir. The department in the proposals had reserved the right of not giving out any contract if they
saw fit. I supposed that if the department thought the bids too
higb, although it might be the lowest bid, they would not accept it
uanless I cut it down.
Question. Did you not know at the time that no other bidder could
{comply with the requirements of the advertisement?
Answer.. I supposed that to be the case.
Question. Was not that spoken of and talked over between you and
Mr. Bigler?
Answer. It may have been.
Question. Was not that spoken of and talked over between you and
Mr. Welsh?
Answer. No, sir; I never spoke to Mr. Welsh about it that I recollect.
Question. Was not that spoken of and talked over between you and
Mr. Toucey?
Answer. No, sir.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                101
Question. Was it not anticipated by you and by Mr. Toucey that
your lumber would be covered by that advertisement?
Answer. I cannot say what the Secretary anticipated.
Question. Was it not understood between you and Mr. Toucey?
Answer. I did not have an understanding with Mr. Toucey. I had
urged the Secretary to buy my timber. I thought he ought to buy
it; and I think now he ought to have bought it, and to have given
me a fair price for it.
Question. Was it not understood between you that your bid was
the only one that could be accepted under the advertisement?
Answer. I thought I was the only one that had the timber to comply with the contract.
Question. Did Mr. Toucey know that fact?
Answer. I cannot say.
Question. Do you not know that he knew it?
Answer. He knew I had timber, because I had urged him to buy it.
Question. Did he not know that no one else could deliver it at that
time?
Answer. I do not know about that.
Question. Was it not spoken of between you and him?
Answer. I do not remember speaking of it. I urged upon the
Secretary to purchase my timber; and I said that I understood that
the timber was wanted.
Question. Did you not inform him that no one else had that kind of
timber in the market?
Answer. I do not think that I gave him that information. Whether
he knew it or not, I cannot say. I do not remember making such a
statement.
Question. Was it not kown by all the bidders, and all the persons
engaged in the live-oak business, that no one else could comply with
that advertisement but you?
Answer. I do not know that I can answer that question. I suppose they knew, but I could not know that they knew.
Question. About what time was it that you travelled in company
with the Secretary upon a visit northward?
Answer. I never accompanied the Secretary but once; that was
while he was in Boston. He was there, and had made arrangements
to visit the Portsmouth navy yard.
Question. When was that?
Answer. Last September.
Question. Did you visit the navy yard with him?
Answer. The Secretary had been informed that the train started at
10 or 11 o'clock, while the fact was that there was no train after the
early morning train until the evening train. He had made arrangements, as I understood, to return home the next day.
Question. This has nothing to do with the question. Did you visit
the navy yard with the Secretary?
Answer. The only time I ever went with the Secretary was when
several gentlemen in Boston got up an extra train to go to Portsmouth
with the Secretary, and back to Boston. I was of the party.




102                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Were you with the Secretary at the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. No, sir; I was not.
Question. Were you with the Secretary at the Philadelphia navy
yard?
Answer. No, sir; nowhere except on the excursion to Portsmouth.
Question. Was this before or after the contracts were awarded to
you last fall?
Answer. I think it was before.
Question. Have you had in your possession at any time a letter
from the President?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have had several letters from the President.
Question. Had you a letter of recommendation from the President
to any one?
Answer. I have had letters of introduction from the President.
Question. To whom?
Answer. To the Secretary of the Treasury.
Question. Had you letters of introduction from the President to the
commandants of the yards, or either of them?
Answer. No, sir; I have not.
Question. To any officer of the yard?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you had letters from the President recommending
you to the Navy Department, or to any officer of the Navy Department?
Answer. No, sir; I have had no letters of recommendation.
Question. Did you not have in your possession a letter from the
President recommending you for favorable contracts, and did you not
show that letter to others?
Answer. I will state distinctly that I never had such a letter. I
had a very kind letter of introduction from the President to the Postmaster General; but I never had any letter from the President in
reference to contracts at all.  The subject of contracts or money matters was never mentioned between the President and myself.
Question. Had you any conversation with Buxton & Lawrence, the
lowest bidders under the advertisement of 1858, after they had put
in their proposals, or before.
Answer. I had some conversation afterwards.
Question. What did you say to them about their contracts?
Answer. I cannot remember, sir.
Question. Did you tell them they could not fulfil their contracts?
Answer. It is very probable I did.
Question. Did you tell them that their contracts would be set aside?
Answer. I might have told them  I thought so, or that I hoped so.
That is very likely; but not that it would be so.
Question. Did you hold out any inducements to them not to fill
their contracts?
Answer. I think not.  They made a proposition to me that if I
would give them a certain sum of money they would relinquish the
contracts to me; which I declined.
Question. When was that proposition made?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  103
Answer. I do not remember the date, sir; probably it was in August.
Question. Where was that made?
Answer. In Boston.
Question. Did you not say to them that it was no object for you to
pay them for their contract, because it would be set aside anyhow, or
words to that effect?
Answer. No, sir; I could not have said that. I told them their
contract was not worth anything; that the price was so low that no
man could afford to pay anything for it.
Question. Did you tell Mr. Brown that the advertisement was
framed with a view to cover your timber?
Answer. I could not have told him so.
Question. Did you not seek to induce him to withhold his bid?
Answer. I do not remember any conversation with Mr. Brown
upon the subject at this time.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. You said, during the first part of your examination, that
you had timber at a good many yards, and at New Bedford and Falmouth; will you state how much you had at each place?
Answer. I really cannot state from recollection, sir.  At Norfolk
I supposed that I had more than 20,000 feet at the time; but it did
not prove to be so much.  At Falmouth and at New Bedford I supposed that I had 16 to 30,000 feet; but it proved to be less than that
amount.  The exact amount I cannot state. At New York I suppose
I had 25,000 feet.  I had some at Philadelphia; I suppose I had
12,000 feet there.  I refer now to timber which would be received
under the contract.
Question. Had you any timber at that time cut in Louisiana and
ready to be shipped?
Answer. I had upwards of 15,000 feet.
Question. Had you any at Pensacola?
Answer. No, sir; I had not
Question. You say the navy commissioners always took the surplus
timber from a contractor; how did it happen that this surplus timber
which you had in these yards was not taken from you when you filled
your previous contracts?
Answer. I think, sir, that if I had been-I was going to say in the
opposition, and the Secretary not fearful of doing favors to a partisan,
he would have taken my timber; but I will not make that declaration. But I think my timber should have been taken by the department in the ordinary course of the business of the department, without any objection or delay, because it was required for the service.
Question. Did you not say to Mr. Bigler, when you and he were
here in 1858, that you would get the contract for furnishing the
timber, whether your bid was accepted or not?
Answer. I do not remember.  I think I have heard Mr. Bigler say
so. I do not think I ever said so.  I may have said so, but I do not
remember it.
Question. You spoke of a contract entered into at that time between you and Mr. Bigler; a written contract was it not?




104                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You also spoke of a subsequent contract entered into;
was that subsequent contract also written, or was it verbal?
Answer. Verbal.
Question. Why was not it written also?
Answer. I did not suppose that there was any necessity for having
it in writing.
Question. Was that previous contract between you and Mr. Bigler
cancelled?
Answer. By the terms of the contract it was contingent upon the
acceptance of my bid.
Question. You each held a counterpart of the contract?
Answer. Yes, sir, and still hold them. The papers have not been
delivered up.
Question. You said that in the last contract Mr. Bigler agreed to
give you $1,000 as a bonus or premium for your taking the timber
off his hands?
Answer. He agreed to pay me a thousand dollars; yes, sir.
Question. Was that verbal?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was any person present when that agreement was made
between you and him?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Were no witnesses called to it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You spoke of having incurred expenses, &c. How often
did you visit Washington in reference to your contracts about this
timber?
Answer. Very often, sir.
Question. How often do you suppose?
Answer. It is difficult for me to say definitely; I spent a good part
of my time here in attending to this business generally.
Question. When did your business first commence here with
reference to that contract?
Answer. Other business which I had with the department called
me here a great deal too. I came when the letting of the contracts
was advertised.
Question. The contract was awarded about the 1st of August?
Answer. I think so.
Question. The contract was declared forfeited about the middle of
September; was it not?
Answer. Somewhere near that time.
Question. Very shortly after that you took the contract at the
lowest bid, did you not?
Answer. I did.
Question. Between the time the letting of this contract was
advertised in June, up to the time you received it in September, what
proportion of your time did you spend here, in Washington, with
reference to this thing?
Answer. I came here at the time the bids were handed in, and I




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  105
think I remained here until they were opened.  I think I went home
then.
Question. How long was that?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy was unwell at that time, and
in consequence the bids were not opened until he came to the department. It was more than a week, but less than two weeks, I think;
I do not remember the precise time.
Question. When the bids were opened you went home?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. That ended your attention to it at that time. When did
you return here again to see to it?
Answer. I think about the middle of September; but I do not
recollect.
Question. How long did you stay upon that occasion?
Answer. I do not remember; probably a week.
Question. You think that within a week you closed the contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you notified that the contract was abrogated and
forfeited, and requested to come on for the purpose of entering into
a new contract yourself'?
Answer. I think not.  I think I was here.
Question. Had you come here upon that account?
Answer. I cannot say that I came here upon that account; that
was one reason, no doubt, of my coming here.
Question. Then you expected, before you came, that the contracts
would be forfeited?
Answer. I hoped so sir; because I thought that, under the circumstances, it was right that they should be.
Question. If I understood you rightly in the first part of your
examination, you stated that Mr. Bigler agreed to pay you $1000 to
cover your expenses, or because you had been at large expenses?
Answer. There were other considerations, sir.
Question. What were the other considerations?
Answer. The other circumstances that induced me to ask $1000 of
Mr. Bigler were, the different situation in which I was placed with
respect to timber, between the time of receiving these proposals and
the giving out of the contract to me; a large amount of my timber
had been received upon my other contract. I had not the means of
immediately filling the contract, which placed me in a disadvantageous
position, and it has cost me a great deal of money to endeavor to
comply literally with the contract.
Question. So you needed his timber very much?
Answer. He was free from this responsibility, risk, and trouble.
Furthermore, his timber was all received, whether of one kind or
another, while it was incumbent upon me to fill up schedules, making
it more difficult.
Question. You needed his timber to fill up the schedule?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You could not so readily have complied with the contract
without getting his timber?




106               CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Then it was a mutual accommodation to you?
Answer. I told him it was just that he should pay me $1,000,
which he agreed to do. I think now it should have been more for
the trouble I have had.
Question. Although you could not have complied with your contract without getting his timber, you thought it just that he should
pay you $1,000?
Answer. Yes, sir, upon the principle of mutual advantage and
disadvantage.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Suppose that Mr. Bigler had not paid you anything, and
you had taken his timber at the same price you got for yours, whose
timber would have netted the most to the man, yours or Bigler's, in
proportion to the quantity of it?
Answer. His would.
Question. Explain that, if you please.
Answer. I have been obliged to pay additional freight in order to
get my timber in upon the terms of the contract. I have had additional expense in my operations. I have operated at a great disadvantage. I have been obliged to order only certain kinds of timber
cut, leaving the other kinds to be cut afterwards. I have to cut all
upon this contract, instead of cutting upon both contracts, which
would have been more advantageous.
Question. In purchasing of Oliver Swift where did you meet him;
did you go to see him?
Answer. I think he came to see me.
Question. At what price did you take his timber?
Answer. Upon the same terms.  I have agreed in one instance to
pay five cents per foot additional upon a cargo of timber now being
delivered at the Philadelphia navy yard, a cargo of 9000 feet or
more, making $450 upon that one cargo extra in consequence of the
requirements of this contract.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Was Mr. Bigler very anxious to dispose of his timber at
the time?
Answer. I think he was, sir; I understood so.
Question. You said you had visited the English navy yards, and
saw large amounts of timber there; have they not a great many
places besides their few navy yards where they accumulate timber
for shipbuilding purposes for the government?
Answer. I think they have depots for their timber aside from their
yards.
Question. Do they build their ships in the navy yards principally?
Answer. I suppose they do, sir; they build a great many ships in
the navy yards.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. From  your knowledge of the location of our live-oak
region, in case of a difficulty between this government and any strong
maritime power, would it be possible for the government, unless it




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  107
had it already on hand, to secure sufficient supplies of live-oak in the
navy yards?
Answer. They could not.  It would be impossible for them to do
it, I think. It has to be shipped, even to the Pensacola navy yard,
for some distance. It would depend upon our ability to maintain a
fleet sufficient to protect our whole coast. Live-oak can only be
obtained in the southern portion of the Union, and must be shipped
a considerable distance along the coast.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You have referred to a contract between you and Mr.
Plitt, by which he obligated himself and agreed to aid you in getting
contracts.  Have you been for a long time a contractor with the government?
Answer. Yes, sir. I think the first contract in my own name must
have been about the year 1840; but as a partner with my father, I
was contractor in 1834.
Question. Was not this contract with Mr. Plitt a considerable time
before even the nomination of Mr. Buchanan?
Answer. It was, sir.
Question. It was about five years ago?
Answer. I think it was about five years ago; in 1854.
Question. You have said two or three times that you thought the
government should have taken your lumber.  Were you of that
opinion by reason of its past practice in such cases, or why did you
think so?
Answer. From its past practice, and from the wants of the service.
Question. What has been the past practice of the government?
Answer. No live-oak contracts of any considerable amount were
issued that I am aware of between 1844 and 1855. I do not think
any contracts were issued in 1844.  I am not aware of any during
those ten years except a very small one for keelson pieces. Then the
frames for six frigates were advertised for, and the contractors for
them got the surplus timber which they delivered received-I speak
of timber not called for by the contracts-so that I think up to last
year all surplus timber had been taken by the department. Last
year Mr. Bigler was finishing contracts which he had taken in 1855
and 1856, and his surplus timber was left in the same way that mine
was. Up to 1844 I think the surplus timber had all been taken.  It
had been the practice of the government, when the timber was
wanted, to take it.
Question. Your first contract begun in 1834?
Answer. Yes, sir; in the fall of 1833, I think.
Question. Have you been in the practice of selling large quantities
to the government prior to the present administration?
Answer. Not since 1844, sir. I had a contract for one sloop, to be
delivered at Pensacola, which I completed within the time specified.
That was during the last administration.
Question. Prior to 1844 were you in the practice of delivering
large quantities?
Answer. Yes, sir.




108               CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Was that upon advertised contracts or open contracts?
Answer. Upon open contracts, I think, sir.  I made several contracts with the board of navy commissioners when Commodore Morris
was its chairman, with Commodore Chauncey, and with Commodore
Warrington. It was their policy and their practice to secure all the
live oak they could, and they bought so much that the government,
when it found it had a large supply, thought no more would be
wanted, and stopped purchasing in Mr. Tyler's administration, I
think.
Question. And resumed again about ten years afterwards?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Some reference has been made to the timber you had in
the Philadelphia navy yard, which you say was afterwards piled up.
At whose expense was that piled up?
Answer. I wrote, I think, to the bureau, stating that the timber
might be piled up, and if purchased by the government it might be
done at the government expense; but if I took it out of the yard I
would pay all the expense of it; I think that was it.
Question. Are these yards large enough generally to furnish such
accommodations to the contractors with the government?
Answer. The Philadelphia yard is very small, sir; I was not aware,
however, that my timber was in the way; I had no notice of it until
the letter I received from Commodore Stewart in September; I had
heard no complaints that I remember.
Question. You have said that Buxton & Lawrence offered to relinquish the contract to you for a certain sum: Did they say anything
to you about their preparations or expectations to perform the contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know whether they were doing anything in that
direction?
Answer. No, sir; they were neither of them men that had ever
procured live oak at all, as I have understood. They made no preparation at all that I am aware of.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is the other Mr. Swift a relative of yours?
Answer. Yes, sir; he is a cousin of mine.
Question. Does he live in your neighborhood?
Answer. Yes, sir; in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Were those additional expenses, the five cents extra
freight, &c., anticipated in your arrangements with Bigler?
Answer. I supposed that in consequence of the timber being required so soon there would be trouble about it; I had no expectation of so much or I should have demanded more money.
Question. I understood that this expense was about freights?
Answer. Freights and loss, and disadvantage in procuring timber.
It was very serious.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   109
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did Mr. Bigler get out any timber under this arrangement?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Would not your expenses in fulfilling your contract have
been larger if you had not got Mr. Bigler's timber?
Answer. It may have been so, sir.
Question. Are you not certain that they would have been larger if
you had not got his timber?
Answer. I think they would have been, sir, but the contract was
based upon considerations of mutual advantage and disadvantage.
It was in carrying out that idea that I asked Mr. Bigler the $1,000.
FEBRUARY 15, 1859.
[The witness reappeared and made the following statement:]
I wish to say that the $500, 000 appropriation for gradual increase
was not alone for live oak, but also for other imperishable materials.
I believe the policy of the navy commissioners was to use the greater
portion of the sum in purchasing that material; also, that during the
Secretary's visit to Boston and Portsmouth in September last, I did
not, in conversation with him, or in any other way, speak about or
allude to contracts or other business of any kind; I also remember
that the Secretary said to me, when urged to take my timber, that he
required it, and would like to purchase it, but that the law said that
advertisements should be made for all purchases when there was time,
and that he should therefore advertise.
I was asked whether the advertisement was made to suit my timber. I wish to state that I had a fine lot of keelson pieces, the most
valuable of any kind of timber, and I was obliged to deliver about
2,000 feet of that high-priced timber under the low prices of this
contract.  I lost $1,000 I suppose upon that lot of timber, the difference between the fair price of that timber and what I actually received for it.
W. C. N. SWIFT.
No. 14.-JOHN LENTHALL.
FEBRUARY 5, 1859.
JOHN LENTHALL recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Has Mr. Swift offered any live-oak for sale to the department since March 4, 1857?
Answer. Yes, sir; he has two contracts.
Question. The question is whether he has offered for sale to the
department any live-oak since March 4, 1857.
Answer. Yes, sir; the residues of the first contract; he has offered
that several times.
Question. When?  What quantities and descriptions?
Answer. I cannot say what quantities and descriptions, but there
are letters on file in which he states the quantity, and gives a general
description of what there was.




110                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. When was this?
Answer. I cannot give the date, but it was before these last contracts were made.
Question. Was that timber purchased by the department?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Why was it not purchased?
Answer. Because the Secretary of the Navy determined to contract
for timber.
Question. Did the law authorize purchase without contract?
Answer. I think he could, in case of any urgent necessity of the
service.
Question. With that exception, could the Secretary of the Navy
have purchased without contract?
Answer. No, sir; I think not.
Question. Did not the Secretary so decide?
Answer. I do not know, sir, but that is our impression at the bureau.
Question. Did Mr. Swift submit his offer to the Secretary or to your
bureau?
Answer. I think his letter is to the Secretary of the Navy, but we
have it upon our records. It was sent down. (Appendix.)
Question. Was the timber called for in the advertisement of last
June, or was it not similar to that which Swift offered?
Answer. A portion of it was of the same description, but not all.
Question. Did the quantity offered by Swift exceed or fall short of
that advertised for?
Answer. My impression is that it fell short.
Question. Did you make a contract with Swift on or about the 17th
of November, 1857, between the annual contracts?
Answer. I do not remember the date, but there is a contract with
him, between the annual contracts, for supplying a deficiency from
the default of a person who had to deliver timber at New York under
an older contract.
Question. Was that timber advertised for?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. If not, by what authority was such contract made?
Answer. It was a default, and the government have the right to
make it good at the contractor' s expense. Making a contract is merely
to have sufficient security for the delivery of the timber, so that there
may be no failure.
Question. Was it let to Swift at the same rates which were given
by the original contract?
Answer. No, sir; at higher rates.  We wrote to different parties
for their offers.
Question. Were other proposals invited?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who was invited?
Answer. Mr. Bigler.
Question. Any one else?
Answer. No one else.
Question. Has Swift complied with the terms of the contract?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    Ill
Answer. I think it is not quite full.  He says they have condemned
a great many of his timbers; that he had a sufficient quantity there
to meet any emergency that might reasonably occur.
Question. Has his contract been cancelled?
Answer. No, sir; I have no instructions to do it. He has delivered
a great portion of the timber.
Question. What was the time allowed for the delivery of that
timber, in fulfilment of Blanchard's contract?
Answer. (See appendix 10.)
Question. State, by reference to the exhibit now shown you, [see
appendix A, attached to this deposition,] how much of the lumber
upon that contract of November 15, 1857, has been supplied up to
this date?
Answer. 9,767 feet are here stated to have been delivered. This
is derived from the bills we have at our office.
Question. What was the amount of the contract?
Answer. 15,800 feet.
Question. State why, upon failure to complete this contract, the
contract was not forfeited?
Answer. I cannot say that. Without instructions from the Secretary of the Navy I could not do it.  In his letter Mr. Swift states
that he has delivered the timber, but they have condemned it.
Question. You know of no reason, but wait the action of the Secretary?
Answer. I wait for instructions.  I should consider that he had
substantially complied with the contract.  If I supposed he had not
I should report it to the Secretary.  It is almost impossible for any
man to deliver the precise number of feet at the precise time.
uestion. What should you consider a substantial compliance with
the contract?
Answer. If he delivered three-fourths of the timber anywhere near
the time appointed I should consider it as substantially carrying out
his agreement.
Question. Who drew  up the advertisement for live-oak timber
dated June 14, 1858?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Under whose directions?
Answer. Under direction of the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. Was it submitted to the Secretary of the Navy.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you draw up the first form of that advertisement?
Answer. It was technical, and there was no one else to do it?
Question. Was it approved by the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. He saw it; that is the only form of approval it had.
Question. When was it drawn up-how long before the date of it?
Answer. I presume within a few days.
Question. Was the timber advertised under the date of June 14,
1858, a desirable description of timber for naval purposes?
Answer. It was represented at the different yards that they wanted
small timber and straight timber; that they had occasion for it.
Question. From whom did you receive these representations?




112                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. From the naval constructors at the navy yards.
Question. Was it an unusual kind of timber for the navy?
Answer. I think not.
Question. Was not there an unusual quantity of small straight timoer in it?
Answer. No, sir; under the previous contract large and crooked
timber had been called for, and this was for smaller and straighter
timber. I was of opinion myself that our stock was getting short.
Question. You have testified that Swift had live-oak timber on hand
at the navy yards.  Was that timber on hand at the time you prepared these advertisements?
Answer. Yes, sir; I presume it was, a portion of it.
Question. Were you consulted with regard to the purchase of that
timber by Mr. Swift?
Answer. I was.
Question. Did you inform him that it was or was not a desirable lot
of timber?
Answer. My impression is that I would have said it was desirable
timber to have. I cannot remember the precise conversation; but if
he had asked that question I think I should have said then as now,
that I thought it was; that our stock was getting low and that our constructors wanted a supply. Any professional man would say the same.
Question. Was this timber wanted for immediate use?
Answer. Yes, sir; the constructors were asking for small timber,
and we must either contract for it or they would be compelled to
obtain it by open purchase.
Question. What is the usual time allowed contractors for delivering
this kind of timber?
Answer. There is no fixed time.
Question. Has the time ever been less than one season?
Answer. No, sir; the last one includes one winter. They cut it in
the fall and winter.
Question. In the advertisement of June 14, 1858, did you not require
the first half of the timber to be delivered by the first of September,
1858?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was such a requisition ever made before?
Answer. It was not.
Question. State the reasons why this departure from the former
custom?
Answer. The Secretary, as I understood him, desired to have the
timber delivered within the shortest time that a bona fide bidder
could furnish it; and I gave a time as short as I thought it could be
delivered in.
Question. When was this advertisement issued?
Answer. On the 14th of June.
Question. When were the bids opened?
Answer. They were opened by me within two or three days, I think,
after they came.
Question. When did you receive the bids in response to this advertisement?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   113
Answer. We are compelled by law to advertise for 30 days.  I do
not recollect the exact time.
Question. Look at the advertisement and state the time?
[See appendix to the deposition of Joseph Grice.]
Answer. They are required to be sent by 3 o'clock on the 14th of
July, 1858. They were all in the office by that day.
Question. How soon after that day did you open them?
Answer. I cannot say; it was probably within a couple of days.
Question. How soon after that was the contract awarded and
entered into?
Answer. When I opened them I made a scale of the amounts bid,
which were submitted to the Secretary of the Navy, and he had it to
examine and look over before approving the bids, and it probably lay
in his office.
Question. Please state whether the exhibit now shown you [see
appendix to this deposition] is a statement of the bids submitted to
you?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think it is.
Question. When were the contracts awarded upon these bids?
Answer. I cannot give the dates, but there are letters upon the
records which show when I was ordered to notify the parties that
were the lowest bidders.
Question. Please look at the exhibit shown you, [see appendix to
this deposition,] and state when the bid was awarded to Mr. Grice?
Answer. August 14, 1858, is the date of the contract.  The award
was made earlier. It must be awarded to the party; he must execute
the contract afterwards.
Question. At what date could Mr. Grice, in the ordinary course of
business, have been notified that he was the lowest bidder?
Answer. When the Secretary directed me to award the contract to
the lowest bidder, on that very day I wrote to him and notified him.
Question. Can you tell us about the date at which, in the ordinary
course of business, the successful bidders would be notified?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Would it be before or after the first of August?
Answer. It might be before that.
Question. Please furnish the date of the letter notifying them of
the acceptance of their bids?
Answer. [See appendix to this deposition, 1, 2, 3.]
Question. Was it possible for contractors to comply with a contract to deliver one-half of that live-oak timber by the first of September, unless they then had the timber in or near the navy yards of
the United States where it was to be delivered?
Answer. No, sir; I think they would have found it difficult.
Question. Could they have gone at that season of the year to the
live-oak country, and cut any portion of this timber?
Answer. Bona fide dealers might have had some of it on hand.
Question. Do you not know that bona fide dealers in live-oak timber do not keep it on hand?
8B




114               CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. No, sir; I do not know that. I think they do.
Question. How much do you suppose is kept on hand by all the
live-oak dealers in the United States?
Answer. We are now building a steamer by contract, and the contractor got all the timber for the ship's frame, and very quickly too.
Question. Do you not know that the live-oak is obtained from a
country where the yellow fever prevails during the whole month of
August, and that it would be impossible to get men to cut live-oak
timber in the summer months?
Answer. I do not know how that it is every year. I know that last
year they had the fever very severely.
Question. Was it not contemplted at the time by you, and by the
Navy Department, that if this advertisement was issued, and if the
contract was entered into, those to whom it should be awarded could
not comply with the contract?
Answer. I cannot say it was by me.
Question. Do you not know that it was by the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. Indeed, sir, I do not. I do not know that he had any
such conversation with me.
Question. Was it not contemplated by you that the government
would be compelled to purchase the live-oak in the navy yards furnished by Swift?
Answer. No, sir; because this contemplates live-oak, I think, such
as he had not in the yards.
Question. Did you not expect that the government would have to
resort to the piles of live-oak then in the navy yards, and furnished
by Swift, to fill these contracts?
Answer. No, sir; I had no reason to think they would be compelled to go to him.
Question. What part had you in this matter? Did it devolve upon
the Secretary of the Navy or upon yourself, as the head of the Bureau
of Docks and Yards, in the ordinary course of business?
Answer. When this timber was offered, the Secretary of the Navy
consulted me, and I ascertained from  the navy yards what they
required. I had Mr. Swift's letter, and knew what kind of timber
he had; but when the Secretary instructed me to draw up an advertisement, I did not pay any attention to Mr. Swift's timber in doing
so. But it would be impossible for me to advertise for the kind of
timber required without advertising for the very kind of timber
which dealers in ship timber would be likely to have on hand, because
it will accumulate on their hands.  I could not evade it, and it must
include that of Mr. Swift as well as that of other bona fide dealers.
Question. Why did you permit Mr. Swift to pile his live-oak, not
embraced within the contract, in the navy yards of the United States?
Answer. It is usual for us to afford all the facilities possible, at all
times, to persons dealing with the government.
Question. Did you not let him pile up there live-oak which was
ot within the existing contract?
Answer. It was refused and rejected at the yard, having been




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE OAK.                   115
offered in fulfilment of his contract. After a large quantity of it was
there, the fact was communicated to me.
Question. Did you communicate this fact to the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. It is possible I did; I do not remember writing a letter
about it. [Appendix, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.]
Question. Did you authorize the commandants to let it re main
there?
Answer. I do not remember; but if I did, it was probably a permission to let it remain until after the delivery of their other timber.
Mr. Grice had a large number of knees which were rejected, and we
let them lie there in the yard.
Question. Do you not require the contractors to remove every stick
not embraced in their contracts before you. will pay them the sums
due upon their contracts?
Answer. If we were to require the contractors immediately to remove every rejected stick in large contracts of timber, it would
oppress them; it would be hard upon them, and discourage them in
dealing with us.
Question. You say no special favor has been shown Mr. Swift in
allowing him to pile his live-oak in the navy yards of the United
States?
Answer. Not so far as I know; we have granted the same to
others-Mr. Bigler, for example; but sometimes it accumulates
largely, as it will accumulate, and you cannot prevent it. In stowing
vessels the agents of the contractors will put in small timber, which
may possibly pass, and we cannot examine it until it has all been
taken from the vessel and laid upon the wharf. You cannot examine
it in the vessel, and it will not be attempted.
Question. Did you, in August, 1858, make any contracts for the
supply of live-oak?
Answer. No, sir, excepting those with Grice and with Coates,
Degraw & Beach.
Question. You then contracted for the amounts contained in the
statement shown you?
Answer, Yes, sir; 25,000 feet for each yard.
Question. Have those contracts been complied with?
Answer. No, sir. I think Mr. Grice delivered 1,400 feet in Philadelphia, and no more.
Question. When was that delivered?
Answer. I presume before the first of September, because it is
entered as having been received.
Question. How soon after the first of September was that contract
with Mr. Grice annulled?
Answer. I have the letter and can furnish that. [See Appendix
to this deposition,4, 5, 6.]
Question. For what reason did you annul their contract?
Answer. I was directed by the Secretary of the Navy to make a
statement to him of the state of this contract, which I did in a letter




,116               CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
to him.  Upon that letter Iwas instructed to annul it. [See Appendix
to this deposition.]
Question. At that time had you any existing contracts with Swift,
made within the year previous, which he had not complied with?
Answer. No, sir, I think not; excepting this one in which he is
supplying the deficiencies of Blanchard' s contract.
Question. Had you any contracts with Bigler which had not been
complied with?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think there were a few pieces deficient of his.
Question. Do you know anything about Coates, Degraw & Beach
making an effort to comply with their contract?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know anything about that.
Question. Did they correspond chiefly with you, or with the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. They wrote to me; I do not know whether they wrote to
the Secretary of the Navy or not.
Question. Was their contract also annulled?
Answer. Yes, sir; they made no delivery whatever.
Question. With whom did you contract after them?
Answer. With Mr. Swift.
Question. How happened that?
Answer. He made an offer to take all these contracts at the lowest
bid.
Question. Was the same offer made to anybody else?
Answer. Nobody else offered to do that?
Question. Was the lumber that had been stored in the navy yards
in the summer previous taken in execution of this proposition of
Swift?
Answer. I think it most likely, and presume that it was. I presume
that all that Mr. Swift had there that would answer would be taken;
that would naturally be the case.
Question. Did you recommend the abrogation of the contracts made
in August, 1858?
Answer. No, sir; I made no recommendation, as you will see by
the letter; but I suggested that if it should be set aside it would be
advantageous to give it at the rate of the lowest bid, because I thought
that the fair value of the timber. [See Appendix to the deposition.]
Question. Was not Mr. Swift, at that time, delinquent with regard
to the contract of July, 1857? I will ask you to be particular before
answering.
Answer. I think not.
Question. Is he not now delinquent in that contract?
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. Does not the statement say that a portion of the timber
is yet to be delivered?
Answer. Oh, you mean in Blanchard's contract.
Question. I ask you whether, at the time you cancelled the contract
of Coates, Degraw & Beach, Swift was not a delinquent in his previous contract of July 1, 1857?
Answer. I think not, sir; except in that one of Blanchard's.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   117
Question. What is the custom of the department when the lowest
bidder fails to comply with his offer?
Answer. I think the law directs. The law says that the Secretary
of the Navy must get it upon the best terms he can.
Question. Does it not say that he must give it to the next lowest
bidder?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Examine the statutes and state what the law is.
Answer. "'If, after the acceptance of a proposal and a notification
thereof to the bidder or bidders, he or they shall fail to enter into an
obligation within the time prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy,
with good and sufficient sureties, for furnishing the supplies, then the
Secretary of the Navy shall proceed to contract with some other person or persons for furnishing the said supplies; and shall forthwith
cause the difference between the amount contained in the proposal so
guarantied and the amount for which he may have contracted for furnishing the said supplies, for the whole period of the proposal, to be
charged up against said bidder or bidders, and his or their guarantor
or guarantors.' -(Brightly's Digest, p. 677.)
Question. That does not meet the question.  When the lowest
bidder has entered into a contract and has failed to comply with the
contract, what is to be done?
Answer. The department, at its option, may annul the contract.
Question. Are they not then required to give it to the next highest
bidder?
Answer. No, sir; because then the Secretary of the Navy is to proceed to fill the contract at the original contractor's expense and cost.
The delinquent is to be charged with it. We endeavor to get it upon
the best terms, so that the delinquent may suffer as little as possible.
Question. Did you, in the case of the failure of Coates, Degraw &
Beach to comply with their contract, inform the next highest bidders,
and look for the guaranty under the indemnity?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. State any exception where any other cause than calling
upon the next highest bidders has been pursued. 
Answer. I do not know, sir; in several defaults we may have
omitted to call upon them. We have no right to call upon the next
highest person.
Question. Have you not done it?
Answer. If we could not obtain the timber at the lowest price, we
have informed the next highest bidder.
Question. Is it not the custom always to call upon the next highest
bidder in case of default?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know that that is the custom. I do not
think it is. It may have been done in many cases, but in some cases
we have omitted this. We make inquiries of these persons who have
bid, for the reason that they are persons who are presumed to have
articles of that description.
Question. What is the amount of reservation upon the stores of
timber contracted for upon July 1, 1857?




118                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. I think it is fifteen per cent. upon the whole amount.
Question. Had Mr. Swift complied with that contract upon September 23, 1858?
Answer. That paper will show to what extent he has delivered, so
far as our returns have been received from the yards.
Question. I ask you whether upon the face of the paper he has
complied with that contract?
Answer. No, sir; the record shows that it is not yet full-that is,
at this date. What it may be at the present moment I cannot say.
Question. Has he supplied one-half of the timber which under that
contract was to have been delivered by the 1st of September?
Answer. Taking the aggregate at all the yards, I think he has.
Question. Is that delivering one-half the timber upon each contract?
Answer. It is all considered as one contract with one man.
Question. Then if he did not furnish any in Pensacola, but in New
York he had too much, you would be satisfied?
Answer. Yes, sir; if he had furnished the full amount.
Question. Has he furnished any at Pensacola at all?
Answer. By a letter from the commodore, recently received, I learn
that a vessel has arrived there with some six or seven thousand feet;
that is all I know.
Question. What is one-half of the amount to be delivered under
the contract at Pensacola?
Answer. Twelve thousand five hundred feet.
Question. Has this contract been annulled?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have any steps been taken to annul it; and if not, why
not?
Answer. No, sir; because of the whole amount he has delivered
much more than half.
Question. I ask you whether he has delivered any except that
which he had on hand at the time the advertisement was drawn?
Answer. I cannot say; I do not know one way or the other; I do
not know from what source he gets his timber.
Question. Whereby has the government been benefited by annulling the contract made in August with the lowest bidder?
Answer. We have actually got a large portion of the timber at the
lowest rates.
Question. Do you pretend to say you would not have got it from
these lowest bidders as soon as by human possibility the work could
be done?
Answer. I cannot say what their means of getting it were.
Question. Has any contract ever before been annulled when the
parties were proceeding in good faith to execute the contract as
rapidly as possible?
Answer. We have annulled contracts when they have not been
complied with.
Question. When the parties were proceeding as rapidly as possible,
has there been a case of annulling the contract before?
Answer. We judge of that from the quantity they do deliver.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  119
Question. Has any contract ever before been annulled when the
parties were proceeding as rapidly as possible to comply with the
terms of the contract?
Answer. I cannot say what is as rapidly as possible, because I do
not know their means of doing it.
Question. I mean as rapidly as any man can do it who has to cut
the timber.
Answer. We have annulled contracts for white-oak timber and
plank when, I presume, the parties who furnished them thought they
were proceeding very rapidly; but we thought otherwise.
Question. I will ask the question once more; your answers are all
to be taken down. Has any contract ever been annulled in your
bureau when the contractor was proceeding to get out his timber as
rapidly as any man in the world could do it?
Answer. I cannot see how I could judge of the progress made, or
the ability of these persons to do it; I cannot see that I have any means
of judging of things of that sort; I can only judge from the amount
delivered at the time the question arises to be settled.
Question. Are the advertisements for bids for live-oak issued by
the department made upon the idea that the live-oak is then cut and on
hand; or are they made upon the idea that it is to be cut antd obtained
as soon as practicable?
Answer. I do not think that enters into the view at all.
Question. Why, then, have you always allowed, before this, at least
one season for compliance with the contract?
Answer. This allowed one season, because it was not to expire
until the 1st of February.
Question. Did it allow one season to deliver the first half?
Answer. No, sir; it did not allow one season for the first half.
Question. Have bidders in any case before been required to furnish
live-oak without being allowed time sufficient to cut it between the
date of the contract and the date for delivery?
Answer. In the only other case of contracts of live-oak, two seasons have been allowed, because there was a large quantity required,
and the timber was of a description difficult to get. This was not
difficult timber to get.
Question. Has not the custom always been heretofore, without exception, to allow two years for the delivery of live-oak?
Answer. Yes, sir; the contract has been for two years; but in this
last one, one season was allowed to get the whole.
Question. Have you ever received a communication from  Commodore Pope with regard to live-oak at the Kittery navy yard being in
the way?
Answer. I have received letters from him complaining, I suppose,
of live-oak, at least of timber, being in the way in the yard.  Mr.
Bigler had a contract to deliver a frame.
Question. What communication did the department make to Commodore Pope with regard to that? What instructions did they give?
Answer. If it was in the way, I think it was to be piled away or
removed.  I do not remember exactly.




120                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Please to furnish a copy of the letter of Commodore
Pope, and also of your correspondence with him upon that subject.
Answer. (See Appendix to this deposition, 8, 9.)
Question. Have you any official information that any timber has
been received there from Swift, in accordance with the contract?
Answer. No, sir; I have no recollection of it.
Question. Have you received any complaints from the Philadelphia
navy yard that Swift's live-oak was not in accordance with the contract?
Answer. If they rejected it, and it accumulated in any considerable
quantity, they would probably report it.
Question. Have they reported it?
Answer. I think they did in Philadelphia.
Question. From what other yard has such a report come?
Answer. I got a letter a few days ago from New York, in which
the constructor stated that there was a quantity of live-oak there in
their way. That is but a few days since.
Question. What was the reason of the rejection of this live-oak?
Answer. They stated no special reason. It was probably want of
size, want of crook, or some similar defect.
Question. Please furnish the recent letter from the naval constructor in New York.
Answer. (See Appendix to this deposition, 10.)
Question. Were any instructions issued for the resurvey of the
timber complained of in the Philadelphia navy yard?
Answer. There was a report made a few days ago from the constructor or commandant of the yard as to certain timber which did
not conform with the contract. The reply was, to examine it and see
if it was in strict accordance with the contract.
Question. Please furnish the communications to which you refer
with the Philadelphia navy yard.
Answer. (See Appendix to this deposition, 17, 18.)
Question. Does the table now shown you (see Appendix to this deposition) give the date and amounts of timber furnished, or to be fur.
nished, under the contracts for live-oak timber made this last year?
Answer. Yes, sir; these are the quantities and sizes. The contracts of Samuel B. Grice and of Coates, Degraw & Beach having
been annulled, are also included in the contracts of W. C. N. Swift.
Question. Is there now any contractor with the government of the
United States for the delivery of live-oak timber except Mr. Swift?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You state that you are the chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair; I desire to know the duties of that office.
Answer. To give directions for work relating to the construction
and repair of ships, and to supply all materials requisite for that purpose.
Question. You are the chief adviser of the Secretary of the Navy
in relation to all questions connected with construction and repair,
and with procuring materials under the law?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE OAK.                  121
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Htow long have you been in the office?
Answer. As chief of the bureau, I was appointed under Mr. Dobbin
in 1854.
Question. What position did you hold before that time?
Answer. I was recognized here as the chief naval constructor. I
have been here since 1849, but not as chief of the bureau; I was then
naval constructor.
Question. You have been connected with the bureau since 1849?
Answer. Yes, sir.  I came here from Philadelphia in 1849.
Question. State what work has been done in your department in
the navy yards, according to your present means of stating, during
the past year, in the summer and fall more especially?
Answer. At Portsmouth they have been working upon the "Constitution," which required very considerable repairs, and the sloopof-war Portsmouth, and have been building one of the new sloops.
At Boston they have been repairing the sloop-of-war Constellation,
the sloop-of-war "Levant," and the brig Dolphin, and building one
of the new sloops. At New York they have been fitting out the Sabine, Niagara, the "St. Louis," and the two store-ships Supply and
Release, building one of the new sloops, and fitting the steamers Atalanta, Westernport, Caledonia, and Memphis.  At Philadelphia they
have been repairing the frigate "Congress," finishing the sloop Lancaster, building two of the new sloops, fitting out the steamer Chapin
for the Paraguay expedition, repairing the merchant vessel Richmond,
which had been very seriously injured by being run into by a government vessel. At Norfolk they have been building the sloop-of-war
Richmond and one of these small sloops, repairing the "'John Adams,' 
and fitting out the steamers Southern Star, the Preble, Fulton, and
Water Witch for the Paraguay expedition. At Pensacola they have
been building two sloops, one called the Pensacola and one of the new
sloops last authorized by Congress. That is all that I remember of
the work during the last summer and fall.
Question. How did this amount of work compare with the amount
of work at any time before going on in the navy yards?
Answer. I think that it is rather more than we have ever had at
any one time before.
Question. What occasioned the necessity of this great amount of
work being done last autumn?
Answer. Part of it was due to the fitting out of the Paraguay expedition. Occasionally ships came in wanting more repairs than we
could foresee.  In repairing a ship we may sometimes find it necessary to rebuild it.
Question. How many new sloops did you have at this time?
Answer. One at each of the yards; at Philadelphia there were two.
Question. How many new vessels have you had in progress during
the last year?
Answer. Five authorized by the last Congress, and seven authorized
since.




122                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Was there ever a time before when there have been
twelve vessels in the course of construction at the navy yards?
Answer. I think not.
Question. Do you know any reason of state, or other reason, that
made it desirable that the department should have these vessels completed speedily?
Answer. Yes, sir. A great desire was expressed to have government vessels of a smaller draught of water than we had hitherto had.
Question. Do you know of any troubles either existing or apprehended between this country and other countries which made it, in
the view of the department, particularly desirable to complete these
vessels speedily?
Answer. No, sir; only as a matter of general policy, that there
should be smaller vessels.
Question. Did the Secretary communicate that to you as a reason
for expediting the work?
Answer. Yes, sir; he expressed a desire that those small draught
vessels should be hastened forward, because they might be wanted
for a Paraguay expedition. We were to try to have them launched
by the time Congress met. He was urgent with regard to that.
Question. Was there an order issued in relation to the time within
which they should be completed?
Answer. No, sir; we were to launch them before Congress met.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I want to ask you this question in regard to vessels under
construction and vessels under repair: In the first place, in regard to
vessels under construction, I want to know of you, in view of all the
circumstances, of procuring material, of labor, and everything of that
kind which you have taken into consideration, whether the work of
the construction of these vessels was ordered at the proper places
and at the proper yards; or whether too much was accumulated at
one yard to the neglect of another; was the work that had to be done
in building the new vessels by the government rightly distributed
among the different yards?
Answer. I think so.  There was one given to each yard, and at
Philadelphia there were two of the smaller vessels?
Question. Now, in regard to the repairs that were done in fitting out
the Paraguay expedition, and the repairing done generally; was that
work judiciously distributed among the yards?
Answer. I think it was.  The work done in the New York yard
was upon vessels taken up in New York.  The work done in the
Philadelphia yard was upon vessels taken up in Philadelphia.  The
work done in Norfolk was upon a vessel taken up in the waters of the
Chesapeake.  And all the yards had facilities and means for doing the
work.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What effect had this large quantity of work, and the
determination to complete it at an early period, upon the necessities
of your bureau for supplies of timber, &c.?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE OAK.                   123
Answer. It would make it more necessary to have it speedily than
would otherwise be the case.
Question. How long has Mr. Swift been a contractor with the
government for furnishing live-oak?
Answer. A great many years.  I find his name upon the records
for a great many years back.
Question. What has been his past reputation for efficiency and
ability, and determination to fulfil his contracts?
Answer. Very good; I have heard nothing to the contrary.
Question. Was he a contractor for furnishing live-oak before this
administration came into power?
Answer. Yes, sir.  The contract, of which this one of Blanchard' s
is a part, was to supply live-oak that was used for the steam frigates;
he had one of those contracts, and very promptly supplied it.
Question. Upon what ground was Blanchard's contract vacated?
Answer. He abandoned it, and declared that he could not fulfil it;
he threw it up, and I hear there is something before Congress now
upon the subject; there was last session.
Question. What, then, do you say was the course of the Navy
Department in regard to that contract?
Answer. That contract was for moulded timber-timber cut to certain moulds or patterns-bevelled, &c., which it was difficult to get.
Mr. Swift and Mr. Bigler had both previously supplied timber of
that description, and we called upon them for offers to supply the
deficiency.
Question. Had any other contractors before supplied timber of
that sort?
Answer. No, sir; not recently.
Question. Do you know  of any connexion in business between
Bigler and Swift?
Answer. No, sir; I have no knowledge of anything of the kind.
Question. Why was the contract, then, given to Mr. Swift; did he
agree to do it at a more reasonable rate than did Mr. Bigler?
Answer. I think he agreed to furnish at the same rate.
Question. Then why was the contract given to him in preference
to Mr. Bigler?
Answer. I think Mr. Bigler connected other kinds of timber with
this in his offer, and we wished to contract simply to supply the
default, and nothing more.
Question. What was Mr. Swift's conduct in regard to that contract; did he proceed to comply with it in good faith or not?
Answer. I think he did; it is nearly completed now.  He says it
would have been completed by this time, but for their having condemned a number of pieces of his timber.
Question. Now, just in this connexion, tell me what is the practice
of the government in relation to that subject?  In order to make my
meaning fully understood by you, I will ask you whether the department makes any difference in its action between cases where the contractor virtually complies with his contract and falls short in some
particulars, and cases where the contractor does not even virtually




124                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
comply with his contract, but either announces that he does not
intend to comply with his contract, or that he made it with the intention of not complying with it?  Suppose one case, where a man
makes a contract not intending to comply with it; on the other hand,
a man makes a contract and virtually complies with it, but, in consequence of some of his timber being rejected, or from any other
cause, he falls short in some little degreee; is there any difference in
the action of the department between the two cases?
Answer. I think there should be. I would make a difference if it
was left to my discretion.
Question. Why?
Answer. Because I think that the person who endeavors to comply with his contract is better entitled to consideration than the man
who does not intend to comply with it, or who I had reason to suppose
did not intend to do it.
Question. Suppose that a man made an offer, intending at the time
he made it not to comply with the terms of the proposals; another
made a bid really intending to comply with it; would you be influenced in any way by the amounts of the respective bids?
Answer. No, sir; not if I knew of the intention of the bidders?
Question. Would a man who bid without any intention of fulfilling
his contract as to time be as apt to bid low as the man who bid with
the intention to fulfil his contract in regard to time?
Answer. I think he would be apt to bid lower.
Question. Why?
Answer. Becautse he would make his calculations to not be bound
by the time specified in the advertisement, but to deliver the timber
as he chose.
Question. Would he then have an advantage over the other bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What sort of timber have your contracts, previous to
those of 1858, generally called for in regard to size, length, &c.; has
it been small or large timber?
Answer. It would be considered large timber; it was of large sizes:
13 inches and 15 inches.  It has been a timber suitable for a large
class of vessels.
Question. When were your last contracts made, under specifications, previous to those of August, 1858?
Answer. They were made under advertisement of May, 1857?
Question. Did you, at the time you prepared the advertisement of
1857, have any expection of the large amount of work and repairs
that you have had during the past year?
Answer. No, sir; and I say that that contract for the large timber
was made at my suggestion to the Secretary of the Navy, knowing
how much our supplies of timber were falling short in the yards. I
think that in my report I mentioned something of the kind.
Question. What is the fact in relation to any demands that may
have been made for the smaller kind of timber from the different
yards during the spring and early part of the summer of 1858?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  125
Answer. It was represented from the different yards that it would
be desirable to have timbers of that description.
Question. You will please append to this deposition the letters from
the various yards upon this subject.
Answer. I will do so.-[See Appendix to this deposition, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15.]
Question. Were there any cases where timber of that sort had to
be purchased in open market because it was needed before it could
be obtained by means of contract?
Answer. I think we did purchase some timber that was lying in
the yard.
Question. Upon whose requisition?
Answer. Upon the recommendation of the naval constructor of the
yard; he was the one who started the requisition.
Question. Now I want you to state to the committee, explicitly,
what direction the Secretary of the Navy, or what inquiry the Secretary of the Navy made of you when he requested you to draw up
these specifications in relation to the subject of the time at which it
was to be delivered?
Answer. I think he rquested me to state the shortest time within
which I thought persons who had timber could deliver it.
Question. Who named the first of September; you or the Secretary
of the Navy?
Answer. That is more than I can tell; I fixed the extreme time
the first of February. 
Question. What do you mean by the phrase "first of September,"
as used in that advertisement? Do you mean the first day of the
month or the first part of the month-the first half of the month?
Answer. The first day of the month.
Question. Under the specifications and contracts, was a man under
the necessity of delivering this timber by the first day of the month,
or was he allowed until the middle of the month?
Answer. He was obliged to deliver it on the first day of September.
Question. In preparing the form of the advertisement, does the
Secretary suggest it, or do you make it according to your knowledge
and experience in the matter?
Answer. I put in the technical part of it-that relating to the size
of the timber-and the Secretary directed me to put in that clause
which made it optional with him to contract or not.
Question. Were the descriptions of the timber made by the Secretary or yourself?
Answer. By myself.
Question. Upon what ground did you make them?
Answer. From my knowledge, as a ship builder, of the kinds of
ship timber wanted in a navy yard.
Question. Had you any reference to the communications which
you received from the naval constructors of the yards?
Answer. No, sir; they mentioned, generally, small timber; but I
took my own judgment as to that, and it relates to all the yards.
Question. When you notified those gentlemen who were bidders




126                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
under the proposals of July, 1858, that their bids were severally
accepted, what notice did you ever have, if any, about their intention
to comply with their contracts? Had you at that time, or before
that time, or at any time before the contracts were annulled, any
information from those parties of the purpose or intention which they
had at the time they bid in relation to complying with their contracts?
Answer. I think that one firm failed altogether to comply. There
were gentlemen from the north, Buxton & Lawrence, I think, who
declined to enter into their contract at all, on account of the shortness of the time allowed, and said they would refer to the Secretary.
They were the only parties whom I have any knowledge of making
any protest against the time allowed. No contract was ever made
with them.  I sent it to them for their signature, but they never
returned it.
Question. They did not return the contract, and informed you that
they declined to do so?
Answer. They said they would refer to the Secretary of the Navy.
The other parties executed their contracts without any remarks at all,
and returned them.
Question. What was their course, so far as you know, after executing the contract? Did they proceed to take steps to undertake
to comply with their contracts or not?
Answer. Mr. Grice delivered 1,400 feet in the yard at Philadelphia.
The other party, Mr. Coates, called in my office a day or two before
the 1st of September, and said that he was then on his way to Florida
to see about getting timber.
Question. Did he state to you at what time he would be able to
supply any at Pensacola?
Answer. No, sir; he merely said he was on his way there.
Question. Do you know when he actually did set out?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know anything about his going.
Question. When the contracts were either not executed or were
vacated, what was then done in regard to getting a supply of that
timber?
Answer. I was directed by the Secretary of the Navy to make
a contract with Mr. Swift to supply this deficiency at the lowest rates
that had been offered.
Question. Had Mr. Swift made any proposition to the government
in regard to the matter?
Answer. I presume he had, to the Secretary of the Navy; there
was nothing upon our records.
Question. Had any one else done so?
Answer. Mr. Bigler, who was one of the bidders, I think made an
offer for one or two of the yards, but not for the whole.
Question. What was Mr. Swift's offer?
Answer. To take the whole of the contracts at the same rates as
were offered by the lowest bidders.
Question. Does the government, then, get the timber at the same
rates from Mr. Swift at the lowest rates that the lowest bidders offered
to supply it for?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                   127
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What has been Mr. Swift's course under these contracts?
Has he shown a disposition virtually to carry out these contracts or
not?
Answer. He has; this table (referring to report) shows the amount
that he has actually delivered under these contracts.
Question. Suppose a contractor fails to supply the timber as he
agreed; is that reported to your bureau?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you ever reported to the Secretary of the Navy in
any case the failure upon the part of Mr. Swift to comply with his
contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know Mr. Swift?
Answer. Only from seeing him in my office.
Question. Was he in your office much during the last year?
Answer. No, sir; he does not visit me very often; he occasionally
comes in to make inquiry as to his bills there, whether they have
been passed or not, or something of that sort.
Question. Is he often about the Naval Department?
Answer. I could not say that he was.
Question. Do you say now that the timber advertised for by you in
1858 was of a description needed, and that it was needed, in your
judgment, at the times set forth in your advertisement-in view of
the timber on hand, &c.?  Remember how much live-oak you had on
hand, the amount of work there was going on, and then say whether
or not the timber of that description was needed at the times you
specified in the advertisement?
Answer. I think that timber of that description was needed; not
the whole of it; probably we could have done with much less than
was called for. But I think it was for the interest of the service
to have got that description of timber, and I think we wanted it then.
Question. At that time?
Answer. Yes, sir; a portion of it.
Question. When Mr. Grice had delivered a portion of his timber
at the Philadelphia yard, why did you vacate his contract?  You
say that he delivered some at Philadelphia.
Answer. That is, out of 25,000 he delivered 1,400 feet. I merely
represented the fact to the Secretary of the Navy, but gave no opinion
as to the vacation of the contract.
Question. 1Have you furnished anywhere all the correspondence
upon the files of the department in relation to the contracts for timber
in 1858?
Answer. Yes, sir, we have, under a call of the Senate, on motion
of Mr. Wilson.
Question. Has it been sent in to the Senate yet?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw it noticed in the papers a few days ago.
Question. What does the information you sent to the Senate include?
Answer. All that the resolution of Mr. Wilson called for; I do hot
recollect exactly what that was.




128                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. When a man contracts to deliver 25,000, and really delivers 1,400 feet, do you consider that a bona fide effort on his part to
comply with his contract?
Answer. I would not regard it so.
Question. Considering, also, that when he made the bid he intended
to comply with his contract?
Answer. I cannot tell what his intentions may have been.
Question. Do you know of any particular relations existing between
Mr. Swift and the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir, I do not know of any.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. I wish to ask you now, as an expert, do you show more
indulgence to a contractor who offers timber that is rejected than you
do to one who fails in point of time?
Answer. Yes, sir, I should think we would.
Question. Then you think that a failure in point of time is worse
than the bringing bad and imperfect pieces of timber, which must be
rejected?
Answer. They are always at great expense in getting out timber
and bringing it on, and doubtless thought that it would be received.
Question. Are they not obliged to see that their timber is within
their contract?
Answer. They should comply with their contract.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you season this live-oak timber before it goes into
the vessel?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Why not?
Answer. It takes so long to do so.  This wood is of a very peculiar
nature. As it seasons it becomes hard on the outside; and when we
use timber which we have received in the rough state, and which has
become partly seasoned, we must hew off the outside and make it
fit, and in doing so we take off that portion which has been seasoned,
and then we come to wood that is not seasoned, but is in its original
condition.
Question. Suppose it were seasoned?
Answer. It would take a good many years to do that.
Question. But suppose it was stored up for the right number of
years, and seasoned?
Answer. I think it would be better, although we do not make that
so much a point in reference to that kind of wood as we would in
regard to other timber.
Question. Could you kiln-dry it, and thus season it in that way?
Answer. No, sir; it would split too much. It is very subject now
to splitting and cracking as it seasons, and one of the great difficulties now is the cracking of the timber. 
By the Chairman: 
Question. What amount of live-oak have you on hand at the difr ent navy yards?.
Answer. I cannot say; but the greater part of it is timber cut and
moulded to a particular shape for frigates and ships of the line. The




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                 129
promiscuous timber that was delivered with this, many years ago,
has nearly all been used up; until now, in some cases, we have had
to use this moulded timber, which is a great deal more valuable than
what could have been used instead of it, if we had had it.
Question. Have you an official statement of the amount of liveoak on hand at any period lately?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is there any published statement of it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You said that you had made some open purchases of
live-oak timber. From whom did you make these purchases?
Answer. From Mr. Bigler and from Mr. Swift.
Question. If any portion of this timber of Swift's lying upon the
dock had been needed for immediate use, had you not ample power
to purchase sufficient of it to supply all your demands?
Answer. Yes, sir; if there was any there at the time it was
wanted.
Question. How much, in your judgment, of this timber of Swift's
lying in the yards, not embraced under the contracts of 1857, would
it have been necessary to have used between the 23d of September,
1858, and the 1st of February, 1859?  How much, and in what
yards?
Answer. I cannot say how much, but I think that some of it would
have been necessary for these vessels that are being built in these
yards.
Question. Do you know that a single stick would have been needed?
Answer. I think it would.
Question. Have you information that any portion of it has been
used?
Answer. Since we purchased it do you mean?
Question. I do.
Answer. No, sir; the department has no special reports on that
subject.
Question. Do you know how much and where that particular kind
of timber was needed between the 23d of September, 1858, and the
1st of February, 1859-of that particular lot of timber that Swift is
now supplying?  I mean, taking into consideration the supply you
had on hand.
Answer. It would be needed in building all these small sloops; it
would be used upon these small vessels.
Question. Was any of it used?
Answer. I presume it was.
Question. Do you know that it was used?
Answer. That I cannot say. We have no record to show that; but
I presume it would be used.
Question. Why do you presume so?
Answer. If it was there on the spot, of a suitable size, and they
wanted it, they would rather take that than haul timber out of the
shed, or take larger piles down.
Question, Had they not the same sizes in the sheds?
9B




130               CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. I do not think so.
Question. Did they have it in the piles?
Answer. They might have had it in the piles, but it would have
been considerable expense to take those large piles of timber down
and would have cost more, probably, than to have bought it as it was
lying there.
Question. Would there have been any difficulty in purchasing from
Swift any amount of this timber that might have been needed?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Suppose that the usual time had been given under the
contracts of 1858, how much would it have been necessary for the
government to have purchased upon open purchase to supply the current demands of live-oak in the different yards?
Answer. I cannot say.
Question. What, in your best judgment, under oath?
Answer. I really cannot tell. That would depend very much upon
the condition and kinds of timber they have on hand in the sheds, &c.
I have never seen that, and could not say how much more they may
have needed.
Question. How then can you say that the government needed this
timber for its use?
Answer. I think that in building these small vessels they wanted
timber of this description.
Question. Do you know that?
Answer. These letters from the naval constructors say that they
want this kind of timber in the yards.
Question. How much of this kind did they say they wanted?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. They wanted some?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Well, taking their statements to be true, how much of
this kind of timber was wanted?
Answer. I cannot give it in feet.
Question. Was it 1,000 feet?
Answer. I think it would be more than that.
Question. Was it 100, 000 feet?
Answer. I cannot fix the amount now.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Has any of that small timber belonging to Swift at the
Brooklyn navy yard been sent to any other navy yard?'
Answer. I do not know; I have no means of knowing that.
Question. Do you know whether any orders have been issued to
send any of the timber from that yard to other yards?
Answer. They have never sent any.
Question. Then the amount to be purchased for other yards had no
reference to the piles that were in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. The government has sent no timber from one yard to
another. If we purchased it in the Brooklyn navy yard it remained
there. If Mr. Swift has sent any from one yard to another to make
up his contract, I can say nothing about that.
Question. Has the department sent any?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  131
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Then what is purchased there remains there?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you advise persons who called on you for information
and blanks, in the spring and summer of 1858, in relation to furnishing
live-oak, that they better not bid; if so, to whom did you give such
advice?
Answer. I do not think I ever did so, because the more persons
who bid the cheaper we would get it.
Question. Do you have any recollection of making discouraging
remarks to any one?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you say nothing of the kind to Mr. Coates?
Answer. No, sir. I remember Mr. Coates talking with me about
the timber, and as he was a man who was never known to be in the
live-oak trade, I asked him how he could manage it, and he said that
he could get along with it.
Question. Did you tell him that it was necessary to have it on th
first day of September?
Answer. I did not see any of the parties until within two days
before the time expired?
Question. When you framed this advertisement did you not at first
put in the usual time for the delivery of the timber?
Answer. I put in the time that the Secretary of the Navy suggested
to me.
Question. Did you put in the shortest time at which persons could
deliver the timber?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What time do you refer to, the 1st of February, 1859?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you fix the intermediate time?
Answer. That was fixed in the Secretary's office, I suppose, in
conversation with him.
Question. Did you not at first insert the usual time, and was it not
sent in that way to the Secretary of the Navy, and he then asked you
what was the shortest time within which it could be furnished?
Answer. No, sir; I think that in drawing up the advertisement I
left the time blank in the original, because it was for the Secretary
to instruct me about it after he had got my opinion.
Question. Then you did not fix the time at all?
Answer. When the Secretary asked me for the shortest time, I
fixed the 1st of February.
Question. Could it all have been cut and delivered by that time?
Answer. Yes, sir, I think so. I would say, in regard to the actual
quantity purchased of Mr. Swift, that the amount of 25,000 feet for
each yard I fixed upon myself; that amount I determined upon without instructions from the Secretary.
Question. I will ask you whether, if it had been necessary to purchase any live-oak before the 1st of February-at the navy yard at




132                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK
Brooklyn, for instance-you could not have purchased it of Mr. Swift
upon open purchase-say 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 feet-of that he had
lying in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was there any pressing demand for live-oak except at
that yard?
Answer. I think they wanted it very much at Norfolk.
Question. Are you sure of that?
Answer. As sure as I can be without the letter before me.
Question. Does the amount of timber furnished by Swift under this
new contract of 1858 correspond to the amount of timber that Swift
had lying on the docks of the United States before this contract was
entered into?
Answer. I should think not.
Question. Was there more or less?
Answer. I should think that it must be less, because I did not fix
the amount with any reference to his stock.
Question. Then the amount he has delivered is less than the amount
he had on the docks?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think he has it there now.
Question. Then why not take that timber?
Answer. Because it did not conform to the specifications of the
contract.
Question Will you take that timber?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What will be done with it?
Answer. When he comes to the end of hiscontract they will order
him to take it away.
Question. If it does not come within the contract, why not make
him remove it immediately?
Answer. That would be oppressive.
Question. Take it away within a reasonable time?
Answer. We will do that when it is necessary, but I do not think
they are much embarrassed with it now; it is the same with whiteoak and other timber.
Question. If you have rejected and have refused to take it, why
allow it to remain in the navy yard after a week or two?
Answer. It would take a much longer time for him to remove it.
We allow him a reasonable time, as long as we can, for we do not
want to throw any obstacle in the way of any contractor for the government; but there is a great tendency to impose upon us too much;
it is so in regard to contractors for iron, copper, lumber, &c., and
when it gets in the way we make them remove it.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you furnish the same facilities to the other contractors
that you furnish to this man Swift?
Answer. Yes, sir; we try to do so; although a great deal of that
lays with the commandant of the yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Has there been any order from your bureau, or, so far as




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                  133
you know, from the Navy Department, ordering the commandant of
any yard to allow one man to store timber there and not to allow
another to do so?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Will you look over the correspondence and see if it is
so, so that you can answer directly when you come again before this
committee?
Answer. I will do so.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. After the commandant of any yard ordered Mr. Swift to
take this timber away, did you give orders to let it remain?
Answer. I think not. That, however, will be seen from the correspondence.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you say you fixed the amount of timber called for tinder these contracts of 1858?
Answer. Yes, sir; I fixed it.
Question. To what did you have reference in so doing?
Answer. I thought the service required it.
Question. What directions did the Secretary of the Navy give you
as to the amount of timber to be contracted for?
Answer. None at all. He told me to state the amount I thought
was needed.
Question. You have testified in regard to the time fixed upon in
these contracts, now, under the order issued by the Navy Department
for the launching of these new sloops before the meeting of Congress.
would this new contract have delivered the timber in time for them
if they had allowed until the first of February for its delivery?
Answer. No, sir; I think not.  Not if the delivery of any of it was
postponed until the latest moment, because several of the vessels are
now launched and planked up, and no timber is wanting in them, and
I think all are ready to be launched at this moment and have been
for some time.
Question. From your knowledge of the contract system and the
open market system, do you think if the government had gone into
open market to purchase this timber they would have got it at less
or more than the contract made with Mr. Swift allows to him for it?
Answer. I think that the price of the lowest bidder, which is the
price at which Mr. Swift takes it, is a very fair price for that timber.
and I so stated to the Secretary of the Navy; I said that timber was
worth that much money, but I would not recommend his purchasing
it at any higher rate than that offered by the lowest bidder.
Question. Did you have any reference to Mr. Swift's timber when
you fixed upon the amount to be delivered in the yards?
Answer. No, sir.  I read his letter over when it was first sent, and
then paid no further attention to it.
Question. Have you had any information as to the reason why Mr.
Swift did not sooner deliver the timber to the Pensacola navy yard
under his last contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; I received a letter from the commodore of the




134                CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
yard, in which he states that the yellow fever had prevented Mr.
Swift from doing so, and that he did not think it was the fault of the
contractor that it was not furnished before.
Question. Will you furnish this committee a copy of that letter?
Answer. I will do so.
[See appendix to this deposition.]
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. From your knowledge of the condition of the supplies in
the yards, &c., I want to know whether you: considered it prudent
and necessary to have a further supply of this class of live-oak at the
yards where work was to be done before February, 1859?
Answer.  Yes, sir; the letters from the different yards, I think,
state that they think it necessary to have this timber. I think so
myself.  We could have done with less than 25,000 feet at each yard
perhaps.  I put that amount down so as to make a stock of that
material.
Question. You fixed that as the proper amount required?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Could you have done with less?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think we could.
Question. But you did consider that more was needed than you had
on hand?
Answer. Yes, sir; I did consider that we wanted some timber of
that smaller size.
By the Chairman:
Question. How much did you think was needed?
Answer. I could not fix that; no man could fix that.
Question. Not how much, nor in what yards?
Answer. No, sir; I think we wanted it in all the navy yards. I
believe, however, that one of the naval constructors said they did not
want any.  Still I made it general for the whole, as we could get it
cheaper now by putting in -the whole of the yards than by waiting
until some other time and then making a special contract for that one
yard.
Question. Please look at the clause of the law now shown you, as
follows: "in case the lowest bidder shall fail to enter into such contract and give such security within a reasonable time, to be fixed in
such advertisement, then the contract shall be given to the next
lowest bidder, who shall enter into such contract and give such
security," and state if it was complied with on the failure of Buxton
& Lawrence to enter into contract upon their proposals.
Answer. The law does not require that the offer shall be made to
the next lowest bidder, and the offer was not made.
JOHN LENTHALL.




List of contracts embracing all coming under the cognizance of the Bureau of Construction, Equipment and Repair, made
and received since date of last report, November 19, 1857, prepared in conformity with the act of Congress of April 21,
1808, to November 23, 1858.
Date.  Expiration.   Names of contractors.                             Articles.                                 Rates.          Navy yard where
deliverable.
1858.     1859.
Aug. 14  Feb.   1  Samuel B. Grice. —             5, 000 cubic feet, sided, 15 and 18 inches.....  $1 28 per cubic ft    Philadelphia.
10,000 -.... do.....12 and 14..do..........            17     do.              Q
10,000 -.o-. do..o  - 9. 9 and 10..do.         1 06       do. 
5,000....do -.. 15 and 18..do..............  1 28....do-.. Gosport. 
10, 000 -—. do... 12 and 14..do.......       17     do. 
10,000 —.... do-...-.-   9 and 10. do.  1 06                        do. 
Aug. 10  Feb.         Coates, Degraw & Beach.  5, 000 cubic feet, sided, 15 and 18 inches..  1 25....do... Warrington. 
10, 000-... do —— 12 and 14..do...-                      1 15       do.
10,000 -.....do.. —.-.9 and 10..do..                      00       do.
Sept. 23  Feb.   1  W. C. N. Swift-5-,- 5,000 cubic feet, sided, 15 and 18 inches. —---                      1 09....do.         Kittery. 
10,000 -...do ---       12 and 14..do..                  1 09       do.
10,000 —.. — do-.....-    9 and 10..do......     09       do.
5, 000-.....do....15 and 18..do-                     1 09...do —--   Charlestown.
10,000 -....-do.. —— 12 and 14.do                        1 09       do. 
10,000.....do-... 9 and 10.-do                           1 09       do.
5,000 ---    do-,.15 and 18..do1 09...... do                                Brooklyn.
10,000....-do...12 and 14..do                        1 09       do.
10,000. —— do -.. —-  9 and 10..do.                   1 09       do.
5,000.-...-do.....-15 and 18..do                 1.   1 28....- do. —... Philadelphia.
10,000 —.....do. —...12 and 14-.do-....   1 17            do.
10,000 —. —.do-...-   9 and 10.-do-..        1 06       do.
5,000......do..-  15 and 18..do -- --..1 28... — do ------ Gosport.
10,000-... —do —-... 12 and 14-.do..-..........  1 17              do.
10,000.....do....-      9 and 10..do-..-                1 06       do.
5.000......do -. —..15 and 18.-do........               1 25 —-. —do.-. Warrington.
10, 000.......do -.....12 and 14..do........-....  1 15             do.
10,000-.....do-...-.-    9 and 10 —do-. |                1 00       do.               |'
_____




J0,1,                                            h
Scale of Jer6  tofurnzish lv-oa7  timber at ths navy yards at Kittery,  Jharlestown, Brooklyn, Philadepia, Gosport and
Warrinvton, uuder adpertisement from  the Bureau qf Construction,  quipment,   c,,  of June 14, 18 5 8,
Kittery,      Charlstw.         Brooklyn.      Philadelphla.      Qosport.       Warrington.'*o.                                                                                          WarriSelo_..  d.erg,......
25, 000 cub. ft. 25, 000 cub. ft. 25, 000 cub. ft. 25, 000 cub. ft  25, 000 cub. ft. 25, 000 cub ft.
i  Samuel R, Gric  -.............      $30,450          $30,000          $29,800         $28 70          0  T$289,00 $
Button and Lawincc......           -........ -27, 250                2750.        7250
|a$~, 250   " ~27,250   ----------------- --------
S  Samuel P. Brown.............____, --  0,500        33, 500          33,500           33,500          2, 750 Q
4  W. C. N. Swift,   _...-2, 5(00                                        3|,,500          32, 500           82 500         32,500           82, 50 0
5  James:gler,:                                        83, 750          83, 000          33, 000 13' 000                  88, 000          33, 000
6  Jos. (Grrce............9,259 0     29,750           28,450..' —----
7  Coats, Dogsaw;Beach —--- --                                                           8025 8-0, 3, 7so  21 o500  30, 250  3, 250  3050  2, 750 
William Deale                                                -............. - - - -   -' —-              50 |...7.0  -.....-.. —..-.... -,00- -------- -----
Lowegt and  cepted. Offer No. 2 of Button & Lawrence, failed to en!er into contract for the Kittery, Charlestown, and Brooklyn yards.
-'                                                       ^




Statement of  amount paid for live-oak contracted for since the 4th day of March, 1857, and alsofor that procured under
open purchase since that date.
Name of contractor.                      Date of con-  Number of feet Number of feet Amount of bills  Reservation.    Navy yard.
tract.      contracted for.    delivered.            paid.
W. C. N. Swift          -----         -— July  1, 1857                            50,000         34,025k        $41,191 02         $7,268 97   New York Q
Do -.. do-....                                                             50,000    24,6711    28,368 25    5,006 17 Philadelphia.   ~
Do-.........................................do...50,000          35,912          32,652 78          7,528 72   Gospoit.              H
Brown & McGilvery. -    --- July  3, 1857                                50, 000        48,782~-         57,628 92        10,169 79   Boston.
Estimated at 
W. C. N. Swift, (to fulfill Blanchard's contract)        Nov. 17, 1857            15,800          9,767           13,121 63         2,315 57   New York.             H
W. C. N. Swift..                                        Sept. 23, 1857           25,000          9,058~.          8,393 08         1,481 14   Kittery.    m
Do —........ —-............. —-......do......                            25,000         17,336-         16,061 88          2,834 44   Boston.
Do          -— do......                                                   25,000          8,574i5    7,944 20    1,401 91 New York.
Do..-................-.....-do......                25,000         11,003          10,782 60          1,902 81  Philadelphia.
Do - ---                        ------------- — do —---                    25,000         22,650          22,078 87          3,896 27   Gosport
Do      -----      ---------------------------— do —----                   25,000  ----------------—........                             Warrington          <
Samuel B. Grice —---—...... —----------              -.  Aug. 14, 1858          25,000           1,490      All the con -        --- Philadelphia.                 t
Do ---------------------------------—. —-.do —----                        25,000                        tracts  an-.               Gosport.            0
Coates, Degraw & Beach....-       ---------- ------           do.....            25,000  -           -----     nulled.        --- Pensacola.
Date of bill.
James Bigler -------------------------------  May 21, 1857   Open purchase.                        3,740           4, 114 00      ----           Philadelphia.
Do    --------------------  Sept. 2, 1857..-..do —---                                    1,977           2,175 06           ---         Portsmouth.
Do ----------                                     Sept. 16, 1857  -...-do —----            3,806           4,314 52   --        - -    Boston.
Do —---------            -       ------------ Oct. 22, 1857  —.- do —---                  3,324           3,656 40.-       — Gosport.
Do ---......                           Sept. 30, 1858...-do —.-.             3,055           3,972 47...-.... —-—. Portsmouth.
W. C  N. 6wift -----------------------------    Mar. 27, 1858  ----— do......                     2,108            2,705 44  ------------  Gosport.
)o —------ ------  May 28, 1858  -...-do......-                                            1,389            1,810 36          -------- Gosport.
24,267         260,971 48
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' _                                                                                                             ^




138                  CONTRACTS FOR  LIVE-OAK.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construcion, &C. August 3, 1858.
SIR: Your offer to furnish live-oak under advertisement of the 14th
June, 1858, by direction of the department, is accepted for the navy
yards at Philadelphia and Gosport.
A contract will be immediately made out and forwarded to the navy
agent at Philadelphia, as requested in your offer which you will
please have executed according to the advertisement and returned to
the bureau without delay.
I am respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of'the Bureau.
SAMUEL B. GRICE, Esq., Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,.Bureau of Construction, dc., August 3,1858.
GENTLEMEN: Your offer to furnish live-oak under the advertisement
of the 14th June, 1858, by direction of the departments accepted
for the navy yard at Warrington, Florida. A contract will be immediately made out and forwarded to the navy agent at New York, as
requested in your offer, which you will please have executed according
to the advertisement, that it may be returned to the bureau without
delay.
I am respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Messrs. COATES, DEGRAW & BEACH,
Fulton, Oswego county, New York.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., August 3, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: Your offer to furnish live-oak, under the advertisement of June 14, 1858, by direction of the department, is accepted
for the navy yards at Kittery, Charlestown, and Brooklyn. A contract will be immediately made out and forwarded to the postmaster
at Warren, Maine, as requested in your offer, which you.will please
have executed according to the advertisement, and returned to the
bureau without delay. Each partner must sign the contract.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Messrs. BUXTON & LAWRENCE, Warren, Maine.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                      141
communication and request to be informed if it is the wish of the
bureau that any other course than this be adopted.  I will say that
every accommodation has been given to the contractors that could
reasonably be desired by them.
I will add that most of the timber we are encumbered with has
accumulated in this way: Vessels arrive at the yard and discharge
their cargoes, after which it is inspected; instances have occurred
within a short time where only one-half, arid, in one case, not onequarter of a cargo passed inspection.  Unless this course of proceeding is stopped we shall soon be so lumbered up that it will be
impossible to go on with the government work. In case the request
to the contractors to remove their surplus and rejected timber from
the yard is not complied with, I wish to be informed what course I
am to adopt.
Permit me to express an opinion and say that our inspector, Mr.
Bellamy, is strictly impartial and faithful in the performance of his
duty.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN POPE,
Commandant.
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, Equipment, &c.,
Washington, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., June 12, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 10th has been received.  With regard to
the live-oak timber, Mr. Bigler has offered that which he will have
remaining after the completion of his contract to the department, and
in a few days an advertisement will appear inviting proposals for
promiscuous live-oak. Under these circumstances, you will please
allow Mr. Bigler's live-oak to remain until such time as he has an
opportunity of offering.  If it is in the way you will require him to
have it hauled to a convenient place in the yard, he either paying the
labor or you charging him with it.
If other parties refuse to take their timber away, please report the
fact when it occurs, and it will be laid before the department for
instruction.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Captain JOHN POPE,
Commandant, Navy Yard, Kittery.
NAVY YARD, New York, January 24, 1859.
SIR: In obedience to your order, I herewith state the amount of
live-oak timber, delivered on Blanchard's contract by W. C. N. Swift,




142                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAKas per his contract, dated November 17, 1857, and the amount due
thereon:
Principal pieces.         Frame.
Contract..................  2,800 cubic feet.  1,300  cubic feet.
Received.................  1,956           "       11, 501
Due................    844          "        1,498- "
Mr. Swift has a large quantity of rejected live-oak lying in the
yard, 536 pieces, amounting to about 10,000 cubic feet.  Much of it
has been here about twelve months, occupying valuable room.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. F. DELANO, N. C.
NOTE.  The above named quantities are taken from the timber inspector's books.
Commodore SAMUEL L. BREESE,
Commanding United States Navy Yard, New York.
(The time of this contract expires on the 30th of July, 1858.)
J. L.
NAVY YARD, New York, April 23, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your order of the 22d instant, in relation to' promiscuous timber," (which, it is presumed, refers to live-oak,
although not so stated,) I have to state that there is upon the books
about 26,000 cubic feet of promiscuous live-oak available, sided from
12 to 18 inches, including 6,000 cubic feet, recently received for a
steamer, and 4,900 cubic feet, sided 8 inches, for brigs and schooners.
This comprises all the promiscuous live-oak timber remaining on
hand of that originally received, with the several live-oak frames now
on hand.  Much of it is large the moulding way, considerably rented.
and generally not fit for the top sides of a vessel.
The most of the timber on hand is slightly curved.
The top and half-top timbers of the sloop St. Louis, about being
repaired, require timber sided 9 and 10 inches, and 7 and 14 feet in
length. I am of opinion it will be of economy to procure small size
timber for this and similar vessels.
I think it would be advantageous for the government to procure
some promiscuous live-oak timber, sided 12 and 15 inches, straight,
to match the 42,000 cubic feet of curved timber, now under contract,
provided the timber under contract curves not less than 12 inches.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. F. DELANO, N. C.
Commodore L. KEARNY,
Commanding Navy Yard, New York.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK-                       143
CONSTRUCTOR' S OFFICE,
United States Navy Yard, Philadelphia, April 26, 1858.
SIR: In answer to your letter of the 23d, relating to the promiscuous
timber in this yard, I beg leave to state, for the information of the
Bureau of Construction, that there is now in the yard, by the inspector's
report, 26,480 cubic feet of promiscuous live-oak stowed in the timber
sheds.  It is principally small and straight, but a minute description
cannot be given unless taken out.  There is also 2,491 cubic feet of
promiscuous live-oak timber left from Mr. Bigler's contract, principally straight. That which has any crook is small. I am of the
opinion that no more straight live-oak timber will be required than is
contracted for.
Very respectfully,
FRANCIS GRICE,
Naval Constructor.
Commodore CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
NAVY YARD, KITTERY, MAINE,
April 26, 1858.
SIR: In answer to your communication of the 21st instant, I have
to state that there is now on hand at this yard, of promiscuous timber,
18,724 cubic feet of live-oak, and 20,575 cubic feet of white-oak.
Total, 39,299 cubic feet; a fair proportion of which is curved timber.
I am not aware that any more straight promiscuous timber is wanted
at present. If more is wanted, the sizes will depend on the nature of
the work for which it may be required.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM L. HANSCOM,
Naval Constructor.
Captain JOHN POPE, Commandant.
NAVY YARD, BOSTON,
April 26, 1858.
SIR: Agreeably to your order, I herewith furnish a schedule of the
promiscuous timber on hand exclusive of that now under contract:
White-oak, promiscuous.-9, 574 cubic feet straight; 3,362 cubic feet
curve; and 2,920 cubic feet round butts; 4,521 cubic feet suitable for
keel pieces.  In consideration that we have 150,576 cubic feet of
plank stocks, I should consider that the supply was sufficient.
Hard-pine, promiscuous.-2, 852 cubic feet nearly straight, suitable
for water-ways; also 114,874 cubic feet plank stocks.  No more is
wanted, there being no place to stow it except out doors.
Live-oak, promiscuous.-25,426 ship-of-the-line; 16,3541  frigates;
6, 281-2 sloops-of-war; 8, 379-2- sea steamers; 1, 085-9- harbor steamers;
brigs none.  The live-oak being stowed with the frames to which it




144                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
belongs is of the usual variety of straight and crooked.  I would remark that a portion of the above timber is rented and split to such an
extent that it is unfit for naval purposes.
Keelson pieces.-I would recommend the purchase of about 5,000
cubic feet from 28 to 35 feet long to side 19 inches; 5,000 ditto, 18
inches; 5,000 ditto, 15 inches; each piece to make two or three plank
six inches thick, clear of pith shakes, when sawed to be of the above
length. Also 10,000 cubic feet promiscuous for sloops-of-war, to side
13 inches and mould 9 to 12 inches clear of wane, 12 to 15 feet long,
to have the usual proportion of crooked timber; 4, 000 to 5,000 cubic
feet promiscuous, 9 to 12 feet long, to side 8 and 9 inches clear of
wane.  I would here remark that live-oak grown in East Florida does
not crack like Louisiana live-oak. Experience shows the grain of the
wood is more compact, and in my opinion is one-third more valuable.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
E. H. DELANO,
Naval Constructor.
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c., Washington.
Respectfully forwarded,
S. H. STRINGHAM,
Commandant.
NAVAL CONSTRUCTOR'S OFFICE,
United States Navy Yard, Gosport, May 3, 1858.
SiR: In reply to the letter from the Chief of the Bureau of Construction, &c., of the 21st ultimo, relating to live-oak promiscuous
timber, I would state that there is no record in this yard giving any
description of the promiscuous timber on hand, except that which has
been delivered under the contract with W. C. N. Swift, and the
timber is stowed in such a manner that it is impossible to give the
information without overhauling it. The ledger shows a large amount
on hand, but I think, from  what I have seen in my examination,
(having been through the sheds several times,) that there is not more
than two-thirds of the amount in the yard that the books call for. The
ledger, on the 1st of April, called for46,982 cubic feet of live-oak promiscuous, for ships-of-the-line.
11, 788     "           "             "        frigates.
16,377'           "             "        sloops.
14,647                   "            "        brigs and schooners.
1,769      "           "             "        steamers.
Included in the above are 6,422 cubic feet delivered with the frame
for steam sloop, which is stowed with the frame, and in good order.
Also:
6,312 cubic feet principal pieces,
3,351       "    curved, sided 13 to 15 inches,
4,145           "       "  "    12 inches,
8,065       "    straight, sided 13 to 15 inches,




CONTRACTS FOR  LIVE-OAK.                          145
delivered by W. C. N. Swift, and which is stowed by itself. A large
amount of the timber received prior to the deliveries on the two last
contracts is in bad order, especially that under the head of frigates,
sloops, and brigs, having been overhauled from  four to five times to
select frames, and not having been in tight sheds.
I am unable to give any opinion as to the propriety of purchasing
straight live-oak at this time, but would state that should it be the
intention of the department to repair the vessels at this yard soon, it
would be advisable to increase the stock  suitable for frigates and
sloops, to be sided from 13 to 18 inches; and should it be decided to
build another small steamer at this yard the coming season, we will
be in want of timber sided from 9 to 12 inches, as much of the timber
under the head of brigs and schooners is of bad quality.
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. T. HART,
Naval Constructor.
Capt. THOMAS A. DORNIN,
Commandant of Navy Yard, Gosport.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS A. DORNIN,
Commandant.
COMMANDANT'S OFFICE,
U. S. Navy Yard, Pensacola, Warrington, December 29, 1858.
SIR: Since the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, directing
me not to receive any live-oak  from  Mr. Swift, I have received
reliable information which I think relieves him in a great degree
from intentional failure to comply with the terms of his contract.
You are aware that the yellow fever prevailed to a great extent. oan
the southern  coast during the past summer and until late in the
autumn.  It is within my knowledge that it was the beginning of November before it was thought safe to visit any of the Gulf ports where
the fever had prevailed.
Under these circumstances, I have reason to believe that Mr. Swift
could not get vessels to go for the live-oak in time to comply with the
terms of his contract.  There are now, I am  informed, four vessels
loading with timber for this place, and may be expected soon to arrive. Notwithstanding these circumstances, I shall not receive the
timber until further orders from you, except perhaps a few pie.ces
required for the ship now building, if they can be had without reference to the contract.
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. K. STRIBLING,
Commandant.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,
Chief of the Bureau of Construction, &c., Washington.
10B




146                    CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
CONSTRUCTOR'S OFFICE,
United States Navy Yard, Philadelphia, January 8, 1859.
SIR: A bill for live-oak on Mr. Swifts contract, delivered by Mr.
Bigler, from Norfolk, for $4,400 52, was laid before me for my approval.  On comparing it with the detailed statement furnished, as
directed by the department, by the inspector, I find that it is not
agreeable to the contract, as I understand it. The contract says that
"the timber siding eighteen to fifteen inches may be from eighteen
to twenty-five feet in length, and such of the eighteen inch pieces as
are fit for keelsons may be longer." The inspector understands that
they "may be" shorter, and it will be seen by the copy of the detailed statement that no regard is paid to the length. On examining
the bills paid for the timber of Mr. Swift, (piled in the yard at his
expense,) the siding only is considered, as to contract, and not the
length. In the first cargo delivered on Mr. Swift's contract, even
the siding is not complied with, there being some sixty pieces that
side but eight inches. Those bills were paid for during my absence
by sickness.
I know not how I can better inform you than laying before you
copies of the receipts of live-oak in detail for the consideration of
the department.
The paper marked A is the timber delivered by Mr. Bigler, which
I declined approving.  The paper marked B is a statement of the
same, according to the terms of the contract, as I understand it. The
paper marked C is a detailed statement of the timber in the yard at
the time of the making of Mr. Swift's last contract, in which the
sidings are only considered, without any regard to the length; and
that marked D is the last cargo, in which even the siding is not adhered to, as some sixty pieces were received siding eight inches.
All of which is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the
department.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
FRANCIS GRICE, Constructor.
Captain FREDERICK ENGLE,
Commandant of United States Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., January 24, 1859.
SIR: Referring to your letter of the 8th, relating to a delivery of
live-oak on Mr. Swift's contract at the yard under your command,
you will only have that received which is substantially in accordance
with the plain terms of the contract, and regard must be had to the
lengths in connexion with the siding. The naval constructor' s view
is correct. Should there be some particular pieces which, from their
crook or other cause, the naval constructor considers it desirable and
to the interest of the government to receive, there is no objection;




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                            147
but the exceptions should be few and the prices must be shown to
the naval constructor to whom the inspector is subordinate.  One of
the objects of the contract being to obtain small size crooked timber,
you will please instruct the naval constructor that the proper proportions of that kind must be supplied, or the bills suspended.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Captain F. ENGLE,
Commandant of Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
WASHINGTON, May 24, 1858.
SIR: I have at the Norfolk yard a quantity of live-oak  timber,
surpl-us of my contract for deliveries there, which I believe valuable
for the service, and beg to request that you will authorize its receipt.
It consists ofFirst. A large number of keelson pieces, say about 5,000 feet;
price by contract, $1 75 per foot.  Keelson pieces have always been
considered valuable, and the department once paid over $4 per foot
to the lowest bidder for furnishing them.
Second. About 5, 000 feet of timber, both curved and straight,
sided 18 and 20 inches, which is larger than is required by contract.
As it seemed wrong to cut down timber to 15 inches sidings that,would be more useful if worked longer, I gave orders to work it
larger, and hope you will authorize its receipt, provided the larger
sidings give proportional increase of value to the pieces. Price, (to
be received on contract,) for curved, $1 34 per foot; for that not
technically curved and straight, $1 24 per cubic foot.
Third. About 12,000 feet of timber, straight or with not sufficient
curve to bring it into the contract as curved timber, sided 12, 13,
and 15 inches; some 12-inch timber also included. Price, $1 24 per
foot.
Fourth. About 14,000 feet of timber, curved and straight, sided
9 and 10 inches.
In pursuing the system before alluded to, of cutting timber insuch
a manner as to make it most valuable for the service, this timber has
been procured. It is a very useful and economical size for sloops-ofwar and smaller vessels. Upwards of 3,000 feet of this lot have been
worked into the frame of the steam sloop "Richmond," and if it had
been in the yard in time most of it could have been advantageously
tised in her construction.
In order to avoid any delay in the reception of this timber, I have
determined to reduce its price, although the contract price is less
than it cost me, and less than it should now sell for, in view of the
great demand there will soon be for it. I will offer it for $1 15 per
cubic foot.
To recapitulate, I will beg to request that you will order the liveoak timber I now have in the Norfolk yard to be received, as follows:




148                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
For keelson pieces, as per contract, $1 75 per cubic foot; for curved
timber, sided 18 and 20 inches, to be received on contract, $1 34 per
cubic foot; for other pieces, properly sided 18 and 20 inches, $1 24
per cubic foot; for timber straight, or not technically curved, sided
12, 13, and 15 inches, &c., curved pieces sided 12 inches, $1 24 per
cubic foot; (there is but a small proportion of straight 12-inch in
this lot; for timber, curved or straight, sided 9 and 10 inches, $1 15
per cubic foot.
Almost all this timber was cut ten years ago, so that it is not only
well seasoned, but the defects of such pieces as were not good have
become apparent, and there would not be the usual loss on it from
that cause.
It was procured immediately upon the seacoast, in East Florida, and
has the characteristics of island timber, and has been pronounced in
the yard of superior quality.
It has cost me more than I would receive for it at the prices
named.
It is not, perhaps, proper for me to allude to the necessity there
would be for having more timber, if you were to order the ships now
in the yard to be repaired, or were to build new ones.
I will take the liberty of adding that I have reason to believe that
I could sell it perhaps more advantageously to a foreign government.
Soliciting  the favor of an immediate answer, I have the honor to
be, with the greatest respect, your most obedient servant,
W. C. N. SWIFT.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 7, 1858.
SIR: In addition to the quantity of live-oak at Norfolk, which I
had the honor to propose for the acceptance of the department on
the 24th ultimo, I beg leave to offer you a similar surplus at the New
York and Philadelphia navy yards, amounting in the two yards to
about 55,000 feet. Much the greater portion of this surplus will be
at New York, at which yard there will be 12,000 to 15,000 feet sided
less than 12 inches.
I will offer this timber at the prices named in my contract for promiscuous timber.
I shall also have about 15,000 feet of similar timber at the Boston
navy yard, which I will offer at the same price, viz:
For.pieces suitable for keelsons and principal pieces, $1 75 per cubic
foot.
For pieces of curved timber, properly sided more than 15 inches,
$1 34 per cubic foot.
For other pieces of good quality and suitable lengths, sided 9, 10.
11, 12, 13 and 15 inches, $1 24 per cubic foot.
Most respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. C. N. SWIFT.
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c., Washington.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                    149
COMMANDANT'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Philadelplhia, August 13, 1858.
SIR: Mr. Swift, a contractor for the delivery of live-oak at the yard
has lying here the rejected timber of five cargoes delivered, which
amounts to a large quantity, and is greatly in our way. By a regulation of the yard, when a contractor leaves his rejected timber lying
here over a reasonable time, his second set of bills is not approved
until the removal is made.  In Mr. Swift's case, however, we have
been disposed to afford him every facility and accommodation, and
have allowed his timber, cargo after cargo, to remain until it is evident that he has taken advantage of our spirit of accommodation, and
will not remove his timber.  We have at this time some 1,200 or
1,300 men employed in the yard, and, as you well know the limited
space we have for the accommodation of our workmen, you will not
be surprised when I tell you that it now resolves itself into a question
whether this timber is to remain, and a portion of our workmen be
discharged, or whether Mr. Swift shall be forced to remove it, and
allow the operations of the yard to go on.
I shall be pleased to receive your instructions on the subject.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHAS. STEWART,
Commandant.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,              A
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c., Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, d&c., August 17, 1858.
SIR' The subject of your letter of the 13th has been communicated
to Mr. Swift, the contractor for live-oak, and he has been requested
to remove it forthwith. When this is done, his bills to which you
refer will be passed. If it is not removed in a reasonable time
please make it known.
iRespectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Commodore CHAS. STEWART,
Commanda;zt of the Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., August 17, 1858.
SIR: Herewith enclosed you will find a copy of a letter from the
commandant of the Philadelphia yard, from which it appears that the
operations of the yard are very much retarded, and it is hoped you
will relieve the department from the embarrassment by removing the
timber without delay.




150                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
The work at that yard is about to be further increased, and as you
are aware of the contracted space, you must see the difficult position in
which the commandant of the yard is placed. He will be informed
that you have been requested to remove the timber forthwith.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of tlie Bureau.
W. C. N. SWIFT, Esq.,
New Bedford, Massachusetts.
COMMANDANT'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Philadelphia, September 3, 1858.
SIR: I have to inform you that no attempt has yet been made on
the part of Mr. Swift or his agent or agents to remove his rejected
timber from the yard.
Some time since I had a letter from him, dated "New Bedford,
August 24, 1858," in which he begged to be indulged to the 30th of
that month, and suggested that, in the meantime, the timber should
be piled, the expense to be borne by him, provided the government
did not agree to take it. This could not be done, because we had no
space to spare to it outside, and I cannot, upon the supposition that
the department may finally agree to receive it, cause it to be stored
in the timber sheds. Will you be pleased to give some decided direction on this subject, as constant complaints are being made as to its
interference with the operations of the yard.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHS. STEWART, Commandant.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, fcc., Washington, D). C.
Ordered by the Secretary of the Navy that it may be piled in the
yard.                                                       J.L.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, dec., September 10, 1858.
Sin: Referring to your letter of the 3d instant, relating to Mr.
Swift's live-oak, the department permits that it may be piled up in
the yard, as Mr. Swift proposed.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Commodore CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant of Navy Yard, Philadelphia.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                      151
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., September 16, 1858.
SIR: The department having directed a contract to be made with
Mr. W. C. N. Swift, in place of that with Mr. Samuel B. Grice, on
which he has failed to make the proper delivery, you will receive nothing further from Mr. Grice on that contract, and report to the bureau, as early as practicable, the quantity and description of live-oak
which Mr. Grice has now in the yard that passes inspection.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Commodore CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant of Navy Yard, Pht7adelphia.
PHILADELPHIA, September 18, 1858.
SIR: In reply to your letter of the 16th instant, this day received, I
have to say, that against anything therein contained prejudicial to
my interests in matters of my live-oak contracts with the Navy Department, I solemnly enter this my protest, of which you will please
take notice.
Respectfully,
SAMUEL B. GRICE.
Mr. JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c., Washington, D. C.
COMMANDANT'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Philadelphia, September 1858.
SIR: Referring to your letter of the 16th, which came to hand this
morning, I enclose herewith a letter from the master carpenter, in
the temporary absence of the constructor, with some explanations a;
to Mr. Grice' s timber, for your consideration, and will thank you for
any further directions you may deem necessary on the subject.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,
Chief of the Bureau of Construction, &c, Washington, D. C.
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
Philadelphia, September 18, 1858.
SIR: A vessel containing about eighty pieces of live-oak, for account
of Mr. S. B. Grice's contract, arrived and was reported at the yard
for a berth to discharge on the 16th instant, and was ready to deliver
the same, but there was not room on the pier to discharge.




152                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Your order, received this morning, directs that no more timber be
received on Mr. Grice's contract. Please inform me if the vessel
with timber above alluded to is to come under the order.
Very respectfully, &c.,
HENRY HOOVER,
For Constructor.
Commodore CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant of U. S. Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, dc., September 20, 1858.
SIR: Referring to your letter of the 18th, relating to a load of liveoak timber, the instructions from the department to the bureau were,
to receive no more timber on account of Mr. Grice than was then
delivered in the yard, to have it promptly inspected, and the accounts
forwarded to the bureau. The bureau thus has no authority to increase the quantity, and you will please have the account sent forward as soon as possible.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Commodore CHARLES STEWART,
Commandant, Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, &c., September 22, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 18th has been received, and, as the Hon.
Secretary of the Navy has directed the course pursued, it should be
addressed to the department.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
SAM'L B. GRICE, Esq., Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, dec., February 19, 1859.
SIR: I would respectfully beg leave to make a statement respecting
the building of the steam sloops-of-war authorized by an act of the
last session of Congress.
The intention of the department was, in the first instance, that the
frames of these vessels should be of live-oak, but in the beginning of
July, when it was determined that their draft of water should be as
small as practicable consistent with the armament, and it became my
duty to give some general instructions from which each naval constructor was to prepare his plan and build the ships, it was then
brought by me to the notice of the Hon. Secretary of the Navy that




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                      153
this end might be gained, in some degree, by the use of white oak for
the lower parts of the frame, and a lighter vessel be made. To my
earnest representations on this point the Secretary of the Navy assented.
The only yard at which there was a white-oak frame was Philadelphia, where it had been delivered some twelve years since for a much
smaller vessel, and the constructor of that yard, in his specifications,
states that the top timbers are to be of live-oak, which is the same as
the constructors from the other yards proposed for their vessels.
That there was such a frame in the Philadelphia yard was not
named by me to the Secretary of the Navy, any more than the quantities of the same kind of materials at any other yard, considering it
as a purely technical and professional matter, which he had confided
to me, and with which I exercised my best judgment.
I am, with great respect, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman of Investigating Committee,
House of Representatives.
No. 81.-BENJAMIN F. DELANO, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
BENJAMIN F. DELANO called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What official position under the government do you hold?
Answer. That of naval constructor.
Question. At what place?
Answer. At the navy yard in Brooklyn, New York.
Question. How long have you been there?
Answer. Since October, 1850, this last time, but I had previously
been there. I have known the yard more or less since 1826, having
served my apprenticeship there. During that time I was absent from
there about ten years, being at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and
other places.
Question. Do you know anything about some live-oak timber delivered there last year by Mr. Swift?
Answer. I know that he has been delivering timber there, I should
think, for the last two years, and some of it remains there yet.
Question. Do you remember of his having, in the spring of 1858,
some timber there which was rejected and not received under his
then existing contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How did it happen that he was permitted to store his
timber in the yard?




154                  CONTRACTS FOR  LIVE-OAK.
Answer. It has been customary to let rejected timber lie some
time at the yard. That is optional with the officers of the yard.
Question. Does it have any reference to the question as to whether
you would probably want the timber speedily or not?
Answer. Yes, sir; some of that timber was laid by for future consideration. There was a large quantity of timber delivered. In such
cases the inspector always lays out such as he has any doubts about,
and calls upon the naval constructor-calls upon me in that yard-to
go over the timber and review it with him.  If he has taken any
timber which I think is not proper to be taken, as sometimes happens, it is thrown out again, and sometimes timber is added that he
has rejected. There is a great deal of judgment to be used in the
selection of timber. People differ somewhat in their judgment in
regard to it.  Mr. Swift had some small timber there which did not
come within the sizes required by contract; but since that time he
has had a contract which covered a small portion of this small sized
timber, and he has delivered it.
Question. What I want to know is this: Was any particular favor
shown to Mr. Swift in regard to storing his timber in the Brooklyn
navy yard?
Answer. No more than is shown to other contractors, so far as I
know.
Question. Are you quite sure of that?
Answer. I know that timber belonging to other contractors has
laid there nearly as long as Mr. Swift's timber laid there-six or eight
months, certainly.
Question. Was this small timber needed for immediate use which
Mr. Swift has contracted for and delivered since that time?
Answer. Yes, sir;.a portion of it was.
Question. It was wanted for immediate use?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question.' State how and why it was needed.
Answer. The contract for this small timber was made with Mr.
Swift last autumn. We had received an order at the Brooklyn navy
yard to build a sloop-of-war, and small timber is precisely what is
required for the top siding of the vessel. This contract furnished
timber that would side 9 inches. Our siding on that vessel, where
that timber was used, was 8 and 9 inches-9 inches amidships, and 8
inches forward and aft.      I
Question. What proportion of the timber furnished under this late
contract has been used by the government?
Answer. I do not know as I could state the precise amount.
Question. I do not expect you to state the exact amount, but you
can state whether a large or small proportion of it has been used.
Answer. I should think that about one-fourth part of it has been
used; and if I had had the timber three months before, when I was
repairing the sloop-of-war St. Louis on the same spot where this new
sloop is now being built, I should have used this smaller timber, in



CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                      155
stead of using the larger timber that is an inch or two larger each
way.
Question. Could the Navy Department, consistently with the interests of the government, have allowed the usual time to cut this timber
and deliver it?
Answer. Not unless they should determine not to commence the
sloop-of-war just then, for this timber was wanted in the very commencement of that sloop.
Question. When was that sloop commenced?
Answer. The principal parts of her were commenced in September.
We really commenced in getting ready the moulds, &c., in July last,
but the St. Louis had to be launched before we could put the keel of
this sloop to the blocks.
Question. How rapidly have you progressed with the building of
that sloop?
Answer. She can be put afloat in four weeks.
Question. You have not progressed as rapidly as was indicated by
the order of the department last summer.  What was that order of
the department?
Answer. That the sloop should be completed about the time that
Congress met, as I understand. The reason that it was not done was,
that the St. Louis was hauled up in the very house where this new
sloop is now being constructed, and it occupied that place for about
two months before we could lay the keel of the new vessel. It is
true the vessel could have been built in another spot out of doors,
had it been absolutely necessary to have done so. I would say, further, that the actual dimensions for the height of the centre of the
shaft were not given until after the contract for the building of the
machinery was made, which was some three months after the order
of building was given. She might have been pushed a little faster,
I suppose, after she was commenced.  We paused because I wanted
to know the positions of the shaft. The order was given that it should
be built about such a height. I did not think that was definite
enough in relation to a matter which required exactness.
Question. Will any further proportion of this small timber be needed
in this new sloop-of-war?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. For what will it be needed?
Answer. For a similar class of vessels, our sailing sloops, &c.
Question. Is any such timber needed in the repairing of vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir; every sloop-of-war we have in the service requires this kind of timber for repairs.
Question. Have you had any repairs going on in the yard at Brooklyn since this timber was delivered?
Answer. I think I used some of it in the San Jacinto; but I will
not be positive upon that head. Still I think this small timber was
required, because we had none in the navy yard.  We have been
deficient in this small timber for many years. There has been no




156                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
small live-oak timber delivered there for ten years past, perhaps not
for twenty years, and our promiscuous timber has been used for repairing ships and for shipments elsewhere.  For instance, we shipped
timber from that yard to Washington with which to build, in part,
the Minnesota, and we shipped some to Philadelphia for the Wabash,
and we shipped some knees for the navy yard at Norfolk.
Question. Was there a deficiency in the yard of this particular sort
of timber?
Answer. Yes, sir; entirely so, excepting some frame timber which
we are not allowed to use.
Question. What timber is that?
Answer. There are certain frames, some complete and some incomplete, which were brought there under the "gradual increase" clause
by the board of navy commissioners. That we consider is not to be
used for ordinary repairs, but the repairing of vessels is to be done
out of this promiscuous timber, and for the top siding of ships we
want timber of this description. We put on a complete set of top
sides upon the St. Louis, and the timber we had to use then was
much larger than was necessary-timber that sided 12 and 13 inches.
Question. Did you inform the department here that that sort of
timber was wanted?
Answer. I am certain that I informed the department at least five or
six years ago that we were deficient in this particular kind of timber.
Question. Did you inform them last year that it was needed for
immediate use?
Answer. I am sure I did for the St. Louis, for I received instructions, I know, to use such as I had, though I will not be positive that
those instructions were official.
Question. You mean that such an intimation was made to you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How does the quantity of live-oak now stored in the yard
compare with the quantity usually kept on hand?
Answer. I know it is much less than it was twelve or fifteen years
ago, for we have been constantly using without replenishing sufficiently until this last year.
Question. Have you more of that small timber on hand than you
need?
Answer. No, sir; if my judgment was asked, I should say that this
small timber should be provided to at least three times the extent.
Now, we have to cut up the larger timber to make these smaller sizes,
which is not so good. In cutting up this large timber we get nearer
the heart, and the grain is coarser; and another thing, the small
timber is usually sounder, freer from shakes, and makes better work,
and is better to build with and easier to handle.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know the amount of timber belonging to Mr.
Swift which was in the navy yard last summer, and which was subsequently taken by the government under this new contract?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                       157
Answer. There was but a small portion of the small timber which
was taken in the yard at that time.  He has brought the most of the
small timber to the yard since this contract was made.
Question. Do you know where he got it?
Answer. It was what we call St. Mark's timber.
Question. I mean, do you know where it was shipped from?
Answer. I do not know; it came there in ordinary coasting vessels.
Live-oak timber, left on hand, if it is properly taken care of, does not
deteriorate, as many persons seem to imagine. Timber that has been
in that yard since the time the board of naval commissioners was in
power I have cut lately, and found it as good and solid and tough as any
new timber.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who originated the plan of appropriating a certain
amount every year for "increase?"
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did the board of naval commissioners do it?
Answer. I do not know. I imagine that there was an act of Congress for it.
Question. What is that phrase, "gradual increase," intended to
cover?
Answer. As I understand it, in 1820, or thereabouts, there was a
gradual increase voted to the navy to procure frames of line-of-battleships, &c., to the number of forty or fifty, I think. I may be mistaken about that, however, though there are, I think, five or six of
these frames in each yard.
Question. It was designed to cover the procuring of timber for
those frames, was it?
Answer. Yes, for the frames only; they were placed in the docks
and stored away in that manner, so that, in case of emergency, this
timber might be already provided at the several depots for building,
and thus avoid the necessity of transporting this timber by sea in
time of war. That was all very well, with one exception: the timber
that was cut there was cut to a model, or a mode of building, so different from the fashions of the present day that it is somewhat difficult to make the timbers from these frames to suit the forms of the
present day.  It can be done, it is true; for I have used it by putting
some of the timber inside out, upside down from what it was intended,
to suit the forms of the present day.
Question. Captain Rootes told us something about some timber being
thrown overboard there, to which your attention was called. Do you
remember the circumstances?  It happened, I believe, a year or so
ago.
Answer. I remember it.
Question. Can you give us any explanation about it?
Answer. I can give no further explanation than this: When timber
is being delivered in the yard there is always more or less of it rejected,
very much to the annoyance of the contractor, of course. All this
rejected timber, such timber as will float at least, is thrown overboard,




158                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
so that it may be taken away by water.  There were several sticks at
the time referred to-I do not recollect how many-perhaps twelve
or fifteen, or thereabouts, that were thrown overboard, upon which
the marks were still visible.
Question. What marks?  The marks put on them  indicating that
they were received?
Answer. Yes, sir; that they were then government property. My
attention was called to it, and I had the timber put back where it
belonged.  Captain Rootes was cognizant of all the facts at the
time, for I think we went together to see it.
Question. What conclusion did you come to in regard to it?
Answer. That it had been thrown out by mistake as rejected timber.  In examining timber the inspector may put the government
mark upon a stick which I would not receive, which I do not
think is quite as good as it ought to be, and then I have the marks
erased.  The marks had been partially rubbed off this timber which
was being put overboard. I did not know but it might have occurred
in this way; because, often in a cargo of timber, I have rejected six,
ten, or perhaps twenty sticks which the inspector thought were good
and proper, while I differed with him in opinion.  The marks would
then be erased from the sticks and crossed out from the book in
which they had been noted.
Question. When the inspector marks timber as accepted, and upon
looking at it you determine to reject some of it, are those marks of
the inspector erased?
Answer. Yes, sir. I am by at the time with the inspector, and
the marks are erased from the sticks of timber and also crossed out
from the book, which is a memorandum book.
Question. What are the opportunities of making away with and
destroying the government timber?
Answer. I do not know any under the present rules and regulations of the department. I examine the timber myself now. Formerly the timber was certified to by the inspector, and no other
name was put upon the bills but his. There was an order made
three or four years since that the naval constructor should certify
to the bills for timber, and that he should be responsible for it.
Since that time I have examined it myself, in connexion with the
timber inspector.
B. F. DELANO,
Naval Co'nstructor.




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                        159
No. 87.-FRANCIS GRICE, OF PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 16, 1859.
FRANCIS GRICE called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Nuestion. What is your official position, Mr. Grice?
Q nswer. I am naval constructor, sir.
Question. At what place?
Answer. At Philadelphia.
Question. I wish to ask you about some timber that was stored
there last year by Mr. Swift. Do you know anything about that?
Answer. Yes, sir; I know it was stored there.
Question. How came it to be stored there?
Answer. It was by permission of the department.
Question. Is it common to store timber in the yard that is not recgeived under contracts?
Answer. No, sir. The rule of the yard is that the timber must be
removed before the bills are signed.
Question. Is that the rule of all the yards, or only of that particular
yard?
Answer. It is the rule of all the yards.
Question. By whom was that rule made?
Answer. By the commissioners of the navy.
Question. The old naval commissioners?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To what extent has that timber been used?
Answer. There has been a little of it used on the sloop No. 1.
She is built of a white-oak frame that had been for some years in the
yard; and the live-oak used on her was only what we term the stanchions and some of the principal pieces.
Question. Has it ever been used on the Griffith ship?
Answer. I have seen them use it; I have nothing to do with that
vessel and cannot say bow much they used.
Question. Has any of it been used in repairing the vessels in course
of preparation?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you frequently have need of that sort of live-oak
timber in the regular and common operations of the yard?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What is there peculiar about that sort of timber that
makes it less used than other kinds?
Answer. That timber is put upon the frames of ships, what you
call the ribs.
Question. In repairing vessels do you often have to put in new
ribs?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you never put in a new rib?
Answer. Very seldom.  The live-oak will last fifty years.  There




160                 CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
is some of the live-oak now in the United States frigate which was
launched in 1797; it is very durable.
Question. Why did you build that new vessel of white-oak?
Answer. Because we had orders to do so.
Question. Upon what ground was the propriety of building it of
white-oak put?
Answer. They do not give us their reasons.
Question. Was it because they did not have the live-oak suitable?
Answer. No. sir; I do not think it was on that ground. We had
a frame of white-oak that had been a long time on hand; it was cut a
good many years ago.  One object of building the frame of white-oak
is to make the vessel tight, with an easy draught of water. A vessel
built of white-oak will draw less water than one built of live-oak.
Question. Are you well acquainted with the New York navy yard?
Answer. I was some fourteen years ago; I do not know anything
about it now.
Question. Do you know anything about the Norfolk navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How  do the capacities of the Philadelphia navy yard
compare with those of the yards at New York and at Norfolk for the
execution of work?
Answer. There is an immense quantity of repairs done to ships at
the Norfolk yard.  When I was stationed there every ship in the
navy passed through my hands, or nearly so.
Question. How large a vessel can you get up to the Philadelphia
navy yard?
Answer. We can get frigates up there.
Question. At all times of the year?
Answer. If the river is not frozen over.
Question. How many men can you profitably employ in the Philadelphia navy yard?
Answer. I do not know; I should suppose if we had the work to
do we could employ fifteen hundred men.
Question. I want to know your opinion upon this point: whether
all the work that is now done at four or five navy yards could not be
done in two or three, and at a much less cost?
Answer. I do not think it could.
Question. Why not? What is the advantage of distributing the
work among different yards?
Answer. The advantage is that you have the mechanics from the
different parts of the United States. You cannot concentrate them
all in one place. You would -not have so good an opportunity of
selecting the best mechanics.
Question. Was there any time during the last summer or fall when
you had more men at the Philadelphia yard than you could profitably
employ?
Answer. I think so.
Question. At what time?
Answer. I cannot tell the date now; it must have been in September or October.  I was sick at the time.  I cannot recollect now. It




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                         161
was about the time of the election, I think; I know I was sick when
the election took place.
Question. Did youn report the fact that there were more men in the
yard than you could profitably employ to the commandant? I believe
you, as naval constructor, have charge of that.
Answer. No, sir; I was not in the yard at the time: I was sick. I
did so when I got out.
Question. Are you able, to say, as you did not see it, whether these
men were actually profitably employed or not?
Answer. There were more men in the yard than I thought right to
e when I got into the yard, and I reported it to the commander of
the yard, and the men were discharged.
Question. What time did you get well enough to return to the
yard?
Answer. I was taken sick in the early part of September, and did
not get to the yard until the 19th of October, when I found that the
laboring gang had greatly increased, and more than in my judgment
could be employed to advantage, and I suggested to the commandant
of the yard that the number should be decreased without delay, which
was done.
Question. Had the amount of work diminished between October
and the -time you got well enough to return to the yard, by the sending off of the, Paraguay expedition, or from any other cause?
Answer. In w:hat I say now I do not speak of the mechanics of the
yard; I speak of the laboring men.  There were no more mechanics
in the yard than were required, because we had orders to complete
the ship by the time that Congress met, and I always endeavored to
obey orders, and kept all the mechanics until I did that work, and
then I discharged nearly the whole of them.
Question. On what sort of work are the laborers employed in the
yard?
Answer. They are employed in stowing timber, clearing up the
yard, and assisting the mechanics; carrying plank, timber, and all
that sort of thing; moving the dock out and in, and securing it, &c.;
and various other things.
Question. There were one or two gentlemen by the name of CGrice
who were bidders for the contract to supply timber last summer and
fall. Are they brothers-Joseph and Samuel B.?
Answer. Yes, sir' they are brothers.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was not that timber of Mr. Swift's lying in the yard
timber delivered by him upon previous contracts, and rejected at the
yard?
Answer. Part of it was rejected timber, and part was not.
Question. How did it come to be in the yard, if not brought to
fulfill contracts?
Answer. When they bring timber to the yard in their vessel it is
landed for the purpose of inspection; and when it is inspected all
that is condemned is marked. This timber lay in the yard, and Mr.
Swift was notified by the commandant of the yard that he must move
11 B




162                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
it; but he got an order from  the department allowing him to pile it
in the yard with the surplus timber over and above what would answer his contract.  The contract requires a certain length, with a
certain crook.  If the timber offered does not conform  with the
description, it is laid one side. All this timber was laid aside for that
reason.  The condemned surplus timber was piled up at his expense.
Question. Was not the most desirable portion of the timber he had
landed at the yard selected in fulfillment of his contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; all that came up to the contract was received of
course. All that which did not come up to the contract was laid one
side.
Question. Was that which came up to the contract more desirable
for ship-building purposes at the Philadelphia yard than that which
did not?
Answer. Yes, sir, of course it was.
Question. Did you recommend the purchase of that timber of Mr.
Swift' s?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Is it usual for the department to refer to the yard, in
order to ascertain what the wants of the yard are?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was that done, in this instance, before purchasing Mr.
Swift's timber?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. If the matter had been referred to you would you, as a
matter of official duty, have recommended the purchase of that timber
of Swift' S?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was there not in the yard a large quantity of live-oak,
of various sizes, before that purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was it requisite to purchase Swift's timber, in order to
conduct the business of the yard-to do what you had to do there?
Answer. No, sir. I am not now speaking of the Griffith ship. I
had nothing to do with that.
Question. Do you know  how much was delivered by Mr. Grice,
under his contract, there at the navy yard?
Answer. I do not know how much.  There was some delivered?
Question. Do you suppose that a sufficient quantity had been delivered by him to answer the wants of the navy yard during the fall?
Answer. It was not wanted at all that I know of, except as before
stated.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When you speak of timber not being received under a
former contract, do you mean that it was not received because it was
not of the right dimensions, or because it was inferior timber?
Answer. Because it did not come up to the description.  It was
not rejected because it was not sound timber, but because it did not
answer the description. I am directed to examine the timber that




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                         163
comes into/ the yard, and when I find any that is not according to the
contract I stop it. It is then referred to the department.
Question. You say there was plenty of timber about the yard for
your purposes.  Was there plenty of this smaller kind?
Answer. Oh, yes, sir; plenty of it.
Question. How long had that smaller kind been in the yard?
Answer. A long time; fifteen or twenty years, probably.
Question. You say that if you had been consulted officially you
would not have recommended the purchase of Mr. Swift's timber.
You would have recommended the purchase of your nephew' s, would
not you?
Answer. No, sir; I am not mixed up with anybody upon the face
of God's earth.
Question. Do you how  much of this timber was used upon the
Griffith ship?
Answer. No, sir. Mr. Griffith used all that would answer his purpose of Mr. Swift's timber.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Why did he do that?  Was there not other timber which
would answer his purpose just as well?
Answer. He went over the whole yard, and swept everything that
would answer the peculiar shape of his vessel.
By the Chairman:
Question. How long have you been naval constructor?
Answer. Ever since 1817.
FRANCIS GRICE,
NYaval Gomstructor.
No. 91.-SAMUEL T. HARTT, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA.
FEBRUARY 17, 1859.
SAMUEL T. HARTT called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Portsmouth, Virginia.
Question. What is your profession?
Answer. I am naval constructor at the Gosport yard.
Question. How long have you been there?
Answer. I was ordered there in 1854. I have been stationed at
that yard twice.
Question. What quantity of live-oak have you now on hand?
Answer. I cannot say.
Question. Do your duties lead you to inquire into the supply on
hand for the necessities of the service?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you remember some live-oak deposited there by Mr.
Swift last year?
Answer. Yes, sir; I do.
Question. How happened that to be deposited there?




164                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Answer. It did not conform  with his contract when it was sent
there-the first contract that he had.
Question. In what respect did it fail to conform? Was it inferior
timber, or was there a difference of shape?
Answer. There was a difference of shape, and it was smaller.
Question. How happened that it was permitted to remain in the
yard?
Answer. It never was ordered away.
Question. What is your habit with regard to that?
Answer. We are in the habit of allowing contractors to leave their
timber there so long as it does not interfere with us.
Question. Is that the custom of the Norfolk yard?
Answer. That is the custom, sir.
Question. Did you allow that timber to remain there in consequence
of instructions from  Washington, or in consequence of your usual
rule?
Answer. It was our usual rule.
Question. Did you receive any instructions from Washington, that
you should allow it to remain there?
Answer. I did not, sir.
Question. Upon the 14th of June, 1858, if you had been consulted
to know whether it was necessary, for the interests of the government,
to have live-oak of that smaller size, what advice should you have
given?
Answer. I should have recommended the purchase of it.
Question. Why should you have recommended its purchase?
Answer. We were about building a small steamer, and it was a
kind of timber we wanted.
Question. How much of that timber did you use?
Answer. I cannot tell you, sir; we used some of it. It was not
government timber at that time, and we used very little of it.
Question. Did you use some of it before it was purchased?
Answer. Yes, sir; on open purchase.
Question. Have you used any since it was procured by the government?
Answer. A little, sir.
Question. At what time was it decided to build those vessels of
white-oak frames?
Answer. Sometime in July, I think.
Question. It was subsequent to the 14th of June?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Suppose you had had that timber as government timber,
would you have been able to use more of it to advantage?
Answer. Yes, sir; that timber was out of the shed, and I should
have saved the labor of hauling it out. It was green timber, and
could have been worked more easily.
Question. Did you have to cut down larger timber to this size,
which might have been avoided if you had had smaller timber?
Answer. Yes, sir; to some extent.
Question. You say that as matters stood on the 14th of June, it was
expedient for the government to get that timber at once?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.                          165
Answer. It was advisable to buy the timber.
Question. Would you have recommended that they should wait the
usual time, one or two years, to allow timber of that sort to be got
out?uld.
Answer. I do not think I should.
Question. Do you know  upon what ground it was finally deterrmined to build the frames of these vessels of white oak?
Answer. The vessel I built was left to me to decide what part should
be of white oak and what part of live oak; I made the specification,
and it was not altered.
Question. The department did not determine that?
Answer. Not fully.
Question. Do you remember when you decided that point?
Answer. It was in the latter part of June that I had the conversation with Mr. Lenthall.
Question. Have you been long acquainted with navy yards?
Answer. I have been attached to the navy yards from the time I
went as apprentice, since 1833.
Question. How does the present management of the navy yards
compare as to efficiency with the management in former days?
Answer. Unfavorably.
Question. What change has taken place?
Answer. They have taken the control away from the constructors.
Question. Do you remember at what time that change was made?
Answer. I cannot recollect exactly; it was somewhere about 1844
or 1845.  I was in the western country then.
Question. Has there been any unfavorable change within the last
two or three years?
Answer. I cannot remember the date that the order was given to
give the employment of the men to the master workmen.
Question. Was that within the last two years or four years, or
before that?
Answer. I think it was four years ago.
Question. Was that the change you spoke of as having occurred in
1844 or 1845?
Answer. Yes, sir; it was a reiterated thing, and more positive.
By the Chairman:
Question. How much of that timber furnished by Swift, under the
contract of this last year, has been used up to this time?
Answer. I cannot say, sir.
Question. How many feet? Can you not state it approximately?
Answer. I suppose not over 300 feet.
Question. Has that timber been piled away in the shed with the
other timber?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much of it was purchased on open purchase prior to
the contract?
Answer. I think the bill amounted to $700, or was somewhere in
that neighborhood.
Question. Then there were 500 or 600 feet?
Answer. Yes^ sir.




166                  CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Question. Were you required to make out a requisition for this
timber for the department?
Answer. I took the responsibility of using it, because it was convenient.
Question. That is not the question. Were you required to make
out a statement of the amount of live-oak timber wanted in the yard
last June?
Answer. I think not.
Question. Is it not usual for the naval constructor to make that
requisition?
Answer. Not for live-oak.
Question. Was not the most desirable portion of Mr. Swift's timber
selected fbr his old contract?
Answer. It was; this was rejected on account of its size; we filled
the contract, and there was also a surplus of large timber.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was it not on account of the shape of the timber as well
as the size?
Answer. The shape of the timber was good; but it did not correspond in dimensions.
By the Chairman:
Question. Had the government ever purchased that kind of timber
before?
Answer. They had.
Question. How much live-oak was stored in the yard, in September
last, altogether?
Answer. The books showed some five or six hundred thousand feet
at the Norfolk yard; the books are not correct, evidently.
Question. Was that too much or too little?
Answer. Too much.
Question. How much was there, according to your judgment, in the
yard?
Answer. Not over two-thirds of it, good and bad.
Question. All sorts and sizes?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question  How do you account for the difference between the books
and the actual quantity on hand?
Answer. Because it has not, been expended properly, and because
the accounts have been carried over for so long a time.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was the timber in the yard of various sizes?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Could you have found in the assortment you had on hand,
enough to answer your purposes up to the first of this month, without
the use of Mr. Swift's timber?
Answer. Not to advantage.
Question. I will ask whether the timber left by Mr. Swift conformed
with the contract of September 25, 1858.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you take it all?




CONTRACTS FOR LIVE OAK.                          167
Answer. No, sir, not all of it; there was a little condemned.
Question. Where is that.?
Answer. It is there.
Question. Has any order of removal been made?
Answer. Not yet, sir.
Question. Why has it been left there so long?
Answer. It has never been reported.
Question. What was the cause of its rejection?
Answer. Defects, and non-conformity with the contract.
Question. Have you instructions to deviate from the terms and
conditions of the contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever had any conversation with Mr. Lenthall
about the purchase of this timber from Swift?
Answer. Verbal conversation, I have, sir.
Question. What was his opinion as to the propriety of purchasing it?
Answer. I never had any conversation with him upon that score.
Question. Did he say whether he was in favor of it or not?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think he ever made any remarks about it.
Question. Did he say he had opposed the purchase of the timber?
Answer. He had opposed the price, I understood him to say.
Question. What further did he say about that purchase?
Answer. I remember nothing further.
Question. Did he say anything about its not being wanted?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you not write that you wanted timber?
Answer. I wrote him an official letter saying that it would be advisable to purchase timber of that sort.
By the Chairman:
Question. Nothing but that particular lot?
Answer. No, sir; that was nothing to me.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What was the date of that letter?
Answer. I cannot recollect.
Question. Cannot you recollect the month?
Answer. I cannot.
Question. Do you remember the season of the year, whether it was
summer or fall?
Answer. It was summer, I think.
Question. What time in the summer?
Answer. I cannot say.
By the Chairman:
Question. When was the frame of the vessel you are now building
completed?
Answer. The vessel was framed in September.
Question.- Was it completed before the 23d oF September?
Answer. The frame was up before that, sir.
S. T. HARTT.




INDEX TO PART II.
CONTRACTS FOR LIVE-OAK.
Page.
George Plitt-.......-                                          --------------                   -....... —-. —                  3
Joseph  Grice -------------— 8 —.                           ---       ------ ---- -------.. —. ——..                8
Henry G. Beach-26
Samuel P. Brown. --- --------------------- -------------                                             -. — -------—.-  -        35
Samuel B. Grice —-------------------- -------.- ----------—.-...                                                -. --              47
James Bigler ------- ---- -----.~ —------- ------ ------- ----... —--------                 60
John  Appleton ---— ~..                  --------------- ----- ----------------------------                                           80
W. C. N. Swift. —- ---.. —------- ---. —------- ------ ----------. —-         83
John  Lenthall —---—...                   -. --------------—..                        --            - ---       --—..-           109
Benjamin  F. Delano  ---                 -. —...         ------- -.             -----       ---------—.-                     153
Francis Grice -----------------------—....-                                    -........... —--—... —                        159
Samuel T. Hartt -                 -.. —. —..... —..............................-..........-                                  163




PART III.
TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS
IN RELATION TO
THE AWARDING OF CONTRACTS
FOR
BUILDING THE STEAM MACHINERY
OF
UNITED STATES SLOOPS-OF-WAR.








CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, &c. FOR VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 1.-TESTIMONY OF FREDERIC SAUNDERS.
JANUARY 24, 1859.
FREDERIC SAUNDERS called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation at present; and what has it
been for some years past?
Answer. Superintending engineer of the " Allaire Works," of New
York city.
Question. Was your attention called last summer to the specifications for engines, boilers, &c., for United States sloops of-war?
Answer. It was.
Question. Have you a copy of the specifications with you?
Answer. I have.
Question. Please present them to the committee. [See Appendix
"A" to this testimony.]  Did your company file a bid with the Navy
Department for the steam machinery of any sloops-of-war referred to
in these specifications?
Answer. They did.
Question. Have you a copy of that bid; and if so, will you present it?
Answer. I have a copy; here it is.  [See Appendix "B" to this
testimony.]
Question  What difficulties, if any, were there in the specifications
which you have furnished?
Answer. I believe it would be impossible to get the amount of machinery, coal, and appurtenances, in the same space and within the
weight required by that specification.
Question. Do you know whether, since these bids have been made,
these specifications have been modified and changed in any particular
in the construction of these vessels of war?
Answer. They have been changed for one vessel.
Question. What vessel was that?
Answer. The one to be built at Philadelphia.
Question. Was any change made in the specifications for the vessel
to be built at Boston?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. What was the change in regard to the vessel at Philadelphia?
Answer. It was requiring two propellers instead of one.
Question. State whether there was any enlargement of the space
allowed for coal and the engines in any of the vessels?
Answer. In the one for which the engine is building at the " Locomotive Works" at Boston, the distance has been lengthened since
the bid was accepted-the distance in which the engine, coal, and
appurtenances are to be placed.
Question. State whether, after these bids were made, you attended




4              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
the Board of Engineers, at Washington, that made the award upon
the bids?
Answer. I attended to explain my plans, and to state what I guarantied.
Question. When was that?
Answer. I could not state the day.
Question. In what month?
Answer. Either at the end of August or the beginning of September.
Question. Who composed that board?
Answer. Mr. Archbold, engineer-in-chief of the United States,
Mr. Martin, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Hunt.
Question. What interest had Mr. Martin, if any, in any particular
kind of boiler?
Answer. He had a patent right of a particular kind of boiler.
Question. Did your bid include one of his boilers?
Answer. It did not.
Question. Was there any competition for building the New York
engine?
Answer. Yes sir, Messrs. Pease & Murphy, of New York, were
bidders.
Question. Were there any other competing bidders?
Answer. I am not aware what bids there were.
Question. How much was the amount of your bid?
Answer. $105,000.
Question. Did Mr. Murphy state to you anything in relation to his
bid?
Answer. He informed me that he had bid $130,000 or $132,000, I
am not sure which.
Question. Who made the bid which was accepted?
Answer. Messrs. Pease & Murphy.
Question. Did they include the Martin boiler in their bid?
Answer. I was informed that they did; but I did not see their
plans.
Question. What is the character of the Martin boiler?
Answer. It is a boiler in which the tubes are vertical, and the
wvater passes through the tubes, thereby differing from the horizontal
tubiflar boiler in which the fire passes through the tubes and the
water goes around the tubes. In the Martin boiler there are two
water chambers, one above and one below the tubes.  The tubes
connect these two portions of the boiler, and the water circulates
through the tubes. The steam that is made in the lower chamber
has to pass up through these tubes to get to the upper portion of the
-boiler.
By Mr. Bocock:
QuestiQn. Are there two chambers to the boiler?
Answer. The lower portion of the boiler is connected with the'upper portion by these tubes; the tubes are placed in the middle, or.early so, in a vertical position.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  5
By the Chairman:
Question. You say that you are the superintending engineer of
the " Allaire Works; " how long have you been engaged in that kind
of business?
Answer. I have been connected with the business of engineering
for seventeen years.
Question. State whether or not in your opinion or judgment what
is called the Martin boiler, is a new and valuable improvement?
Answer. I consider that there are better boilers, and those better
adapted for government works than Mr. Martin's.
Question. Whose boiler is generally used in the vessels of the United
States, so far as your knowledge extends?
Answer. The greater portion are Mr. Martin's.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Martin, about
the time these awards were made, in regard to his boilers?.
Answer. I stated my views before the Board in answer to their
inquiries.  I answered their queries in regard to my boiler, and stated
what I considered to be the benefit of that particular class of boilers.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Whose patent was your boiler?
Answer. No patent whatever.
By the Chairman:
Question. What did Mr. Martin say after you had stated your views
upon the boilers?
Answer. He considered that my boilers were not the boilers best
adapted for the purpose, as he thought there was not steam room sufficient in them. But my plans were so drawn as to show a mode of getting steam room, which I was willing to give them if they considered
it better.  The reason I did not have more steam  room in my first
boiler was to show them what could be done below the water line;
but I gave them the opportunity of taking this larger amount of boiler
room if they thought it more advisable.
Question. Do you know what amount Mr. Martin receives for the
privilege of putting his boilers into the vessels of the United States?
Answer. I am not able to answer as to how much.
Question. Did you have any negotiation or conversation with him
in regard to the use of his boilers, as to the price charged?
Answer. No sir, I did not.
Question. Do you know the amount Mr. Murphy bid, or the amount
he received for the engine and boilers furnished by him, except from
what he said to you?
Answer. That is all the information I have, except outside rumor,
from any engineer who happened to have the subject on his tongue.
Question. Who is now constructing the engine and boilers for the
vessel in New York?
Answer. Messrs. Pease and Murphy.
Question. What works are they connected with in New York city?
Answer. The Fulton Works.
Question. Have they been engaged in building any other engines,
besides this, for vessels of the United States?




6              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. They built the engines for the Niagara and the Brooklyn.
Question. Has any other firm but Pease & Murphy, of New York,
built any engines for large sloops-of-war for the United States?
Answer. I believe not.
Question. Has your firm ever bid for any other engines or machinery than these, for vessels of the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has any award ever been made to you for the construction of engines?
Answer. No, sir, not by the government.
Question. I wish now to call your attention to the Boston Works;
I see that you bid for that vessel the sum of $97, 000. To whom was
the construction of that engine awarded?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge to the Boston Locomotive
Works.
Question. Do you know what they receive?
Answer. The engineer in construction informed me that they received $104,000.
Question. Do you know anything about any change of plans since
the specifications were made of the Boston engine?
Answer. The same gentleman informed me that they had been
allowed to take a greater space in the ship for coal and machinery
than was allowed in the specification under which the contract was
made.
Question. Was that a favorable or unfavorable change for the
builder?
Answer. Very favorable.
Question. State, if you can get at it at all, what percentage in favor
of the contractor in the cost of getting up the engine, such a change
would be?
Answer. It would not be a saving of expense, but it would be
giving them the possibility of getting in the required amount of coal,
and thus fulfilling the requirements of the specification.
Question. Do you know the difference between the engines constructed at the Boston Locomotive Works and your own?
Answer. I am not aware of the exact plans upon which the Boston
Works are building.  But from information I have received from mere
casual conversation, I am led to suppose that the Boston engine is
being built with one air pump, whereas mine has two to each engine, making each engine in any case perfectly separate and capable
of being worked by itself when the other is broken down; while in
their case, if the air pump breaks both of their engines would be
disabled in that respect, that is if they build but one air pump to the
two engines.
Question. Would this difference make the cost of your engine
greater or less than theirs?
Answer. It costs more to build it on our plan. As to my opinion
regarding their plans, it is not at all certain that it is so; it is merely
rumor outside that I hear.
Question. To whom was the award made for the Pensacola engine?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  7
Answer. I understand that the "Morgan Works' have received
that contract.
Question. Where is that company located?
Answer. At the foot of 9th street, New York city.
Question. What was the amount of their bid?
Answer. From information I have been able to glean, outside of
government officials, they receive $120,000 for the engines, boilers,
&c., all complete, and $10,000 for the expense of putting it up at
Pensacola.
Question. I notice that you put in a bid for the Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, engine; do you know who was the successful bidder for
that engine?
Answer. I cannot, at this moment, call the name to mind.
Question. Who was the successful bidder for the engine of the
Philadelphia vessel?
Answer. There were two vessels there, one of the larger, and one
of the smaller class.
Question. Who was the successful bidder for the large vessel?
Answer. I am informed that Messrs. Merrick & Sons got the large
one.
Question. To whom was the smaller vessel awarded?
Answer. If it has been finally awarded, judging from newspaper
reports, Messrs. Reaney & Neafie have it.
Question. Is that the one about which the controversy in the newspapers occurred between Mr. Norris and Mr. Neafie?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock'
Question. Was not the contract for the larger vessel awarded some
time since?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Were the plans for the engines of the smaller vessel
changed?
Answer. They were changed.
Question. Were you notified of that change?
Answer. We were.
Question. Did you put in a bid in conformity with the new specifications?
Answer. We did.
Question. Have you a copy of that bid with you?
Answer. I have not. It is in our safe in New York, and I had not
time to get it out before I was obliged to leave.
Question. How much was the amount of your bid?
Answer. If I recollect correctly it was $140,000.
Question. Do you know whether or not that bid was submitted to
the board of engineers?
Answer. It was not submitted to the board of outside engineers,
appointed after the board of government engineers had ceased to sit.
Question. Please to explain what you mean by outside engineers,
and the mode in which they came to be appointed.




8              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. To the best of my knowledge there was a board of government engineers appointed, who reported jointly their opinion of
the bids. That report not being satisfactory to the Secretary of the
Navy, he requested the board, each individually, to give in his own
report.  That also not being satisfactory he appointed three engineers
not connected with the government to send in their report. These
we term the outside engineers.
Question. Do you know whether your bid was submitted to these
engineers or not?
Answer. I am informed by one of my draughtsmen, who saw one of
the board that our bid was not submitted to them.
Question. What was the name of the engineer who informed your
draughtsman?
Answer. Mr. Myers Coryell.
Question. Where does he live?
Answer. He is engineer of the Morgan Works, New York.
Question. Have you any information, except from the public prints,
as to who received the award for the smaller vessel at Philadelphia?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know whether or not the Morgan Works had a
bid in for the smaller Philadelphia vessel?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Which vessel was assigned to the Morgan Works?
Answer. The Pensacola vessel.
Question. You say that Mr. Martin was one of the board that made
these awards, and that you had a conversation with him in regard to
engines, &c. Did he say anything to you about his boiler, either
during the session of the board or afterwards?
Answer. We had some conversation about boilers generally, and
made some few comparisons between vessels. This was after I had
left Washington and returned to New York. I met him in New York
and made the remark that we were unsuccessful, that probably we
were not politicians enough to obtain a contract. He replied: oh, no,
it was not that. And then he said that my boiler had not steam room
enough. I replied to him that he was aware that I had offered to give
ample steam room if it was thought of importance, that my design
was drawn so as to show that.  He replied, yes, it was so, but not in
the right shape.
Question. Does his patent relate to the quantity of steam room?
What is the leading idea of it?
Answer. The leading idea of his patent is, the vertical tubes, with
the water passing through them, placed over the furnace. The Collins steamers have vertical tubes in their boilers, in which the fire
goes directly from the grate bars and strikes upon these tubes,
whereas in Mr. Martin's boilers the fire goes under the furnace first,
then it goes up what we call the back connexion, and then passes
through between the tubes.
Question. Was anything further said in this conversation with Mr.
Martin in New York?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                   9
Answer. I believe that was the extent of the conversation upon
that subject.
Question. What position does he hold under the government?
Answer. He is now what they term  "chief engineer;" he formerly was "engineer-in-chief."
Question. What are the duties of chief engineers?
Answer. They are appointed around wherever their services are
required, either to superintend the construction of a vessel in some
place or to go to sea.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you mean that Mr. Martin holds the rank of a chief
engineer in the steam navy, and he is sent wherever the department
chooses to send him?
Answer. Yes, sir; he is chief engineer on any steam  vessel to
which he is ordered.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were your bids in exact conformity with the specifications?
Answer. They were, so far as I thought it possible to make them,
but not completely so, because I did not guaranty the amount of
coal to be put in the space required. As I previously stated, I did
not think it could possibly be done after the machinery was put in.
I did not consider the space allotted to be sufficient to carry the coal
necessary to work these engines for five days at one thousand horse
power.
Question. Do you know whether the bid of the company whose
bid was accepted was in exact conformity with the specifications or
not?
Answer. No, sir; I was not able to get any information of that
kind.
Question. You say that Mr. Martin's boilers have been generally
used in the navy; are you able to say whether they have been successfully used or not?
Answer. I am not able to say how far they are successful.  But I
hear so many reports about them that I am not able to give a satisfactory account of them.
Question. Has your boiler ever been used in the navy?
Answer. It is a similar boiler to the one approved and used generally in the gun-boats in England, only somewhat larger than theirs.
Question. Has it ever been used in the vessels of the American
navy?
Answer. I do not know that it has.
Question. Has it been used extensively in the commercial steam
marine?
Answer. A boiler similar to it, a very near approach to it, has been
used. The particular construction of that boiler is that it is almost
entirely composed of round surfaces, whereby a greater amount of
strength is obtained from lighter material than can be obtained from
flat surfaces of similar material.




10             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Which plan of boiler would cost the most, yours or Mr.
Martin's?
Answer. I can build ours to carry the same pressure of steam cheaper
than Mr. Martin can his, owing to the surfaces of my boiler being
almost entirely round, while his are flat surfaces and have to be stayed
very strongly, making additional weight.
Question. I should like to have your opinion as to the relative merits
of your boiler and the boiler of Mr. Martin. State the advantages
your boiler has over his, and the advantages of his boiler over yours.
Answer. The advantage of my boiler, in the first place, is that it
is one of the lightest kind of boilers for streugth that can be built.
In the next place, they are situated in the ship nearly entirely under
the water line, which is an advantage as regards safety against shot;
whereas Mr. Martin's boilers stand up above the water line, according
to the designs which I am informed they are going to adopt, which subjects the boilers, of course, to much greater risk than if they were
below the water line. Then, again, my boilers can be forced up to
carry a pressure of steam which I believe would operate in a very
detrimental manner upon Mr. Martin's boiler, owing to the fact that
the steam generated above the furnaces of Mr. Martin's boilers has
to pass up these vertical tubes, displacing the water in these tubes,
and leaving it to be replaced partly by steam, the tubes being liable
to become over heated.
Then, again, my boilers have horizontal tubes, each one of which
can be readily examined and repaired when necessary, without having
to run the water and steam out of the boller in order to do it. In Mr.
Martin's boilers, water passing through the tubes, and water being
above and below the ends of the tubes, it is impossible to get to them
to examine and to repair them, without letting the water all out; and
it is very difficult to find the leak, if there is one, for the reason that
you cannot see readily the ends of the tubes, and must hunt for some
time.
Question. These are the advantages of your boiler over Mr. Martin's. Has his boiler no advantages over yours?
Answer. I did not see any.
Question. Which takes up the most room in the vessel?
Answer. To furnish surfaces to generate and carry the same amount
of steam, I consider that my boilers would take up the least room
and be less in weight, too. I could carry a pressure upon my boilers
which I should consider perfectly dangerous to carry on his boilers,
if constructed of the same amount of material.
Question. Which is able to throw the greatest amount of force so
as to propel the ship the most rapidly?
Answer. That depends upon the proportion of heating surface to
the contents of the cylinder. In regard to the proportion of heating
surface put in by Mr. Martin, or his builders, I am not aware. Each
engineer adopts his own idea, submitting it to the board.
Question. Do you know when Mr. Martin obtained a patent for his
boiler?
Answer. I do not.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 11
Question. Are you very certain that the patent is now in operation?
Answer.  I am not certain of that, because I have not asked the
question; but my firm belief is, that Mr. Martin has no claim for
a patent upon that boiler, but that it is an old invention and can be
proved to be old.
Question. Does it come within your knowledge that the successful
bidders gave Mr. Martin anything?
Answer. No, sir; I am not aware of anything of the kind.
Question. What was the name of your draughtsman to whom that
engineer stated that your bid for the small Philadelphia vessel had
not been submitted to the board of engineers?
Answer. Mr. McMillan.
Question, Does he live with you in New York?
Answer. His house is in Williamsburg.
Question. Do you know what the report of the government engineers was in relation to these bids of Reaney, Neafie & Co., of Mr.
Norris, and of your company, the "Allaire Works?"  Did -they decide in favor of either one, or were they equally divided, ruling out
your bid, between Mr. Norris and Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I am not able to give you that information correctly.
Question. In the controversy in the newspapers it was stated that
there were four members of the board; that two were in favor of
Messrs. Reaney, Neafie &. Co., and two for Mr. Norris.  But it does
not say that any of them decided in favor of your plan. Do you know
in regard to that? I am speaking of the board of government engineers.
Answer. We had no report respecting our plan. We do not know
what conclusion they came to about our plan.
Question. Do you know anything of the instructions given to the
Board of Civil Engineers, whether it was simply to decide between
the plans and bids of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and Mr. Norris, or whether
it was to consider the general question of all the bids?
Answer. So far as I can glean, only the Philadelphia bids"were
submitted to that board.
FREDERIC SAUNDERS.
A.
Steam machinery/for screw propeller sloops-of-war at the United States
navy yards of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Pensacola.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 26, 1858.
Sealed proposals, endorsed "Proposals for steam machineryfor screw
propeller stoops-of-war," will be received at this department until 3
o'clock, p. m., of the eighth of September next, for the complete
construction of the steam machinery and appendages, and placing the
same on board, for each of the screw sloops-of-war building at the




12              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
United States navy yards at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, New York,
Philadelphia, and Gosport, in accordance with the following conditions:
The offers must be for a specific sum for putting the whole in successful operation, must include all patent fees, and the department
will require a release from the proprietors of any patented article or
arrangement used in or about the machinery and must state the time
in which the work will be completed, and must be accompanied by
the usual guarantee required by law.
The name of the establishment in which the work is to be executed
must be stated. The details of the design and arrangement of the
machinery will be left with the party whose proposition may be accepted as combining the greatest number of advantages, keeping in
view  cost, simplicity of construction, readiness of access for adjustment when in operation, and not being subject to derangement in
the working parts, it being the object of the department to procure
machinery which can develop great power when required, so as to insure high speed for as many days as possible, while at the same time
they will be able to propel the vessel at a moderate speed with great
economy of fuel, so that long voyages may be performed with one
supply of coal.
With this view, the department will expect the bidders to guaranty
the results proposed to be accomplished by their plans, and to specify
those results under the following heads:
1. The amount of horse power which the engines and boilers will
be able to develop for five days consecutively when driven up to their
highest capacity, to be measured on board the vessel by the indicator,
at the rate of 33,000 pounds lifted one foot high in a minute and to
be not less than 1,000 horse-power, and at least eighty revolutions
per minute.
The consumption of coals per horse-power per hour must be stated.
The pressure in pounds per square inch on the piston necessary to
work the engines at the above velocity, the screw being disconnected
and the engines without a load, except the line of shafting, must not
exceed 21 pounds per square inch of piston by indicator diagram.
2. The quantity of coal which can be stowed in the ship without
exceeding the total weight of 406 tons for machinery, appendages,
boilers and water in them, bunkers, tools, square pieces, and coal
within the length occupied by the engines and boilers. The boilers
to be of iron of the multitubular kind, with brass tubes and with telescopic smoke pipe, and as it is intended to use fresh water in the
boilers, a surface condenser of the most approved kind will be required.
The propeller, with the connexions for hoisting it, will be of composition, to be properly proportioned for at least 80 revolutions per
minute, and for the immersed amidship section of the vessel.
The pumps, apparatus for ventilating, and appurtenances of all
kinds, necessary for the perfect working of the whole, to be of the
most approved kinds.
The coal bunkers, shaft passage, two athwartship iron bulk heads,
a distilling apparatus for fresh water, from which can be made not




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  13
less than 500 gallons per day., and the tools and duplicate pieces
necessary and satisfactory for an efficient cruising steam sloop-of-war,
must be included in the proposition, and a list of them must be furnished.
The wood and carpenter work, except the boring out the dead wood
for the shaft, necessary to adapt the vessel for the reception of the
machinery, boilers, and appendages, will be provided at the expense
of the Navy Department, and it will permit the use of such facilities
as it may have for hoisting the heavy machinery on board.
For the accommodation of the entire steam machinery and the fuel
there will be allowed in the body of the ship the entire space under
the spar deck, commencing at 15 feet abaft the main mast, and thence
extending forward a distance of 50 feet.
Within this space it is expected to carry coal for five days' steaming
at the maximum speed.
In the specifications the daily consumption of fuel will be stated;
also the weight of the machinery, coal, boilers, water in them, shaft,
propeller and appendages, with tools and spare work, all of which
must not exceed 406 tons of 2,240 pounds.
The distance from the after side of the mainmast to the after side
of the forward stern post will be about 80 feet, and the distance
between the forward and the after stern posts wvill be seven feet.
The depth from the load water line to the top of the keel under the
propeller will be twelve feet one inch.
The proposal must be accompanied by full specifications and general drawings, having the position of the centre of gravity of the machinery, boilers, &c., marked on them, giving also the capacity of the
steam cylinders, pressure of steam, area of foot and delivery valves,
and of air-pump and outboard delivery valves, space for steam above
the water line of the boilers, the fire and grate surface; also the
diameter, pitch, surface, and kind of propeller and other principal
points, that comparisons can readily be made.
The terms of payment will be that, when one-half of the materials
and labor provided for in the contract shall have been completed to
the satisfaction of the department, there will be made a payment of
one-third part of the whole amount of the contract. When the whole
shall have been completed and ready for erection in the ship a further
payment of one-sixth will be made; and when a satisfactory trial of
seven consecutive days shall have been made, then a furtherpayment
of one-sixth; and when the ship shall have performed satisfactorily
at sea for a period of three months, the remaining sum shall be paid.
The repairs necessary during this period from defective workmanship
or materials will be at the expense of the contractor.
It is to be understood that if the weight and other conditions specified in the contract be not complied with, the department is to be at
liberty to reject the whole machinery, the contractor to be at the
expense of taking it out of the ship and to refund whatever amount
of the contract price may have been paid.
Proposals will also be received at the same time and place for the
steam machinery and appendages, and placing the same on board




14             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
each of the screw sloops-of-war building at the navy yards at Boston,
Philadelphia, and Pensacola, under the specifications and conditions
above stated, with variations in the following particulars, viz:
1st. Horse power 750 at, at least, 80 revolutions per minute.
2d. The total weight for machinery, appendages, boilers and water
in them, bunkers, tools, spare pieces, and coal, must not exceed 310
tons, of 2,240 pounds each. The length occupied by the engines and
boilers will commence 14 feet abaft the mainmast, and thence extend
forward a distance of 46 feet.
The distance from the after side of the mainmast to the after side
of the forward stern post, will be about 75 feet.  The depth from
the load-water line to the top of the'keel under the propeller will be
9 feet 2 inches.
Steam engine manufacturers who desire to bid can obtain a copy
of the section of any one of the vessels, upon making application to
the department.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
JULY -.                                Secretary of the Navy.
B.
OFFICE OF THE ALLAIRE WORKS.
No. 466 Cherry Street, New York, September 7, 1858.
SIR: The Allairie Works will agree to build and set up on board a
sloop-of-war in the port of New York, a pair of horizontal four piston
rod steeple engines, with propeller, boilers, fresh water condenser,
and all other appendages, and set the whole in successful operation
in accordance with the specifications submitted by the United States
Navy Department, and bearing date of July 26, 1858, for the sum of
one hundred and five thousand dollars ($105,000.)
Also agree to build the same size and description of engine and
place the same on board of either sloop-of-war now building at the
United States navy yards at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, or Philadelphia, all to be in accordance with the requirements of the above
named specification, for the sum of one hundred and ten thousand
dollars ($110,000.)
Also agree to build the same style of engine, capable of developing
750 horse power, and place the same and put in successful operation
on board of either sloop-of-war being built at the United States navy
yards at Boston or Philadelphia, and in all respects fulfilling the
requirements of the specifications submitted, for the sum of ninetyseven thousand dollars ($97,000.)
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, City of Washington, D. (.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                15
NEW YORK, September 7, 1858.
SIR: Should the United States government accept either of the
propositions for building steam machinery for screw propeller sloopsof-war, as made by the Allaire Works of this city, I do hereby
guaranty the execution and faithful performance of such contracts in
accordance with the requirements of the law.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
No. 2.-TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM COCKCROFT.
JANUARY 26, 1859.
WILLIAM COCKCROFT called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. I am engaged in the practice of medicine; and also in
carrying on the forging of wrought iron work.
Question. Where?
Answer. In New York city.
Question. How long have you been engaged in the latter employment?
Answer. About ten years.
Question. Have you done any work in that line of business for
United States vessels?
Answer. We have.
Question. When and for what vessels?
Answer. We have done it in different years; some repairs and
some new work. The repairs I could not specify. The new work we
have done has been on the Niagara; and also some vessels building at
this time, one in New York, one in Philadelphia, and one in Hartford, I think, or east somewhere.
Question. Who built the sloop-of-war Brooklyn-the vessel, I
mean?
Answer. Mr. Jacob A. Westervelt, I think.
Question. Who built the engines?
Answer. Pease & Murphy, of the Fulton Iron Works.
Question. Did you apply at any time to get the forging for that
engine?
Answer. I either applied, or they applied to me, I am not certain
which; but I think they applied to me first.
Question. State your conversation with either of the firm, if you
had any?
Answer. When the contract for that vessel was given out-I think
there was more than one built at that time, if I mistake not there
were two or three at that time-Mr. Wesley Lee, the manager con



16             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
nected with theReading forge, in Pennsylvania, was on at New York,
and was saying around that he had the forging for that vessel to do.
He said this before I applied for it; so when I was applied to about
it I told Mr. Pease that I did not consider it of any use for me to
estimate upon the work, as I understood that it was already given
out. He asked me how I knew that.  I told him that I understood
that Mr. Lee had said so. I asked him if it was so, for if it was so I
would not make an estimate for it.  He referred me to Mr. Murphy;
I saw Mr. Murphy but he evaded a direct answer.  However, I agreed
eventually to estimate upon the work; but that is all the good it
did; I heard nothing more of it.
Question. Who is Mr. Lee?
Answer. He is a gentleman who used to have charge of a forge in
New York, so I understand, that made the Niagara shaft that was
condemned, and for which we afterwards made a shaft. He then came
on and took charge of the Reading forge, of Pennsylvania, owned
by Glancy Jones, so I understood.
Question. Did you apply, or were you applied to, to do the forging
for the vessel now being built by the Morgan Works'?
Answer. I did that work.
Question. Were you applied to, or did you apply, to do the forging
for the New York vessel being built by Messrs. Pease & Murphy?
Answer. I was applied to by them; I did not apply to them.
Question. What conversation had you with regard to the matter
with them?
Answer. I made it a point to ask the question whether the same
had been done as I believed had been done in the case of the Brooklyn. I was referred to Mr. Murphy, and he told me that he wished
me to do that work.  As regards the Brooklyn, he said he could not
help himself; he had to let the forging go elsewhere. I supposed, of
course, he meant that he had to let it go to the Reading forge.
Question. Were you applied to by Mr. Quintard, of the Morgan
Works?
Answer. I did that work.
Question. For what vessel was that done?
Answer. I think it was done for the vessel being built at Pensacola. I am not certain, but I think that was the one.
Question. Was it for the vessel being built for the Morgan Works,
of New York?
Answer. Yes, sir; and we are forging for Messrs. Merrick & Sons,
of Philadelphia, who are building a vessel.
Question. Do you know whether there was any application besides
yours for the forging for that vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir; there were some other applications.
Question. By whom?
Answer. I think there was one by a forge in Bridgewater, in Massachusetts; another by a forge just out of Boston, called the Boston
Locomotive Works; and then I think there was one company in New
York applied for it; but I do not suppose Mr. Quintard would let
them do it, for they were not competent to do it.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                17
Question. Did the Reading forge apply for it?
Answer. I do not know that they did.
Question. What did Mr. Quintard say, if anything, to you about
any application on behalf of the Reading forge?
Answer. We might have had a little private conversation about it
after he had given me the work.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What is the name of your works?
Answer. The Franklin works.
Question. Where are they located?
Answer. New York city, in First avenue, between 25th and 26th
streets, running from one street to the other.
By the Chairman:
Question. What did Mr. Quintard inform you about any application
that had been made to him either from the Reading works, or from
any one on behalf of the Reading works?
Answer. We had a little private conversation; but I would rather
be excused from answering the question if the committee will excuse
me; I would rather the committee would examine Mr. Quintard, as
this was a private conversation, and in some sort sacred. I hope the
committee will take into consideration the position it would place me in
to answer this question. Mr. Quintard had already given me the
work, and any conversation which we may have had, could have had
no influence upon that. In the first interview I had with him he
told me that he wanted me to do the work. The price was not settled
then; we settled it afterwards. He wanted me to do it because the
other shops had done their work so imperfectly, while ours had all
turned out well, I know of no inducement held out to Mr. Quintard
from the department, in regard to giving out this forging. There
was not a particle of inducement mentioned in the conversation.
[Question waived for the present.]
Question. What kind of works were the Reading Forge works?
Answer. The same as ours, for the forging of wrought iron work
for machinery, shafts, cranks, &c.
Question. Where was it located?
Answer. At Reading, Pennsylvania, I have always understoodt.
Question. Who was the proprietor of that establishment?
Answer. J. Glancy Jones, I have always understood.
Question. How much work has that forge done for the government?
Answer. A great deal; I do not know how much.
Question. For what vessels?
Answer. I think for all the steam vessels that were built by the
government in 1857, except the two that we did; they did some then
on four vessels. The crank shaft for the steamer Wabash, made for
Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia, proved to be imperfect, and they sentto us to make it for them, and we did so.
Question. Did the Reading forge build the defective crank shaft?'
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How are your works located in New York city in refer.
2c




18             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
ence to the Morgan Works, Allaire Works, and others there? Are
they all in the same neighborhood?
Answsr. We are on First avenue and Twenty fifth street; the
Morgan Works on Ninth street; the Allaire Works and the works of
Messrs. Pease & Murphy are on Cherry street.
Question. How far is it from Reading to New York?
Answer. I think Reading is some sixty or seventy-five miles from
Philadelphia, and consequently some one hnndred and seventy-five
miles from New York city.
Question. Did these shafts have to be transported from Reading,
by way of Philadelphia, to New York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In the conversation with Mr. Murphy, in regard to which
you have testified, in which you said it was a foregone conclusion in
your opinion that you were not to have this work, what reply did he
make to you?
Answer. He did not make me a direct answer.
Question. To whom was it that you remarked that it was a foregone conclusion?
Answer. To Mr. Pease. I asked Mr. Pease whether it was a foregone conclusion, and he referred me to Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Murphy
evaded giving a direct answer. When this last work in 1858 came
up I objected to estimating for it at all, thinking that my estimate
would merely be used for other parties; and I would not submit any
estimate until I knew whether such work was going on. I told them
that I would not estimate if it was a settled thing that I could not get
the work. But if it was a fair thing, and the work was to be given
to the lowest bidder, I would try. I was referred to Mr. Murphy
again. Mr. Murphy was at that time in Washington.  He came
home again in two or three days, and I went to his office and saw
him. I told him that Mr. Pease and myself differed as regarded the
price.  He said, "Doctor, I want you to do that work."  Said he,' The Brooklyn work was not satisfactory, but I could not help myself
on that job, but on this I can."
Question. Where were the Brooklyn works made?
Answer. They were made at Reading.
Question. What has become of the Reading forge?
Answer. It has gone where it ought to go; it has broke.
Question. When did it break?
Answer. Just about the time of the letting the last contracts; just
before Mr. Jones went away; just about the time he was defeated for
Congress.
Question. Did Mr. Quintard, at the time of this conversation, refer
to any papers, or show you any papers, upon his table or elsewhere?
Answer. That is the very pith of the question you asked before,
if you please. If the committee would excuse me from answering it,
not compel me to give them private conversation, I would be very
much obliged to them. I will say that it had no reference to any
favor that Mr. Quintard obtained thereby.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                19
Question. What is the capacity of your forge as compared with the
Reading forge?
Answer. I suppose we do ten times as much as they have done;
may be fifty times as much, for aught I know.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know of any partiality or corruption in the letting
of any of these contracts to anybody for steam machinery, for any of
these vessels, ordered in 1857 and 1858?
Answer. I would merely state that I know of nothing of the kind
of my own knowledge.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with Engineer
Everett in regard to the detention, or the cause of the detention, of
the Brooklyn?
Answer. I suppose I have, though at this moment I do not recollect any particular conversation.
Question. Who is Mr. Everett?
Answer. The engineer superintending the vessel being built by
Mr. Quintard.
Question. Is he employed by the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What did he say was the trouble with the Brooklyn?
Answer. I do not think he spoke about anything as within his own
knowledge. I think likely I may have said to him something like
this: "Everett, what is the matter with the Brooklyn?"  I think he
said, in answer, that there was something the matter with the crank
shaft.  I think myself that was the matter, but I have never been
near it. The other day Messrs. Pease & Murphy asked me if I would
make them a crank shaft, and I said no. They did not say what the
shaft was for, but I supposed it was for that.
Question. Were Mr. Archbold and Mr. Martin in New York about
the time of letting these contracts?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw them both there.
Question. How long before or after the letting?
Answer. Just about the time.
Question. Where did you see them?
Answer. I saw them both at Mr. Quintard's, and at Messrs. Pease
& Murphy' s.
Question. Did they make inspection of any other works besides
those two?
Answer. I do not know; I would say that I do not know Mr. Archbold to speak to him, but Mr. Martin I do.
Question. How long have you known Mr. Martin?
Answer. About five or six years.
Question. Do you know any thing about the character of his boiler?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know what took place between them at the Morgan works?
Answer. No, sir.




20             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What proportion of the work executed under these contracts with the government for steam machinery is let out to such
companies as yours?
Answer. That depends upon the capacity of the works taking the
contract from the department.  The Novelty works, the Morgan Iron
works, the Allaire works, are competent to do anything the government could order that is done in my shop. But large forging is a
separate branch of the business, and we do that for them. Messrs.
Pease & Murphy, however, have not the facilities for this large work
that the others have, and put out more of this work. It requires
different tools to do this heavy work. Probably there is not a shop
in New York like those I have named, that could finish one of these
large size crank shafts, like the Niagara shaft, for instance; that could
not be finished by any of the shops but ours; that is, they could not
take it and go right through with it. It might be partly finished in
one shop and partly in another. There is not enough of that work
done to make it an object to any one to put up a shop with the requisite tools.
Question. With whom is the contract made for forging; with the
government, or those who contract with the government?
Answer. We make our contracts with the engine builders.
Question. Does it come within your knowledge that in making any
contract for steam machinery the government or its officers have ever
made it a condition that the person taking the contract should sublet
the forging to any particular works?
Answer. No, sir, only as regards the Brooklyn; that was my opinion.
I have nothing to base that opinion upon except hearsay and the
results.
Question. Did the Reading works get any forging under the contracts for vessels ordered in 1858 to be built?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you say that of the vessels ordered in 1857 you did the
forging for two contractors, and that the Reading works did the forging for the balance?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many vessels were ordered in 1857?
Answer. There were five of them, I think.
Question. Has it always been your fortune to make good crank
shafts? Have you never made any that failed?
Answer. None have ever failed that we have ever made for the
government. We guaranty them  to the government ourselves, and
are always perfectly willing to guaranty any work that we may do.
Question. Upon whom does the failure of any crank shaft fall; upon
the government or upon the contractor?
Answer. The contractor generally agrees to guaranty the work
for, say three months; I believe a guarantee for a three months' trip
is required now; after that time has passed the risk is upon the government. If any defect exhibits itself before the trial trip is over, it
falls upon the contractor.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                21
Question. If a defect existed would it be apt to show itself very
soon?
Answer. Yes, sir, in a crank-shaft; we have to cut right into a
crank-shaft and take out a solid piece, and if we find the slightest
imperfection in the shaft when we cut into it, say as large as my penknife would make in this piece of paper, we should probably condemn
it, most especially if it came in any important place.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You say that these Reading Works had none of this subletting under the contract of 1858?
Answer. No, sir, the concern was closed then; I think they were
sold out by the sheriff; they were closed somewhere along in September.
By the Chairman:
Question. When were these awards made?
Answer. I have understood that they were made on the 12th of
September last.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you say that all this heavy work which you did must
be sub-let by any of these contractors?
Answer. Yes, sir; there is not a man in any of these works I have
mentioned who understands and is competent to make these heavy
crank-shafts; I would not give the best man they have got a dollar a
day for that purpose, although I pay ten dollars a day to some of my
workmen.  It is a different branch of the business altogether.
W. COCKCROFT.
No. 13.-TESTIMONY OF MILES CORRYELL, NEW YORK.
JANUARY 29, 1859.
MILES CORRYELL called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your employment?
Answer. My employment is that of engineer or superintendent of
the Morgan IronWorks, in New York city.
Question. Were you called upon by the Secretary of the Navy to
act as one of a board to examine certain proposals?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is this a correct copy of the communication addressed to
you on that occasion?
"NAVY DEPARTMENT, November 29, 1858.
"GENTLEMEN: The department desires you to examine the proposals, &c., which have been submitted by William Norris, esq., and
Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., for the steam machinery of the screw
propeller sloop-of-war building at Philadelphia by the government




22             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC,
upon Mr. Griffith's plan, and to express, in writing, which of the two
is preferable for the proposed purpose.
"I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
"ISAAC TOUCEY.
"Messrs. Erastus W. Smith, Washington Jones, and Miles Corryell,
Washington."
Answer. As near as I can recollect that is a true copy of it.
Question. Did you appear in Washington in response to that letter
and act as one of the board?
Answer. I did.
Question. What bids for that vessel'were submitted to you for
your consideration?
Answer. The two stated here, the bid of William Norris and the
bid of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Was the bid of the Allaire Works submitted to you?
Answer. It was before us.
Question. Was it submitted to you for your action?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy told us we could say what we
pleased about it.
Question. Did you learn why the letter confined your investigation
to the two bids?
Answer. The bid of the Allaire Works had been left out by the
other boards as not coming within the specifications.  We looked
over it and found that it did not come within the specifications, and
we therefore did not consider it.
Question. Then you confined your consideration to the bids of
Reaney, Neafie & Co. and William Norris?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the decision of a majority of the board in
reference to those two bids?
Answer. It was in favor of Mr. Norris' plan; there were some few
modifications suggested.
Question. Do you know whether the plans and specifications of
Mr. Norris were, after this, shown to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Were they in your presence shown to Reaney, Neafie
& Co.?
Answer. They were not.
Question. Who were present at the time your board met?
Answer. None but the members of the board.
Question. After you had acted upon the two applications and bids,
what was then done?
Answer. We were politely dismissed by the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. Who received the award for building that vessel?
Answer. I have read in the papers that Reaney, Neafie & Co.
got it.
Question. Where are they?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question.  Where are the works of Mr. Norris situated?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                23
Answer. I believe he has no works.
Question. Where is the firm of Norris & Co.?
Answer. In Philadelphia, I think.
Question. Are the Morgan Works building one of the sloops-ofwar of the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir; they are building the engines and machinery
for one of them.
Question. What vessel is that?
Answer. The Pensacola vessel, called "the small sloop" at Pensacola.
Question. What do you get for that?
Answer. $110,000, I believe.
Question. What do you get, in addition, for putting up the
engines and machinery at Pensacola?
Answer. That now embraces the whole price, I think.
Question. Were you here at the time that bid was considered in
Washington?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Who came here for your firm?
Answer. No one; I came on afterwards, with one of the priucipali
of the firm.
Question. Is Mr. Quintard in your company?
Answer. He is the principal proprietor.
Question. Was there any correspondence between Mr. Quintard
and any one about that vessel?
Answer. All the correspondence was through me.
Question. Did he receive any letters in regard to sub-letting that
work?
Answer. No, sir; so far as I know there was nothing of the kind.
Question. Do you know whether the Reading Forge has done any
work for your works at any time?
Answer. No, sir; they never did.
Question, Was any request made to your firm, or to Mr. Quintard
personally, to give work to the Reading Forge?
Answer. Nothing except the usual solicitations from parties.
Question. What were those solicitations?
Answer. Merely representations from the forge that they were
able to do such work.
Question. Who made that representation?
Answer. I think I received a letter from the firm to that effect.
Question. Had you any communication with Mr. J. Glancey Jones?
Answer. No, sir, not that I know of.
Question. Do you know Mr. Jones?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You know who he is?
Answer. I may know him when I see him, but I have no acquaintance with him.
Question. Where is Mr. Quintard?
Answer. In New York City.
Question. Why has he not obeyed the subpoena in this case?




24            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did you know that he had been summoned?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Do you know of any inducements held out by you or any
of your firm to induce the giving of this Pensacola contract to you?
Answer. There were no inducements held out; on the contrary, it
was very much to our surprise that we got the award; we paid no
attention whatever to the matter after we delivered the bids and
drawings.
Question. Why were you surprised?
Answer. We had been previously five or six times before the department with good drawings and had received no encouragement;
but as we had been solicited, as was customary, to give in a bid, we
did so merely as a matter of principle.
Question. Then you had made previous applications to the department and had received no contracts?
Answer. We had.
Question. Who has generally done the contract work in New York
city for the government?
Answer. Murphy & Co.
Question. What have been the facilities of the company as compared with those of yours and of the Allaire Works?
Answer. They are nearly as good for building this kind of work.
Question. Which are the larger and better known establishments?
Answer. The Allaire Works and the Morgan Works employ more
than double the number of men that Murphy & Co. do; his have the
facilities for employing them which they have not.
Question. Are there private establishments in the city of New
York now having capacity to build an ordinary sloop-of-war, or to
repair one of the sloops-of-war of the United States?
Answer. Yes, sir; there are five or six of them.
Question. Have they docks sufficiently large to receive a sloop-ofwar.
Answer. The Allaire Works and Murphy & Co. have very limited
dock room. The Morgan Works and the Novelty Works have very
fine dock room.
Question. Could you, as an engineer, give us an opinion as to
whether the building or the repairing of a sloop-of-war would be done
cheaper by contract with private companies than by the government
works in the navy yard?
Answer. From what observation I have had I should think it would
be less by contract.
Question. What would you say in regard to the repair and equipment of vessels?
Answer. I should think that in the repair of vessels the navy yard
would be almost as cheap, because the repairs are generally required
to be done in a hurry. "
Question. Then you think that for the building and equipment of
vessels it could bedone more cheaply by private firms?
Answer. Yes, sir; by those which had sufficient dock room and




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 25
other facilities to do the necessary work; but in the city of New York
there are only two firms that have derricks for putting in boilers;
for the others they would have to go to the navy yard to have the
boilers put in.
Question. In your judgment, could the repair and the equipment
of vessels of the United States be performed by private companies
in the city of New York?
Answer. It could, I think.
Question. What is the comparison in the amount of work done by
a laborer or a mechanic in the navy yard, and that done by men in
private yards?
Answer. I suppose that a navy yard mechanic does about one-half
as much as the other.
Question. Are vessels-of-war for other governments built in New
York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To what extent?
Answer. There have been three built in New York, by Webb, for
Russia.
Question. How do the Atlantic steamers of the Collins and Vanderbilt lines compare in point of size with the vessels of the United
States navy?
Answer. They are of about the same size as some of the government vessels; somewhat larger than some of them.
Question. Would there be any more difficulty in building a government vessel than in building a merchant vessel of the same capacity
and tonnage?
Answer. No more difficulty, except that the material for the govvernment vessel must be better and stronger.
Question. You would also require a different equipment, so far as
the cannon, &c., was concerned?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What kind of timber is required and used in government
vessels?
Answer. Live-oak, and imperishable woods, such as cedar, &c.
Question. Could private firms get this kind of wood with the same
facilities and cheaper than the government does?
Answer. I think not; not the live-oak.
Question. Why could not a private firm get live-oak as cheaply as
the government?
Answer. The government owns most of the live-oak lands.
Question. Then, if this government should throw open its monopoly
in these live-oak lands there would be no difficulty; and it is only
because they reserve the lands for their own use that they can get
this live-oak more cheaply?
Answer. Yes, sir; and they retain the monopoly also to prevent
foreign navies from obtaining this live-oak.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is not there another difficulty in the way of the private
firms, in the amount of material that they would be obliged to keep




26             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
on hand, and the length of time they would have to keep it in order
to season it properly? Would it not be difficult for a private firm to
do that?
Answer. It would.
Question. Would it not be impossible for any private firm to keep
that amount of timber on hand that would be necessary for the construction of a government ship, and take their chances of getting
contracts?
Answer. I think so.
By the Chairman:
Question. Would there be any difficulty in the government receiving
and storing this timber and then furnishing it to contractors to build
the vessels?
Answer. No, sir; I suppose not.
Question. This live-oak timber must be of specific sizes, must it
not, for the knees and other timbers of a vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When the bids for these vessels were made were they
open, so that competing bidders could see them and ascertain the
comparative rates bid?
Answer. I should think not, although I do not know. It has been
the practice to mail these bids only the evening before, so as to have
them arrive just in time for the opening.  It has been the custom of
the department to take the bids directly to the Secretary upon their
being received here.
Question. Do you know of cases where the Secretary has awarded
contracts upon higher bids than some which have been made?
Answer. I have heard, but I do not know of any such instances.
Question. Have you the means of knowing, or could you learn?
Answer. A person making inquiries of the Secretary of the Navy
could get that information.
Question. Do you not know that the Secretary of the Navy was
inquired of whether. the bids could be seen after they were made,
and the parties were told that they could not be seen?
Answer. I am not aware of that; but that is my impression.
Question. What is your impression? that the bids could be seen?
Answer. Yes, sir, after the contracts had been made and determined upon, in order that parties might be satisfied that they had
been fairly dealt with.
Question. Has the firm of Murphy & Co. any greater capacity and
facilities for building engines for government vessels than several
other firms in the city of New York?
Answer. Yes, sir, greater than some.  I would state that the
building of government engines does not require so large a shop as.ordinary marine work.
Question. You say they have greater facilities than some. How
many firms have superior advantages and facilities to Murphy & Co.?
Answer. Only three.
Question. How many are there with about the same facilities?
Answer. Only two, I believe.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                     27
Question. Has any government work, besides this Pensacola vessel
to your firm, been given to any other firm in the city of New. York.
since the 4th of March, 1857, than that of Murphy & Co.?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know whether there is any relationship existing
between any member of that firm and the Secretary of the Navy, or
any of the officers in that department?
Answer. I am not aware that there is.
Question. Do you know the firm of Woodruff & Beach, of Hartford,
Connecticut?
Answer. I know the members of that firm very slightly?
Question. What capacity have they for building large engines of
this character?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Do you know whether the Mr. Beach of that firm is or is
not a nephew of Mr. Toucey?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did you ever see any bids or contracts awarded to Woodruff & Beach?
Answer. I have not.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is there any private firm in the city of New York that
would answer the purpose of receiving and discharging the vessels of
the United States navy, and fitting them out in the time and manner
in which it has to be done in the government service?
Answer. No, sir; the facilities in the navy yard are not to be found
elsewhere.
By the Chairman:
Question. Please examine the proposals, and the abstract of proposals for the engines, &c., of the sloops-of-war called for in the specifications of July 26, 1858, and state the proposals for each sloop,
and which is the lowest, in your estimation, for each sloop?
Answer. The following, I believe, are the amounts bid, the parties
bidding, and the vessel bid for, respectively:
Large sloop at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 1,000 horse-power.
Morgan Iron Works, New York......................          $143,000
West Point Foundry..............................   136,000
James Murphy & Co................................   135,000
Allaire Works....................................       110,000
Novelty Iron Works................................    98,500
Woodruff& Beach, Hartford......................    125,000
Small sloop, Boston, 750 horse-power.
Morgan Iron Works, New York......................           110,000
James Murphy & Co., New York.....................   107 000
Allaire Works, New York......................                 97,000
Locomotive Works, Boston......................  104,000
Atlantic Works, Boston..............................   100,000
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford.........................   118,000




28                CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Large sloop, New  York, 1,000 horse-power.
Morgan Iron Works, New York................         $137.500
James Murphy & Co., New York.....................   130,000
West Point Foundry, New York......................    130,000
Allaire Works, New York...........................   105,000
Novelty Iron Works, New York......................                9, 000
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford.........................   125,000
Large sloop, Philadelphia, 1,000 horse-power.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia....................   $145,500
Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia.......................   102,000
Morgan Iron Works, New York......................   141,000
Allaire Iron Works, New York.......................   110,000
Novelty Iron Works, New  York......................    98,000
Murry & Hazelhurst, Baltimore......................   110,000
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford.........................   125,000
Large sloop, Norfolk, 1,000 horse-power.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia...................    $152,000
Morgan Iron Works, New York...........   142,000
Novelty Iron Works, New York......................                100,000
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford........................   125,000
Murry & Hazelhurst, Baltimore....................   115,000
C. Reeder, Baltimore..............................                 94,000
Small sloop, Pensacola, (direct action engines,) 750 horse-power.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia..............   $153,000
James Murphy & Co., New York....................   127,000
Morgan Iron Works, New York   -..................   120,000
West Point Foundry, New York..................   118,000
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford........................               118,000
Locomotive Works, Boston...................   115,000
Murry & Hazelhurst, Baltimore......................   100,000
Griffth's sloop at Philadelphia, (geared engines,) 1,100 7zorse-power.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia...................  $139,000
William Norris, Philadelphia.........................   126,000
And the following are the lowest bids, respectively, for the sloops:
Portsmouth, (Kittery,) large, Novelty Works..........    $98,500
Boston, small, Allaire Works.......................              97,000
New York, large, Novelty Works......................   97,000
Philadelphia, large, Novelty Works..................   98,000
Philadelphia, small, William  Norris...........    126,000
Norfolk, large, C. Reeder...........................    94,000
Pensacola, small, Murry & Hazelhurst................  180,000




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 29
Question. How much higher was the bid of Woodruff & Beach for
the engine and machinery of the Portsmouth vessel than the lowest
bid?
Answer. $7,000.
Question. Are there any other bids between the two?
Answer. There are two bids less than that of Woodruff & Beachthe Novelty Works, $98,500; the Allaire Works, $110,000.
Question. Are there any lower bids for the Boston sloop than that
of the Boston Locomotive Works; and if so, what are they and by
whom?
Answer. The Allaire Works are $7,000 less, and the Boston Works
are $4,000 less.
Question. Are there any lower bids for the large sloop-of-war in
Philadelphia than that of Merrick & Sons; and if so, how many, and
how much less?
Answer. There is one lower bid-that of the Novelty Works, New
York, $3,500 less.
Question. Are there any lower bids for the New York sloop than
that of James Murphy & Co.; and if so, how many, and how  much
less?
Answer. The Novelty Iron Works are $33,000 less; the Allaire
Works are $25,000 less; and Woodruff & Beach are $5,000 less, and
Edward Lynch is $3,000.
Question. Was there any bid higher than the one accepted, that
of Murphy & Co.?
Answer. There is one.
Question. Where is it?
Answer. That of the Morgan Works.
Question. How much higher is it?
Answer. $7,000.
Question. What is the amount of Murphy & Co.'s bid?
Answer. $130,000.
Question. Was that bid made under the same specifications as the
others?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know whether there was any reason for this
award to Murphy & Co.?
Answer. I do not know it positively. There is a reason, though,
and a very good one, but I do not know positively what it is.
Question. Was there any lower bid for the Pensacola vessel than
that of the Morgan Iron Works?
Answer. Yes, sir, there were four of them; that of the West Point
Foundry, $2,000 less; Murray & Hazlehurst, $20,000 less; Boston Locomotive Works, $5,000 less, and Woodruff & Beach, $2,000 less.
Question. Do you know whether any outside contracts have been
riven to Murphy & Co., and if so what have they been?
Answer. There have been some. I recollect the case of the Prince-;on; but that was not a contract altogether.
Question. What other work has been done by them for the government?




30            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I do not recollect. There has been other work.
Question. How frequently does the government employ that kind
of business firms to work for the government?
Answer. Not very frequently
Question. When they do employ firms on open contracts as they
are called, whom do they employ in New York?
Answer. Murphy & Co. has heretofore had all that work.
Question. Is that the same firm sometimes called Pease & Murphy?
Answer. I believe so.
Question. Is there any competition for work upon open contract?
Answer. There is not.
Question. Do you know of any reason why these open contracts are
given to Murphy & Co. instead of to other parties?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know of any relation existing between Murphy
& Co., or any of the firm, and any officer of the government?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know any political or other influence operating
to induce the giving of contracts to that firm?
Answer. I do not. I pay no attention to politics; I am engaged in
my business as engineer.
Question. Is work done upon open contract done at higher or lower
rates than by ordinary advertised contracts?
Answer. They always get higher prices upon open contracts.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How much work on open contract has, within your
knowledge, been given by the government to Murphy & Co?
Answer. I do not know the amount.
Question. How many cases have there been of work given to them,
many or few?
Answer. They have had all of any account that has been given out.
There has been a very little work given to a Mr. Faron; but not much.
Question, Do you know why the government lets out work on open
contract to a private firm?
Answer. There are many repairs to steam machinery that they are
not able to estimate for, and ask for contracts.
Question. You do not exactly understand my question. Why does
the government give out these jobs to a private firm instead of having them done in the navy yard?
Answer. It is done to expedite business. I would say that they
have given nothing out that they could avoid; they do all they can in
the navy yard.
Question. You have spoken of the comparative facilities of these
different firms and have said that there were two or three who had
more extensive facilities than Murphy & Co. have. Have Murphy &
Co. ample facilities for all the work they have undertaken to do for
the government?
Answer. They have.
Question. Would the fact of their having greater facilities enable
them to do this work any lower?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 31
Answer. No, sir.
Question. In relation to the subject of these bids, can you decide
one of several bids to be the lowest simply because the sum named is
the lowest, without reference to the merits of the plans submitted by
the bidders?
Answer. I cannot.
Question. Might the plans conform strictly to the specifications, and
yet vary greatly in their respective merits?
Answer. Yes, sir; they might vary very much.
Question. Are you able, then, upon the view of the data furnished
you here, to say that the government was right or wrong in the acceptance or rejection of this or that bid under the specifications of 1858?
Answer. No, sir; I cannot.
Question. You say that the steam machinery of the sloop-of-war
being built at the Brooklyn navy yard was let to a firm which bid
$30,000 more than another firm bid for the same work. Is that correct?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did your company bid for that work?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was your bid higher or lower than the bid accepted?
Answer. It was higher.
Question. How much higher?
Answer. $7,000.
Question. Did your company offer to do that work at the lowest
price that they thought they could do it at upon the plans proposed
by them?
Answer. Yes, sir,
Question. Then upon what calculations could another firm propose
to do it for $37,000 less than your firm proposed?
Answer. They proposed to make less machinery, and submitted
plans which were not acceptable.
Question. Do you know General Norris of Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know him by reputation?
Answer. I do.
Question. What is his profession?
Answer. That of locomotive engineer.
Question. What do you mean by "locomotive engineer?"
Answer. I mean that his attention has been directed more to the
building of locomotive engines than of any other.
Question. Has his attention been directed at all to the making of
steam engines?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Has he any interest in the firm of Norris & Bro?
Answer. It is said that he has not. He has never publicly assumed
any such interest if he really has any.
Question. Has he any works for building steam  machinery for
engines?
Answer. I believe not.




32             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. If he had had a contract for building any of this steam
machinery, how would he probably have managed it?
Answer. By sub-letting it.
Question. You have stated that you were on the Board of Engineers
appointed to examine the respective bids of General Norris, and Reaney,
Neafie & Co., and that you gave the preference to the plan of General
Norris?
Answer. I did not; the majority of the board did.
Question. What was your own opinion about it?
Answer. That the plan of Reaney & Neafie was preferable.
Question. Your own opinion, in view of the bids and plans of
Reaney, Neafie & Co., and General Norris, is that the Navy Department acted wisely in giving it to Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When these bids are sent in, all in conformity with the
specifications, who ultimately decides upon the proper bid to be
accepted?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy, after the report of the board
is made to him.
Question. Does the Secretary decide upon his own knowledge, or
does he invariably submit the bids and plans to a board of engineers?
Answer. That has been his practice, so to submit them.
Question. Do you know or not whether the Board of Engineers, to
whom these bids and plans were submitted, recommended in each
case to the Secretary of the Navy the acceptance of that bid which
the Secretary in fact did accept?
Answer. I do not know that.
Question. You neither know one way nor the other?
Answer. No, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Can you give some opinions upon the plans submitted in
September last without seeing the plans and specifications?
Answer. Without seeing the drawings? No, sir.
Question. Can you state which would be the best plans?
Answer. No, sir; there would be two reasons for accepting or
declining bids; one would be the question of time, the other would
be the adaptability of the plans proposed to the vessel.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I want you to explain how it is at last that you determine
which is the correct bid. For instance, half a dozen bids are submitted to you and all are made pursuant to the specifications, how do
you arrive at the lowest bona fide bid.  Does the amount alone
determine which is the lowest bid?
Answer. It does not.
Question. Then what does determine it?
Answer. I would consider that the plan should determine the award
of the bid.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How is it possible that plans may conform to specifications strictly and yet vary so much in merit?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 33
Answer. Because the specifications cannot describe the whole details of an engine, and it is the detail that makes the perfect machine.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You say that a specification cannot describe all the details of an engine; do the bids pretend to do that, or only to give the
main outline?
Answer. The bids and drawings would explain the details of the
whole work.
Question. What is the reason that could not be done in the speci 
fications?
Answer. Bids have heretofore been asked of the different establishments in connexion with the best ability they can bring to bear upon
the plan and drawings.
Question. I know that; but I wish to have you explain your testimony; I suppose you mean that the department desires to be furnished
with the best mode and plan of obtaining a certain given amount of
power and speed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Why are not the details put down in the specifications
issued by the department?
Answer. Because it would prevent the bidders from  exercising
their own judgment as to the best plan of machinery to reach the
desired end.
MIRES CORRYELL.
No. 16. —-TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK E. SICKELS, NEW YORK.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
FREDERICK E. SICKELS called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. I am an engineer and a machinist.
Question. Where?
Answer. I live in West Hoboken, New Jersey; my office is in the
city of New York.
Question. Are you acquainted with the particulars of the specifications issued by the Navy Department of the United States for
sloops-of-war now building?
Answer. I cannot say that I am. I read them  at the time they
were issued, but have not read them since.  I would not like to trust
my memory; it has been so long since.
Question. Do you think it possible to fulfill the conditions required
in this specification, [handing witness printed one to examine,] and
at the same time construct engines of suitable and practicable size,
with a proper and usual amount of room to get around them, and also
have sufficient room to get in the necessary amount of coal to run
these engines for five days, developing one thousand horse power
constantly during that time?
3c




34             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I would say in reference to that that I should require the
section of the ship to be shown me before I could tell. The last
clause of this specification says:   Steam engine mannfacturers, who
desire to bid, can obtain a copy of the section of any one of the
vessels upon making application to the department." I should ask
for that, and I might be able then to tell.
Question. Could you tell with the advertisement alone?
Answer. I could not of course be certain.
Question. Could you make a bid upon the advertisement alone?
Answer. Not without the section of the vessel showing the shape
and size of the ship necessary to enable us to make a bid. This
section cannot be given in the advertisement.
Question. Would it be difficult for a practical engineer to make
definite proposals under the specifications furnished in this advertisement?
Answer. I do not think there would be any difficulty in making the
proposals with the privilege given here of getting a section of the
ship.
Question. Are you in any way connected with designing any of the
engines now being built for the government?
Answer. I am connected with part of one and all of another.
Question. Which?
Answer. I am connected with designing part of the engines to go
into the ship building at Norfolk, and with all the engines going into
the ship building at Pensacola.
Question. What boiler do you consider the best adapted for these
government vessels?
Answer. As a matter of opinion I should say-I can only say what
kind of a boiler I put into this ship-that is the horizontal tubular
boiler. I believe that to be the best one for these vessels. If I were
allowed unlimited latitude in designing engines for a ship I should
take the locomotive boiler for the purpose of generating steam; but
with the limits placed upon us here where they take in guns, &c., I
should take the horizontal tubular boiler.
Question. What is the Martin boiler, as it is called?
Answer. That is an upright tubular boiler.
Question. Why do you prefer the horizontal boiler to the Martin
boiler?
Answer. I think its heating surface is more efficient.
Question. What objections are there to the Martin boiler?
Answer. The greatest objection that I have to it is-and I do not
know that it is a good one, but it is one which has occurred to methat a vessel-of-war is a thing that should be as safe and certain as
possible in the hour of battle, and the upright tubular boilers are
liable, as well as the horizontal tubular boilers, to get out of order,
while they cannot be as readily repaired and plugged in an emergency.
That is the greatest objection I could urge against the Martin boiler
when used in a man-of-war.
Question. What practical difficulty occurs in the use and in the
repair of the Martin boiler?




CONTRACTS FOR MACIlINERY, ETC.                35
Answer. The one which I have suggested is the greatest difficulty.
The other difficulties, when the steam is off, I do not consider to be
so great.
Question. Then it is more difficult to repair a Martin boiler than a
horizontal boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir, when the steam is on and it is in use.  It could
not be called repairing then, for the tubes are not repaired while the
steam is on, merely plugged.
Question. You are designing for the Norfolk and Pensacola vessels,
are you?
Answer. I am designing for the valves only for the Norfolk vessel.
Question. Have you been allowed a greater space in the vessel for
your engines, &c., than was prescribed by the specification?
Answer. No, sir; I have taken exactly that space.  I endeavored
to get more, but they refused me.
Question. Why did you endeavor to get more? did you think more
space was needed?
Answer. Every builder would prefer more, for the more room you
can get the better you can get along. I did not apply officially
for more room; I merely asked Mr. Archbold whether he could let
me have more room. He said "no," and that was the end of that
matter.
Question. Did Mr. Archbold say anything to you about the insufficiency of the room allowed?
Answer. He did not. He said he had got all he could, and could
not allow more.
Question. Do you know whether in any of the vessels the space
allowed for the engines, &c., has been increased?
Answer. Not of my own knowledge.
Question. Have you heard from any one that it has been?
Answer. I have heard that rumor.
Question. Did you hear it from Mr. Archbold?
Answer. No, sir; I never heard him say so, or I would have insisted upon having more room myself.
Question. Do you consider a pair of engines constructed with only
one condenser and one air-pump common to the two engines as safe
and as valuable a pair of engines as if they were constructed with
air-pump or pumps and a condenser to each engine?
Answer. I should say that, other things being equal, two complete
engines would be better than two engines connected in this way; so
that one of the engines could be used even when the other was broken
down. That is a self-evident proposition I should think.
Question. Did you ever examine any of the plans and propositions
for building the engines of the vessels of the government during last
summer?
Answer. I saw the plans of the Allaire Works while they were
being made; I was having some work done by them, and was up in
their draughting office one day and saw their plans upon the board
before they were completed.
Question. Was their plan a good one?




365            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I believe so, so far as I can recollect.
Question. Was it, so far as you can judge now, as good as the
plans for the Pensacola vessel?
Answer. I do not think it was; that was my own plan and I would
not be likely to give another the preference.
Question. How in regard to the Norfolk vessel?
Answer. I did not plan the engines for the Norfolk vessel, only
part of them, and therefore I cannot tell what are the details of that
plan.
Question. In what particular do you consider the Allaire Works
plan not so good as yours?
Answer. I prefer the condenser that I propose to put in to the one
made in the Allaire Works; and I prefer the manner which I have
adopted in working the pumps; that is of course an engineering
question that you could not get two engineers in the world to agree
upon.
FREDERICK E. SICKELS.
No. 19.-GEORGE W. QUINTARD, NEW YORK.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
GEORGE W. QUINTARD called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your connexion with the Morgan Iron Works,
New York city?
Answer. I am one of the principal proprietors.
Question. Have you done any work for the government under contract?
Answer. We are now doing some work for the government by contract, but it is the first we have ever done.
Question. For what vessel are you constructing?
Answer. For the vessel being built at Pensacola.
Question. What are you building?
Answer. The engines, &c.
Question. Did you, at any time, receive any communication from
any officer of the government requesting you, directly or indirectly,
to give any portion of the work, for that or any other vessel, to any
particular forge, or to any particular company?
Answer. No, sir, I never have.
Question. Did you ever say to any one that you had received such
a letter?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you ever receive a letter from Tny officer of the
United States recommending a particular forge?
Answer. No, sir. I was told this, that if I should get work done
at a certain place it would be very satisfactory to certain parties; but
it did not come from any official.
Question. By whom was you told?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               37
Answer. That I do not remember. It was no one connected with
the department; it was some outside party.
Question. Do you not remember who it was?
Answer. It was some time ago; it was last fall, about the time the
contracts were given out. I did not take much notice of it, and did
not apply to the parties to which they referred. I had nothing to
do with it; I did not think it worth noticing.
Question. It was not an officer of the government?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever given any work to the Reading Forge?
Answer. No, sir; they have never done a dollar's worth of work
for me.
Question. Do you know the character and merit of that forge?
Answer. Yes, sir; I believe they did very good work. I have seen
some of their work. They made some for the Novelty Works, and
they were very well satisfied with it.
Question. Who generally does the government work in the city of
New York?
Answer. James Murphy & Co. have had the most of the government work to do there for the last two years.
Question. Who are now constructing the engines for the vessel
being built at New York?
Answer. James Murphy & Co.
Question. Have you been a competing bidder with them for government work?
Answer. We have.
Question. How did your offers for previous work compare in amount
with theirs?
Answer. I believe they have generally been higher.
Question. You never received any contract until you received this
one?
Answer. No, sir. We have been bidders but have never succeeded
in getting anything until this time.
Question. What is the capacity of the Reading Forge (Murphy
Works) in comparison with yours for the construction of engines, &c?
Answer. It is not more than one half the size of ours. They employ some 300 men, I suppose from 300 to 400, while we employ
from 700 to 800; 400 men would fill the extent of their capacity; we
have employed as high a number as 800 men; we are now working
700 men.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was any proposition or suggestion made by you, previous
to your obtaining the contract for doing this work, as to the person
or company you should get to do your forging?
Answer. There was no proposition of that kind made to me until
after we had got the contract. Then a party told me that if we got
the work done at Reading it would be very satisfactory to some parties here. None of the government officers themselves ever spoke
to me about this matter.
Question. Have you had reason to suspect that your bids have been




38              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
heretofore rejected on account of any partiality on the part of the
government for certain men?
Answer. No, sir. We have generally been higher in our bids. In
almost every case when we have bid the contract has been given to
some party who made a lower bid than we did.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Does the amount of the bid always determine which is
really the lowest bid? When you are constructing an engine, for instance, for a vessel, and you desire to procure a certain rate of speed
and a certain power, do you not have to look beyond the mere amount
of the bid to determine which is really the lowest?
Answer. Yes, sir.  The simple amount has very little to do with
it.  The plans are what we decide upon in the first place.  A board
of engineers is appointed to decide upon and examine the plans
and specifications. They examine the plans and if one of them is more
satisfactory than the rest they award the bid to that one, I suppose.
Question. Suppose, if you please, that the governmeit is undertaking to construct a vessel for speed upon an improved plan, an
improvement upon the plan adopted by merchant vessels, can they
furnish specifications in that detail which will enable everybody to
bid exactly alike for the same thing; or do they seek to obtain the
advantage of the skill and genius of the bidders also, to combine that
with the various amounts in the bids they invite?
Answer. That is their object, and they invite proposals from different shops?
Question. The department furnishes bidders with certain specifications, do they not?
Answer. They say about what speed they want to get, and the
space they will allow, and then they want the shops to furnish the
plans that will give these results.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What boiler do you generally use?
Answer. For the ship we are building we use the Martin boiler.
Question. What is your opinion of the different boilers in use now
Answer. I think that for a government ship the Martin boiler is as
good a boiler as you can have; it takes up less room, is as economical
as any, and is more easily got at for repairs.
Question. Do you have to pay Mr. Martin anything for the use
his boiler?
Answer. His fee for each boiler used is $750.
Question. Did you agree to pay him that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has he a patent for that boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. How is the Martin boiler as regards exposure to shot in
action?
Answer. It is about the same as other boilers; in this sloop for
which we are building it will come above water line, but there is no
other boiler but what would be above water line in these light draught




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               39
vessels; in frigates it would be below water line; it takes up less
space than any other boiler in use.
By the Chairman:
Question. I wish to call your attention to the second clause in the
published proposals, and ask you whether you were not bound under
those specifications to name in your bid the kind of boiler you were
to use?
Answer. We were called upon to specify the kind of boiler we
proposed to use.
Question. Did you name the Martin boiler in your bids?
Answer. We did.
Question. Did you ever use them before?
Answer. We have.
Question. Did you know at the time that Mr. Martin himself was
to sit upon your proposals?.Answer. He was not upon the board that decided upon my plans.
Question. Are you sure of that?
Answer. I am.
Question. How do you know that he was not upon the board?
Answer. I know that he was in New York at the time the board
was sitting.
Question. What part has he had in supervising the construction of
that engine?
Answer. He has nothing to do with it. Mr. Everett is the superintendent.
Question. Who is the superintendent of the New York vessel?
Answer. Mr. Martin.
Question. Why did you include the Martin boiler in your bids?
Answer. Because we considered it the best boiler for the purpose.
Question. Had you any conversation previously with Mr. Martin
in regard to the plans and proposals you were about to make?
Answer. Nothing except in regard to his boiler, about the plan
he would suggest, then as to what shape he would have his boiler put
in.
Question. You consulted with him about that before you made your
proposals?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you agree with him about the price you was to pay
him for the privilege of using his boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir. In all cases we decide beforehand, when we
propose to use a patented article, what we will pay for it.
Question. Suppose Mr. Martin had been upon the board making
these awards of contracts, would. he necessarily have seen your proposal in favor of his boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You express the opinion that he was not upon the board
from the fact that he was in New York at the time the board was
sitting?
Answer. Yes, sir; I am quite positive he was not upon the board.




40             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Can you ascertain the name of the person who made intimations to you as to the place where you should have this work done?
Answer. It was some one here in Washington, I believe. I think
I was stopping at Willard's at the time. It was after the contract
had been awarded to me.
Question. How is it that you remember the intimation itself and
not the name of the party making the intimation?
Answer. I am not positive, I think I know the party, but I would
not like to speak positively about it.
Question. We wish to know the name of the party?
Answer. I think it was a man by the name of Lynch.
Question. What was his first name?
Answer. I do not know what his first name is; he is a man about
Washington here a great deal; a short, stout man; he used to be in
the coppersmith's business in Brooklyn.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do these specifications to you contractors require any
amount of speed?
Answer. We are obliged to give a certain number of revolutions.
The contract says we shall make so many revolutions with the propeller every minute.
Question. How many?
Answer. Some eighty, I think.
Question. Is not that a very high speed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You have to guarantee that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is not that very high?
Answer. Yes, sir; sixty turns a minute is the usual speed; but it
depends upon the pitch you give the propeller; you can make it turn
one hundred and fifty times a minute, for that matter.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know anything of the merits of the boiler proposed to be used by the Allaire Works in their bids?
Answer. I do not. Mr. Saunders told me at the time what kind of
boiler he proposed to use, but I have never seen his plan, and do not
know what it is. I think he proposed to put in a number of boilers,
of cylinder boilers.
Question. Do you know whether that plan of boiler has been tried
or not?
Answer. I do not know anything about his plan, merely what he
told me.
Question. Did you bid for the steam machinery of the vessel being
built at New York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you get that contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Who did get it?
Answer. James Murphy & Co.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               41
Question. Was your bid, according to your plan, considered by you
to be a reasonable one?
Answer. I considered it reasonable.
Question. In your opinion could that machinery have been built on
an eligible plan for $37, 000 less than you bid?
Answer. I do not think any man could have done it. I think a man
would have lost a great deal of money who would have undertaken it
at that rate.
Question. Suppose a man had been able to build it for $37, 000 less
than you proposed, what would be your idea of his plan? What would
be your opinion of the plan for steam machinery that could have been
built for such a vessel at $37,000 less than you proposed?
Answer. I cannot think it would be suitable for the ship,
By the Chairman:
Question. Here is an official copy of the call of the board of engineers, and the award signed by Mr. Martin. I would ask you if you
are not mistaken in your idea that Mr. Martin was not one of the
board that sat upon your plan?
Answer. I must be mistaken, judging from these papers. Mr. Martin did sit on this board.
Question. I would ask you to look over the names of those parties
whose bids Mr. Martin advises the Secretary to accept, and tell thi
committee whether all of them do not use the Martin boiler?
Answer. That I could not say. I know that some of them do.
Question. Name them.
Answer. Murphy & Co. use it; Woodruff & Beach use it; I think
that Merrick & Sons use it; and I know that the Morgan Works use
it.
Question. Was there anything in the published specification that
would show that the Martin boiler was a pre-requisite to gaining a
contract?
Answer. Not at all.
Question. Then a bidder who knew nothing except from the specification would put in the boiler he thought best?
Answer. Yes, sir; I will say that I had no idea that Mr. Martin
was sitting on that board.
Question. Was Mr. Martin sitting on that board here when the
plans were opened?
Answer. I think I may say I am pretty positive now that he did.
I knew he had been upon a board, but I had the impression that it
was a previous board. I did not think he was upon the board which
decided upon the plan which I submitted. When I submitted my
plans I did not come to Washington; I wrote no letters, and had no
conversation with any one in regard to it; and the award was made
to me, as I supposed, simply upon the merits of the plans I submitted.
I never came near the department until after the contract was awarded
to me.
Question. Did you make any promises when you did come here?
Answer. No, sir.




42             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Were any inducements held out to you, or recommendations made to you, to give work to any particular work?
Answer. No, sir; the only one was that from Mr. Lynch.
Question. Was this Lynch himself a competent bidder for some of
this work?
Answer. I believe he was.
Question. Has he any works for the construction of engines, &c.?
Answer. No, sir; he has none.
Question. Do you know whether he was a successful bidder or not?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. With what works is he connected?
Answer. I do not know that he was or is connected with any works.
Question. Suppose the contract had been awarded to him, how
would he have complied with it?
Answer. I suppose if the contract had been awarded to him he
would have made the best sub-contract he could with other parties.
FEBRUARY 1, 1859,
GEO. W. QUINTARD recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Who drew your plans for the engines you are now
building?
Answer. Mr. Corryell.
Question. Did you consult any engineer in the service of the United
States about your plans?
Answer. No, sir; we did not.
Question. Was Mr. Archibald seen in regard to your plans?
Answer. No, sir; he knew nothing about them until they were
presented.
Question. Had you any consultation with Mr. Martin, except in
regard to his patented boiler?
Answer. I think not; we might have mentioned something else
while he was there.
Question. Have you ever employed any of the engineers of the
United States at any time as consulting engineers?
Answer. No, sir, not at all; we have had very little to do with the
engineering corps.
Question. Did you apply to any member of Congress when] you
came on here to aid you in getting this contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had you any conversation with any one about it?
Answer. No, sir; not a word with any one.
Question. When were you on here?
Answer. I was here after the contract was awarded to me-not
before.
Question. Who was here for your company?
Answer. No one.
Question. Who was here to explain your plans and specifications?
Answer. There was no one. I had no more idea of getting one of




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                43
these contracts than you have.  It is the first work we have ever
got from the government.  We have generally bid, but have never
been successful before.
Question. Did you give Mr. Martin your note for the use of his
boiler, or what is the nature of your obligation to him?
Answer. We have no obligation yet.  It is merely an agreement.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you supervise yourself, personally, the construction
of these works for the governments?
Answer. No, sir; that comes under the management of Mr. Corryell.
I attend to the financial department.
Question. Could you now say distinctly that the boiler now being
constructed for this machinery is the Martin boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir; it is.
Question. Have Mr. Martin's plans been changed, so far as you
know, in the construction of his boiler?
Answer. I do not think there has been any change made in the
boiler from the original patent. They put it in different shapes, but
that does not alter the plan of the boiler.
Question. Who drew your plans for the machinery and boiler?
Answer. Mr. Corryell.
Question. What office does Mr. Sickles hold in your company?
Answer. He has no connexion with it whatever.  I do not know
much about him any way,
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know whether this Martin boiler is much used in
other steam vessels except those of the government?
Answer. The Adriatic has that boiler; the General Admiral, the
Russian frigate now being built by the Novelty Works, has it; the
Fulton, which I built, has it; and other vessels outside of the navy
have it.
GEO. W. QUINTARD.




44             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
No. 24.-TESTIMONY OF J. VAUGHAN MERRICK, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 1, 1859.
J. VAUGHN MERRICK called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. Are you a member of the firm of Merrick & Sons?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is their business?
Answer. Building steam engines and machinery of various kinds.
Question. What is their capacity to do business in that line?
Answer. We generally employ from 400 to 500 men.
Question. Did you submit to the Navy Department proposals for
building the engines of the sloop of war Lancaster?
Answer. We did.
Question. Who were your competitors for that contract?
Answer. I believe the only competitors were Messrs. Reaney,
Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia.
Question. What was the amount of your bid?
Answer. The amount of our bid, if I am not mistaken, was $145, 000.
Question. What was the amount of the bid of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I think it was $137,500.
Question. Then yours was the highest bid?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What board of engineers sat upon these bids?
Answer. The first board of engineers consisted of Mr. Archbold,
Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Everett.
Question. What was the decision of that board?
Answer. The award of that board, as I have been credibly informedQuestion. By whom have you been informed? By any officer of
the government or any engineer?
Answer. I heard it incidentally through engineers. The award was
that two of its members reported distinctly and strongly in our favor;
and the other stated that the department could not err in giving the
contract to either of the competitors.
Question. What gentleman was in the minority?
Answer. Mr. Archbold.
Question. Was the contract made upon that award?
Answer. It was not.
Question. What was done?
Answer. Another board was called together by the Secretary to
decide on the same bids.
Question. Of whom was that board composed?
Answer. Of Messrs. Archbold, Hunt, Gay, and Lawton.
Question. Two of the old board and two new members?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the award of that second board?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                45
Answer. One member of the board I believe reported adversely
to us, and the other three reported strongly favorable to us.
Question. Who reported adversely to you?
Answer. Mr. Archbold.
Question. In whose favor did he report?
Answer. In the favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. To whom was the contract given?
Answer. To Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. What reason was assigned for making the award to them?
Answer. The reason assigned by the Secretary of the Navy was an
excess of weight in our bid, amounting to about eight tons.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Archbold or
with any officer of the Navy Department in regard to this excess of
weight?
Answer. I personally did not. But my father, who is the senior
partner of the firm, had some conversation with both Mr. Archbold
and Mr. Lenthall.
Question. You had none yourself?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What Secretary presided over these boards?
Answer. Secretary Toucey.
Question. When was this contract awarded?
Answer. About a year ago, in November or December, 1857.
Question. Did you have any conversation with the Secretary in
relation to this matter?
Answer. I did not, being absent from the country shortly after the
first award was made.
Question. What firm in Philadelphia generally does the work of
the government of this character?
Answer. Previous to the awarding of the engines of the Lancaster,
all the work of the government had been done by the firm of Merrick
& Towne, and by Merrick & Sons, their successors after September,
1849.
Question. During the present administration by whom has this
work been done?
Answer. By Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., until the contract was
awarded to us for building the engines of the thirteen foot draught
sloop-of-war now building in Philadelphia.
Question. Did your firm apply to any member of Congress to influence himself in your behalf?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you have any agent employed?
Answer. We had not.
Question. Who was the agent to procure contracts for Reaney,
Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Their accredited agent, the one generally named as their
agent, was Mr. William H. Witte.
Question. What has been his official position in the past?
Answer. I believe he was formerly a member of Congress from




46             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Pennsylvania. I only judge of the fact of his being their agent from
general report.
Question. Is he generally spoken of and understood to be their
agent?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you ever heard that report contradicted?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Who did the forging for Reany, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I cannot say, except from hearsay.
Question. You do not know of yourself?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Who prepared your drawings for the work you are now
doing for the government?
Answer. I prepared them.
Question. Did you employ any gentleman to assist you in getting
that contract?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. Whose boiler did you use?
Answer. Martin's vertical boiler.
Question. Was the use of that boiler specified in your proposals?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What arrangements had you made with Mr. Martin as
regards his patent right?
Answer. The general arrangement made with him at a previous
period was to pay him ten cents per square foot of heating surface.
Question. How much would that amount to in building the engines
for that sloop-of-war?
Answer. About $790.
Question. When did you pay him according to your agreement?
Answer. We have not yet paid him; if we did pay him it would
not be until the time arrived when we had to hand the engines over
to the government.
Question. Have you previously used the Martin boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir, in one case, that of the steamer Wabash.
Question. For whom was that constructed?
Answer. For the Navy Department.
Question. Why did you use this boiler in the steamer Wabash and
the vessel you are now building, and not in other vessels; in other
words, why do you use this boiler in government steamers and not in
other vessels?
Answer. We have not had any steamers of any magnitude to build
since Mr. Martin's boiler was first brought out except government
vessels. It is true that in using the Martin vertical boiler we have
to pay the patentee for the right, and we use it in government vessels, other things being equal we should generally prefer the horizontal tubular boiler, for which we pay nothing, and which is perhaps
equally as good.
Question. Why did you use the Martin'boiler in your proposals?
Answer. We considered that it would give us a specific result in
the ship, and, other things being equal, it might aid us in getting the




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 47
contract. I do not mean to say that we ever had any intimations
that such would be the case, but such was our impressions.
Question. Was that the motive that induced you to put in this
Martin boiler in your proposals?
Answer. That was one of the motives, not the only one.
Question. As practical engineers, what advantages, in your opinion,
has the Martin boiler over the horizontal tubular boiler?
Answer. One of the advantages it has, as we consider, is that the
Martin boiler is more readily cleaned; another advantage is that it is
more easily got into the ship into the space where we are allowed to
place it; that is to say, the vessel being a narrow vessel, we could make
a more satisfactory form of boiler by using Martin's vertical tubular
boiler, because it requires less length in proportion to its other
qualities, than does the horizontal tubular boiler.
Question. What corresponding objections are there to that boiler?
Answer. One objection is that the draught and the capacity of the
boiler for making steam within a given space has been somewhat less;
but we believed that that defect could be remedied, not being inherent to the form of boiler, in our opinion, under the plan we have
adopted.
Question. Is there anything in the specifications published by the
government that would induce you to specify the Martin boiler?
Answer. No, sir, I believe not.
Question. Then you acted upon an idea derived from another source
than the specifications?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you know that Mr. Martin was to sit upon those bids?
Answer. We did not.
Question. Did you know that he was ordinarily a member of the
board for such purposes?
Answer. We did.
Question. Did you know, or do you now know, of any case in which
he has, as an engineer of the United States, awarded a contract in
which his boiler was not specified as part of the machinery?
Answer. I do not remember any.
Question. Did he sit as a member of the board that determined the
bids upon the Lancaster?
Answer. I do not think he was a member of either of the boards in
that case.
Question. Would you know who was to be the board of officers until
the bids were submitted?
Answer. No, sir, we would not.
Question. When you were preparing your bids you would not know
it as a matter of course?
Answer. No, sir, not until the bids were in; at least we have never
known it until then.
Question. Do you know any reason outside of the written award for
Mr. Archbold's opposition to your bid for the Lancaster?
Answer. None whatever.




48             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Do you know whether or not he was opposed to your bid
on the vessel you are now constructing?
Answer. I cannot say whether he was or not. I have understood
that the report was unanimously in our favor, and he was a member
of the board which made the report.
Question. Are you acquainted with the price of coal in Philadelphia?
Answer. With some descriptions of coal.
Question. What kind of coal do you use?
Answer. We use anthracite coal.
Question. Of a kind suitable for steam vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know what kind of coal the government uses?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What would be the price and value of coal delivered at
the Reading docks in Philadelphia, in large quantities, say 50,000
tons in the course of a year?
Answer. I can only state what we pay ourselves for coal; I believe
our contract for coal for the last two or three years has averaged
$4 05 a ton for Schuylkill coal; there are other kinds of coal which
are more valuable and better adapted for steam vessels than this,
though this is very valuable for steam purposes; the other kinds may
be worth from fifty to seventy-five cents a ton more than the kind
we use.
Question. Are there any coals inferior to the kind you use?
Answer. Yes sir; we use the Ashland coal which is inferior for
steamboat purposes to the Lehigh, Buck Mountain coal, which I consider the best for steam purposes that is sold in Philadelphia; I suppose the difference in the price would be from fifty to seventy-five cents
per ton; we generally have between 2,000 and 3,000 tons of coal
delivered to us in a year, and $4 05 a ton is the price we have paid
for it for the last two or three years.
Question. Do you know the quality of the kind of coal used by
the government?
Answer. I do not.
Question. What are the prices of the lowest and of the highest
quality of anthracite coal in Philadelphia?
Answer. Of the description of coal used for steamboat purposes
the lump coal is, I believe, chiefly used; the prices of which would
I think vary from $3 75 to $5 00 a ton depending upon quality.
By Mr. Ready.
Question. Is there any difference made in the price of coal where
a very large amount is delivered and where a small amount is delivered, such as you probably purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir, I think there would be; there is a difference
between the price we pay for coal and the price paid on retail of
fully fifty cents a ton, and I suppose there would be a still greater
difference where any large quantity is taken.
By Mr. Bocock.
Question. How much do you use in the course of a year?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 49
Answer. From 2,000 to 3,000 tons.
Question. Not so much as the government uses?
Answer. I suppose not, though I do not know how much government uses. I will state here that the reason urged for awarding the
contract to Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., for the slight excess of
weight of which I have spoken, was known when the first board sat;
so mentioned, I believe, in the first report.
Question. Was any approach ever made to you, directly or indirectly, by any officer of the government to induce you to give any job
of work to any outside firm; for instance, the forging of a shaft or
anything of that sort?
Answer. I do not think any such approach was ever made to us; I
do not recollect of any such attempt.
Question. Was any proposition ever made to you, by any officer of
the government, before your bid was sent in, or before the decision
upon it was made, in relation to any favor that you were to do for the
government?
Answer. Not that I now recollect.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have you ever been applied to by Mr. J. Glancy Jones,
as the agent of the Reading Forge, to let any work to that forge?
Answer. No, sir, we have never been applied to by him. We have
given a good deal of work to the Reading Forge.  We were stockholders in that forge before its failure, and we have always been
disposed to favor it to the utmost in our power. I have never been
aware that Mr. Jones has ever made any such application to us, or to
any one connected with us.
Question. Have you ever sent to the department, or to any agent
of the government, recommendations as to your political character,
when you applied for government contracts?
Answer. We did not, send any.
Question. Do you know of others sending them?
Answer. I know that there were some sent at the time; I say I know
it, because it was a matter of common report.  I do not know it of my
own knowledge, for I never saw any of them; but I understood there
were some sent from certain persons in the district where our works
were located at the time the Lancaster contract was awarded. But
they were got up without any effort upon our part.
Question. Is it not a common thing, in applying for these contracts,
for the bidders themselves, or the friends of the bidders, to satisfy
the department as to their political opinions?
Answer. It has, I believe, been done within the last two or three
years; it has been a common thing; at least, I have understood it to
be so. I do not think it has ever been done until within the last two
or three years.  We have had very long dealings with the government; since 1842 and 1843; we have built a great deal of work for
the government, in the building and repairing of' naval steamers, and
we have never brought any such kind of influence to bear before, as
we have always believed that the character of our work was sufficient,
without resorting to any such recommendations.
40




50             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. You say that it has been done for a year or two past, not
by you, but for you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has it been done for other companies?
Answer. I presume it has; I cannot speak for them,
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What are your party relations?
Answer. They are not of a very decided character, one way or the
other.  We have never taken a very prominent part in politics, and
we have studiously kept from influencing our men in any way. I
believe that no member of our firm has ever belonged prominently
to the democratic party, but that generally speaking the sympathies
of one or two of our firm have been upon the other side. I mean in
reference to former times.  I believe my father was what was called
an old line whig; but neither my brother or myself, who constitute
the remaining members of the firm, have ever taken any prominent
part in politics.  I do not think my father has ever taken any at any
time. We have never endeavored to influence our men in any way,
one way or the other.
Question. Do you know anything about the politics of Reaney,
Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I believe they consider themselves as belonging to the
democratic party within the last two or three years.
By Mir. Ready:
Question. Have you any knowledge or information of any gift or
payment of money to any officer of the government connected with
the letting of the ship building contracts for the purpose of influencing the award of the contracts in favor of particular bidders?
Answer. I have no personal knowledge of anything of the kind.
Question. Have you any information of it?
Answer. I have none. I have heard various reports, but they are
flying about constantly, and I do not attach any credibility to them
until I hear them authenticated.
Question. Can you specify from whom you have heard any such
reports?
Answer. No, sir, I cannot.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
J. VAUGHAN MERRICK recalled:
By the Chairman:
Question. I will ask you what change has taken place within the
last year or two in the department with regard to the security
required when bids are made?
Answer. The custom hitherto, until the last contract made by ns,
has been for the Navy Department to require the securities to the
contract to make affidavit as to the amount of their personal property;
but when the last contract was made, the certificate of the navy agent
only was required as to the standing, in a pecuniary capacity, of the
individuals who were the securities to the contract.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC,                 51
Question. Suppose that, when the contract is complied with, and
you have been paid your money in accordance with the contract, it
should be found that your guarantees had not been observed; what
security has the government for damages?
Answer. It has, in the first place, recourse to us, individually and
collectively; and in the second place, by the form adopted by the
Navy Department, the securities themselves are  parties to the
contract.
Question. What changes have been made with regard to the character of the securities-the persons taken as securities?
Answer. I do not know any change as to the persons. The only
change which has been made has been as to the mode in which the
securities are certified to.  Under the old method, they certified to
themselves; they went before the alderman and made affidavit as to
the amount of their property; but in the last contract the testimony
was given by the navy agent.
Question. Not under oath?
Answer. Not under oath in the contract made by us.
Examined by Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I will ask you whether there is any security upon the
part of the government in the manner in which they make payments?
Answer. None whatever, sir.  The guarantee partly extends over
a period of three months after the handing over of the vessel to the
department; and the final payment is not made until that time has
been successfully accomplished.  In the meantime, if anything fails,
from defective material, it must be replaced by the contractor at his
own expense.
Question. That is what I referred to. Does the department furnish
copies of the contract?
Answer. The department furnishes no copy of the contract at present; but a copy of the contract is given to the supervising engineer,
which may be consulted by the parties when they wish.
Question. The total amount is not finally paid until it is known that.
the contract is complied with?
Answer. No, sir; one-sixth of the whole amount, I think, is the.
amount left until after the three months have passed.
Examined by Mir. Bocock:
Question. I want to ask you about the Lancaster. Did your bidsin that case come up to the specification?
Answer. Not fully, sir.
Question. I wish to inquire particularly as to the weight?
Answer. The weight specified by the department was 240 tons;
we could not furnish machinery which we thought suitable at less
than 248 tons.
Question. Did you know whether the firm  that obtained the contract conformed to the specification as to weight?
Answer. I believe the weight was beneath that allowed by the
department.  Their engines were much smaller than ours.
Question. They were then within the limits allowed by thia specification?




52              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. So their offer indicated. And I would explain here some
answer I gave yesterday to a question put to me. I stated the prices
of coal delivered to us in Philadelphia was $4 05 per ton. This
includes the cost of cartage lorn the docks to our establishment.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is the cost of cartage?
Answer. About 20 cents a ton.
J. VAUGHAN MERRICK.
SOUTHWARK FOUNDRY,
Philadelphia, February 5, 1859.
SIR: We have your favor of 3d instant, and, in reply, would state
that the testimony of our J. Vaughan Merrick, relative to the price paid
by us for anthracite coal is correct, and that the apparent discrepancy
between his testimony and that of others may be explained as follows:
1st. As testified by him, we use Ashland or Locust mountain coal,
which is mined by one or two concerns, is a monopoly, and being
peculiarly fitted for foundry or melting purposes, is generally not subject to the market fluctuations of other coals as good, or better, for
steamboat purposes.
2d. As testified by him, the price named, $4 05 per ton of 2,240
pounds, includes haulage from the wharves, which is worth twentyfive cents per ton (and not twenty cents, as he stated.)
3d. The contract made by us is, that the coal shall be delivered day
by day as wanted, and paid for "on time," from delivery, and not in
cash.  Hence, the dealer must in his price allow for wharfage and
loss of interest.  It must also be perfectly free from slate or dirt, and
has to be screened on the wharf.  These items of interest, wharfage
and screening, add at least twenty-five cents per ton to the price
delivered on the wharf.  You will therefore observe that the price
$4 05 at our works is equal to $3 50 or $3 55 delivered on the wharf.
-Finally, we would remark that there are other anthracites, softer
and more free-burning than Ashland, which are therefore better for
steamboat coals.  But the Ashland being fitted peculiarly for melting
iron, ordinarily commands from twenty to thirty cents a ton more than
the other kinds.
Mr. J. V. Merrick did not enter into these explanations, because,
the purchase of coal devolving on another member of the firm, he was
not fully conversant with them.
We are, respectfully, your obedient servants,
MERRICK & SONS.
Hon. JoHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Committee of Inquiry, &c.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  53
No. 47.-TESTIMONY OF S. S. LEE, U. S. N.
FEBRUARY, 7, 1859.
S. S. LEE called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your present official position?
Answer. Commander in the United States navy.
Question. What duties are you now engaged upon?
Answer. I am here on duty connected with the Bureau of Ordnance
and Hydrography.
Question. How long have you been here?
Answer. I have been in the city for some months; but I have only
been attached to the bureau since the 17th of January last.
Question. Where were you employed before you came on here to
this city?
Answer. I was on leave of absence from the first of July last.
Question. Where were you before that time?
Answer. I was attached to the Philadelphia navy yard.
Question. What were your duties there?
Answer. I was commander there; and when Commodore Stewart,
the commandant of the yard, was absent, his duties devolved upon me.
Question. What was the general management of that yard in regard
to efficiency and despatch while you were attached to it?
Answer. It is my opinion that if the yard was more under the control of the commanding officer we could get along with much less
labor and expense, and I think we could manage things more judiciously for the interests of the government.
Question. In what particulars ought he to have more of the control
and management of the yard?
Answer. I do not think the commandant of the yard has sufficient
authority, but it is vested in the hands of the constructor and the
master workmen.  I mean by that that the constructor and the master workmen have the selecting of the men, the regulation of the
compensation, and the fixing the number to be taken into the yard.
Question. And you think that power ought to be more under the
control of the commandant of the yard?
Answer. I think so. I think if it was, we could at all times reduce
the number of those employed in the yard.
Question. Do I understand from that that you consider that the
number of workmen while you were in the yard was too great for the
amount of work done?
Answer. Yes, sir; at times.
Question. At what times?  About election times?
Answer. Yes, sir; whenever a general or local election was coming
on there was always a greater pressure upon the yard to take in men.
Question. Upon whose recommendation were men taken in?
Answrer. For instance: if men were wanted in a particular department they were selected by the master workman of that department,
who made out a list of the names, with the amount of wages attached.




54              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
The list was then taken to the naval constructor for his signature; if
he signed it, it then went to the commandant to be approved and
signed by him, so that their names might go on the books of the yard
in order that they might receive their wages.
Question. Upon whose recommendation did the master workmen
and the naval constructor select the men thus appointed?
Answer. I do not know; because, being in the executive office of
the yard, I never found out about those matters; but I noticed that
the pressure was always greater at the time of election, and that more
men were always taken into the yard then.
Question. Do you know of any times when men were in the yard
employed there receiving pay from the government while they really
did no work?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know anything about the manner in which the
public property has been used there? Has it been judiciously used
or not? Do you know of any case of theft or waste of the public
property
Answer. There was no theft of much amount committed while I
was there in the yard; I thought that was my particular duty to look
out for that; occasionally men were detected in stealing copper.
Question. As executive officer of the yard you looked out for that
matter?
Answer. Yes, sir; that came under my special notice to see that
everything belonging to the yard was properly cared for.
Question. Who determines the price of articles bought in open market
for use in the yard?
Answer. Our plan for obtaining such articles is this: When we
want a certain article, if it is not in the yard, a requisition is made
upon the naval storekeeper for the article, who draws a requisition
upon the navy agent, who proceeds to purchase it. The article is
sent up to the yard; we inspect it, and if it is such as we want, in
quality and quantity, we receive it, and the commandant of the yard
approves and receipts the bill; we have nothing to do with the price,
except sometimes in certain cases when we thought the price exorbitant we have returned it to have some understanding about it; and
we have frequently returned the articles sent to us.
Question. Who is the examining officer to examine these articles?
Answer. That depends upon where they are to be used; sometimes
an officer and the naval constructor, or the constructing engineer,
examines them, according to whose department they come under.
Question. Are there not some departments in which the executive
officer is the inspector of the article?
Answer. Yes, sir; the rigger's department, the sail-maker's department, and' the steam  department come under one charge;
the latter, however, more in the hands of the engineer.  These are
not under the constructor at least.
Question. Do you remember any particular time when the number
of men excited your notice?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               55
Answer. Generally about the time of the fall and the spring elections we were more pressed to take in men.
Question. Iad not the commandant of the yard control over that
matter?  When a number of men was asked for, how did they get
into the yard? When a proposition was made to increase the number of men, what was the course pursued?
Answer. A requisition would come up to the commandant's office,
signed by the master workmen of the various departments and countersigned by the constructor, and then sent to the commandant for
his approval.
Question. If the men called for were not necessary, could not the
commandant refuse his approval?
Answer. He could, I suppose; but under the regulations Commodore Stewart considered that he was not responsible for that; it was
in the hands of the naval constructor, where it had been put by the
department. The naval constructor was said to be entirely responsible for the number, and the wages of the men. The Commodore,
therefore, never took it upon himself to discharge any of the men,
or to take on any of them.
Question. Do you know anything about any timber being stored in
the yard at Philadelphia about the time that you left there; any timber not receivable under any contract, being stored there by anybody?
Answer. I do not know of any particular timber being stored there
at the time; we were all the time taking in timber; but we had a regulation that no timber that had been rejected or refused should be
allowed to remain in the yard; that is, it was my plan not to allow a
contractor to have his bills approved until he removed all his rejected
timber; we found it necessary to adopt some such rule as that, becanse they would let it remain there and lumber up the yard; it is
a regulation of the department or bureau not to approve the bills of
these contractors until the rejected timber had been removed.
Question. Do you know of any cases before you left where that
regulation was not complied with?
Answer. No, sir; not while I was there; there were several large
cargoes of timber being landed just as I left; but I could have no
knowledge how much of it would be rejected.
Question. The suggestion you make is to give the commandant of
the yard more power and control then; is that the only suggestion
you can make as to what would be proper in view of the public
interests?
Answer. It is my opinion that if you could place the yard entirely
under the control of the commandant, and make him responsible to
the bureau at Washington for its proper management, it would be
better, and the interest of the government properly taken care of.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Have you a knowledge of the number of vessels fitted
out at the navy yard for two years preceding the time you left there?
Answer. While I was there they despatched a good many vessels;
the Wabash was built there and fitted out; the Minnesota; the Sara



56             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
nac fitted out for sea; the Congress was nearly finished; the St.
Louis was repaired and sent to sea; the Jamestown was refitted and
sent out again; and a number of light vessels, and they had commenced upon the Lancaster.  Several light-boats were built and surveying vessels repaired.
Question. Could you make an estimate of the expense of fitting
out each one of those vessels, if it had been done by contract with
private individuals!
Answer; No, sir; I do not think I could make an estimate of that
sort. I do not think they could build cheaper outside than inside,
nor could they build as good ships, judging from those which have been
built outside heretofore.  The Niagara for instance, is not the ship
the Wabash is, or the Minnesota; I mean for man-of-war purposes.
Question. Do they perform as much labor in the Philadelphia yard
as the laborers outside?
Answer. No, sir, I think not, in proportion to the number.  We
adopted the ten-hour system as long as they could see to work.
It is the regulation that the men should be employed ten hours.
Question. Do not the men work very leisurely during that time?
Answer. I do not think they work as smart as they do outside, in
proportion to the number of men; but I think that could be regulated if we could graduate the number of men and have the entire
control over them.
Question. I should like some estimate or approximation to the relative value of the work; do they perform  one-half or two-thirds as
much?
Answer. I should think it more than that; in some of the departments they work very well-there' is no fault; in other departments
they are too much crowded for the work, and consequently do less
for the increased number.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you think it possible to do the business of the government in its vessels without a navy yard at the principal points?
Answer. I think not.  I do not think you could get the work so
faithfully done, and you would not have that control over any outside
yard that you can have over your own yard; builders outside would
not base the timber; they could not get it beforehand; they could
not act upon the expectation of building the ships, and lay up the
timber beforehand; I think there would be a great deal of difficulty.
S. S. LEE, Commander U.S. N. 




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  57
No. 48.-CHARLES W. WELSH, NAVY DEPARTMENT.
FEBRUARY 7, 1859.
CHARLES W. WELSH called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your position?
Answer. Chief clerk in the Navy Department.
Question. What is your salary?
Answer. $2,200 per year.
Question. What are your duties?
Answer. Rather general; to prepare the letters for the Secretary,
that he may make his decisions upon them; to attend to the details
of the office, and to all the small matters that do not require his supervision.
Question. To receive and answer letters for him?
Answer. Yes, sir, I open the mail. All the letters excepting those
marked private, or those I suppose to be from his family, I cause them
to be distributed to the clerks to whom they severally belong. When
any letters require answers, I endorse the answers, or receive directions of the Secretary as to their endorsement, and preserve them on
file.
Question. Look at the enclosed letter, and state where you found it?
[See appendix to this deposition.]
Answer. It came from the files of the office this morning, sir.
Question. In whose handwriting is the endorsement upon the back
of the envelope to that letter?
Answer. I should say the handwriting of the President.
Question. Are you acquainted with his handwriting?
Answer. Very well, sir.
Question. In whose handwriting is the endorsement upon the letter?
Answer. I think it is that of the clerk of the President, whose name,
I think, is McGill. I could not swear to the handwriting.
Question. To whom was that letter referred?
Answer. It was placed on file; no reference was made that I remember.
Question. The copy was furnished from the engineer's department;
was it sent to that department?
Answer. I could not say. I do not think that paper was furnished
from the engineer's department.
Question. It came with the contracts and papers?
Answer. They were from our office, most of them.
Question. When papers are referred to the engineer's department
are they returned to you?
Answer. Sometimes they are and sometimes not. If they are referred
to be reported upon, of course they come back with the report.
Question. Please to state what interest you have, if any, in the firm
of Murphy, Pease & Co., of New York?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. Did you not receive any money in the course of last summer or fall from them for any purpose?




58              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Who acted as their agent in procuring the contract for
building a vessel at New York?
Answer. That I do not know, sir.
Question. Who acted as the agent of Reaney, Neafie & Co. in that
business?
Answer. Mr. Witte, I think, sir; I do not know  it of my own
knowledge.
Question. Did not Mr. Maclay appear in behalf of Murphy, Pease
& Co.?
Answer. I cannot answer that question; I do not know of my own
knowledge.
Question. Are you acquainted with any of the members of the firm
of Murphy, Pease & Co.?
Answer. I know Mr. James Murphy and his brother, I think. I
do not know any other member of that firm.
Question. Were any of that firm here at the time of the contracts
last September for either of the sloops?
Answer. I did not see them the last time. I saw them  here when
the Lancaster was advertised for, when the Brooklyn was advertised
for, and also when the Richmond was advertised for.
Question. Who acted for them generally?
Answer. Mr. James Murphy I have generally seen at the department.
Question. State whether you have had any arrangement with Mr.
Jones in relation to the Reading Forge, in regard to work.
Answer. No, sir; I did not have any arrangement with him  particularly.
Question. Did he apply to you or to the Secretary for work for the
forge?
Answer. He expressed his interest in the forge, and said he would
be glad to have the forging done there.
Question. Did you receive from him, directly or indirectly, or from
any one connected with the forge, any money?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did Mr. Jones express any interest in the forge?
Answer. Not interest, but his anxiety for its success.
Question. Did he inform you, in his conversation, whether he was
their agent?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he say anything about that?
Answer. He spoke about their getting the forging.
Question. Did he say anything about his interest in their getting
the contracts, or about receiving compensation for acting for them?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you, directly or indirectly, received any money,
compensation, or gratuity, from any one having business in the navy
yard, during your term of office?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you remember the contracts for live-oak made last
summer?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  59
Answer. I remember some of them.
Question. Was not the advertisement of last June for bids to furnish live-oak framed in your office?
Answer. I do not think it was. It is very likely Mr. Lenthall may
have brought it up and laid it before the Secretary or myself, and it
may have been changed or modified in some way there.
Question. Did you at that time know thaf; Mr. Swift had live-oak
oi hand at the navy yards?
Answer. I do not think I knew it then.
Question. And did not the Secretary know it?
Answer. I cannot answer for the Secretary, sir.
Question. When did you first learn that he had live-oak at the navy
yards?
Answer. I think it was after the bids had been received and the
contracts prepared and sent out.
Question. You do not know when this information was first communicated to you?
Answer. That business would not come up to my office at all.
Question. Did not Mr. Swift furnish to you or to some one at your
office a memorandum of what he had on hand?
Answer. Not to me, sir.
Question. Did you ever see a memorandum of the live-oak which Mr.
Swift had in the navy yards the 1st of September?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think I have seen it yet.
Question. Did you ever receive any gratuity or money from Mr.
Swift for any purpose?
Answer. I have received presents from  him  in the shape of wine
and cigars, but no gratuity, sir.
Question. Merely acts of social courtesy?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You have received no money or valuables from him?
Answer. No, sir; none whatever.
Question. Your relations with the Secretary are of the most confidential and intimate character?
Answer. Yes, sir, officially.
Question. I wish to obtain from you the precise relationship of Mr.
Beach, of the firm of Woodruff & Beach, to the Secretary?
Answer. Mr. Toucey, George Beach, sr., and George Beach, jr., married sisters by the name of Nichols. C. Nichols Beach, of Philadelphia, of the firm of Tyler, Stone & Co., is son of George Beach, sr.,
by the sister of Mrs. Toucey; Henry B. Beach, of Hartford, of the
firm of Woodruff & Beach, is a son of George Beach, sr., by a former
wife.
Question. What interest has George Beach, sr., in the firm of Woodruff & Beach?
Answer. I cannot answer that; I do not know.
Question. What is the degree of intimacy between the members of
this family and Mr. Toucey?
Answer. I think it is very great; I cannot say of my own knowledge; I have heard Mr. Toucey speak of the family.




60             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Can you give us any information with regard to contracts
for steam vessels?
Answer. No, sir; I cannot; they would not come before me, except
incidentally.
Question. When letters of a private character were written to the
Secretary, in relation to business, did they go on file?
Answer. No, sir; if marked private, they did not very often go on
file; in some cases they did, but very seldom.
Question. Do you know of any letter of Mr. Swift to the Secretary
last summer of a private character?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.
Question. How often was Mr. Swift in your office last summer?
Answer. I could not answer that very accurately. He was off and
on during the summer; certainly two or three times here in Washington.
Question. Where did he stay when here?
Answer. At one time he stayed at Willard's, and at another time
at the National Hotel, I think; I would not be positive about it.
Question. Do you file away a copy of letters sent from the office?
Answer. The answer is endorsed in pencil and the clerk copies it.
Question. Do you endorse the letters?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do the clerks in any of the offices?
Answer. I think they do.
Question.' What is the endorsement upon this letter, already referred
to, and whose do you consider it to be?
Answer. The endorsement is as follows:
"William C. Patterson, of Philadelphia, September 13, 1858; suggests the importance of awarding the contracts for the machinery of
the sloop now being built at the navy yard to Merrick & Sons. So
far as he knows, they are the only old-line whigs of any influence in
the district in favor of Colonel Florence's re-election; and with this
shop at work full handed, two weeks prior to the election, the result
would, he thinks, be placed beyond a doubt."
That I consider to be the endorsement of Mr. McGill, the President's clerk, who endorses the letters to the President which are referred to the department.  I think that is his handwriting. I notice
that most all the President's letters referred to the department are
endorsed in that way.
Question. What degree of intimacy existed between Mr. Archbold
and Mr. Witte?
Answer. They seemed to be very good friends.
Question. Were they together frequently?
Answer. I only saw them in the office; and I do not think I ever
saw Mr. Witte at the office more than once or twice.
Question. You thought their relations intimate?
Answer. I thought they were friendly.
Question. Did you observe anything peculiar in their relations?
Answer. No, sir; the only times I saw them  together would be
when one came into my office the other might happen to be there.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  61
The witness, before signing, desires to correct his answer to the
question " do you file away a copy of letters sent from the office?" by
stating, that press copies of all letters sent from the office are filed;
also to the question, " were they together frequently?" (referring to
Mr. Archbold and Mr. Witte,) he desires to say, that in my answer,
as of record, in which he stated "'that I did not think I ever saw Mr.
Witte at the office more than once or twice," he must have been misunderstood, for he had seen him at the office very frequently.
CHAS. W. WELSH.
No. 51.-DANIEL B. MARTIN, UNITED STATES NAVY.
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.
DANIEL B. MARTIN called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. Chief engineer of the navy.
Question. Where are you stationed now?
Answer. At New York, sir, and at Hartford; I am superintending
machinery building at New York and at Hartford also.
Question. How long have you been chief engineer in the navy?
Answer. Twelve years next March or April since my commission
was dated.
Question. And how long were you engineer-in-chief of the navy?
Answer. Four years.
Question. By whom were you appointed?
Answer. By President Pierce, sir.
Question. Upon how many boards upon bids or plans have you sat
during your term of office?
Answer. I could not name them exactly.
Question. Upon how many since March, 1857?
Answer. Upon one only.
Question. Which was that?
Answer. It was held in August or September; I am not certain
which. It was upon the seven sloops.
Question. Do you remember how you decided in relation to these
bids or plans in each case?
Answer. I believe I do, sir.  I decided in favor of Merrick & Sons
for Philadelphia; Murphy & Co. for New York; Woodruff & Beach,
of Hartford, for the Portsmouth ship; the Boston Locomotive Works
for the Boston ship; the Morgan Iron Works for the Pensacola ship,
and partially in favor of Reeder for the Norfolk ship, the latter with
some modification of his plan.
Question. How many of the firms in whose favor you decided got
the contracts?
Answer. Five; Merrick & Sons; Murphy & Co.; the Morgan Iron
Works; Woodruff & Beach; and the Boston Locomotive Works.




62             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ET0.
Question. Have you a patent for a boiler?
Answer. I have, sir.
Question. When was that patent dated?
Answer. October, 1857.
Question. How many of the plans for this machinery included your
boiler?  How many in all, successful or unsuccessful?
Answer. I believe all the bidders but two or three had my plan of
boiler. I think there were thirteen bidders in all; I could tell the
number from my book, and that all but three had my plan of boiler.
Question. Which three were they?
Answer. Murray & Hazlehurst, of Baltimore, the Allaire Works, of
New York, and Norris, of Philadelphia.
Question. Was there any plan for the Griffith ship that proposed
adopting your boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir; there were some four or five bidders, and pretty
much all of them had my plan of boiler.
Question. Did Reaney, Neafie & Co. have it?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is, in the bids at that time.  There was
another board, but I refer to the bids before the board of which I was
a member.
Question. Did you give your opinion in favor of any plan that did
not include your boiler?
Answer, Yes, sir; Reeder's, for the Norfolk ship. I made some
objections to his plan, but reported in favor of it, with certain modifications.
Question. Did the modifications you proposed include the adoption
of your boiler?
Answer. They included a change of that boiler, but gave it the
same form, because I wished that form of boiler tested against my
own, in order that we might have a chance to see which was best.
Question. Did you make it known to the department that having
patented a boiler of your own, it would subject you to the suspicion
of bias if you were to sit upon the board?
Answer. Yes, sir; and I requested to be left off the board upon
that account; and I was left off of the first board, but I suppose it was
thought that I was capable of giving a fair opinion upon the subject,
and they concluded to put me on.
Question. When was it?
Answer. When I first left the office of engineer-in-chief.
Question. And when was that?
Answer. It was October 18, 1857, when I was displaced.
Question. To whom did you suggest this objection to sitting upon this
board?
Answer. I suggested it to my successor, Mr. Archbold, the engineer-in-chief, to Mr. Welsh, the chief clerk, and to the Secretary of
the Navy; I mentioned the subject to all of them.
Question. By whom were you selected to sit upon this board?
Answer. I suppose by the Secretary; I do not know. I only know
that I had an order to sit upon the board.
Question. In your opinion you use this language:'"Mr. Reeder' s plan




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINE2RY  ETC,                 63
of engines is good and his price satisfactory, but his plan of boiler I
cannot recommend; if they were made satisfactory I would recommend him for the Norfolk ship."
Answer. That was not on account of its not being my boiler, but
in the way it was arranged; it was the same plan that had been tried
in the Princeton and had proved to be a failure. Knowing it to be a
failure, I could not recommend it again in that form, but proposed
some modifications, which I do not now remember.
Question. What other plan, except Reeder's did you recommend
that did not have your plan of boiler?
Answer. No other, sir.
Question. What objection did you have to the plan of the Allaire
Works, besides the fact that it did not have your plan of boiler?
Answer. My principal objection to the plan of the Allaire Works
was to their boiler; not because it was not mine, but because it was
not well proportioned. There were but five cylinders full of steam
room in the boiler, so that it would be impossible to get the steamer
out of the harbor at the intended speed.
Question. What objection had you to Murray & Hazlehurst's plan,
except that it did not have your boiler?
Answer. One principal objection was that his coal was all suspended
from the deck. His whole space was taken up with the engines and
boilers, and he had his coal suspended from the deck above, hanging
over his boilers. There were some other little objections.
Question. Was their original plan finally adopted?
Answer. They got the contract afterwards, but they made an entirely different plan.
Question. What form of boiler did they finally adopt? Was it
your plan?
Answer. It was a horizontal tubular boiler. Mine is what is called
a vertical tubular boiler.
Question. What objection had you to giving Mr. Norris the contract, under his proposition for the Griffith ship?
Answer. The main objection was to his condensing apparatus,
which was so arranged that the condensing water had to be started
from a state of rest with a velocity of 800 feet per minute, which it
is found impossible for machinery to stand. It would be impossible
for the vessel to get out of the river with that machinery. It would
break down.  Merrick & Sons had the defect of obstructed openings
in an engine they built some two or three years ago.  They failed
before they got out of the river, as I told them they would; although
the obstruction in that case was not as great as in this.
Question. How many of the successful bidders used your boiler?
Answer. Five.
Question. What do you get from them severally?
Answer. One dollar per horse power.
Question. What would that amount to?
Answer. For one of the large ships $1,000; for the small ships it
would be $750.
Question. How has your plan of boiler turned out in practice?




64             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. So far as I have been able to hear it has been the most
successful boiler ever got up. The saving in fuel alone has been
stated to be 30 per cent.; it occupies one-third less room, and weighs
one-third less than any other form of boiler.
Question. Has it ever been adopted in the merchant service?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How extensively?
Answer. In one vessel in which it was tried, after three voyages,
it was ruined by the negligence of the engineer. In every other
case, which is only three or four other vessels, it has worked very
satisfactorily; within a week I have heard from one which has safely
arrived out at Calcutta.
Question. Have you any arrangement with the government as to
the use of your boiler?
Answer. While in the Navy Department, in order to avoid the imputation of using my own patent and paying my own price for it, I
gave notice to the Secretary of the Navy that I would make no charge
against the government for any which I might recommend while in
that office. That is all the arrangement there was.
Question. How many have been used under that arrangement?
Answer. Eleven, sir.  The boiler was used in eleven vessels under
that agreement.
Question. Were those eleven engines built at the government yard?
Answer. No, sir; there were five; those for the Susquehanna, the
Mississippi, Saranac, Fulton, and Despatch, in which the boilers were
changed, besides the six frigates; making in all eleven. In the six
frigates it was entirely optional with the bidders to say whether the
vertical or the horizontal tubular boiler should be used; but they
were to have a certain amount of fire and grate surface, and occupy
only a certain amount of room in the vessel, and therefore they took
this plan of boiler in preference to the others.
Question. During your stay in the department as engineer-in-chief,
did contractors ever pay you anything for your advice?
Answer. Not a farthing.
Question. What plan of boiler is used in the Niagara?
Answer. Mine, sir; and in all the other five frigates.
Question. Who selected your plan of boiler for the Niagara?
Answer. Mr. Murphy, of the firm  of Pease & Murphy as it then
was, selected it for the Niagara; Merrick & Sons for the Wabash;
Anderson for the Roanoke and Colorado; and Mr. Parrott for the
Merrimack.
Question. What is the performance, in point of speed, of these
government vessels that have employed your boilers; what speed do
these six frigates make?
Answer. I have heard of their making 10 knots by steam  alone,
under the most favorable circumstances.
Question. Is not that a low rate of speed?
Answer. Not for the small amount of power of those ships; it is a
very large amount of speed for the power.
Question. How many of those plans that were submitted to you




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               65
and others upon this board were drawn by yourself or recommended
by you?
Answer. Not one sir,
Question. Were you not consulted by any of these gentlemen in
drawing up their plans? By Murphy & Co. for instance.
Answer. A great many asked me questions in relation to certain
points about it; Murphy & Co. asked me in regard to arranging their
condenser; I looked at their plan of a condenser, and gave some
advice about arranging it. During the time the plans were getting
up I was most of the time in North Carolina; I think I was there four
weeks of the time the advertisements were out. Mr. Murphy' s plans
were all made when I got back; but the use of surface condensation
was a new thing, and he asked me about it.
Question. At what time were you absent?
Answer. I was absent from New York from July 27 to the 25th or
26th of August.
Question. Were you not consulted by letter upon this subject
while in North Carolina?
Answer. No sir, not a solitary letter did I receive upon the subject.
In regard to furnishing plans I will say, that when the advertisement was first issued, a number of persons desired me to furnish
them a plan of my boiler, such as I thought would be suitable for
that vessel; and I had a drawing made of which I furnished a tracing
to every one that asked me, that was the boiler alone.
Question. How may have you furnished in this way?
Answer. I cannot remember rightly how many there were, some
of them might escape my recollection if I were to attempt to enumerate them.
Question. What has been your habit about that? Have you not
frequently been consulted about drawings and plans of steam machinery by bidders?
Answer. Not as a general thing by bidders; but a great many
people come to me to consult about plans of machinery for different
purposes.
Question. Have bidders making out their plans consulted you?
Answer. A year ago last fall a man connected with Woodruff &
Beach's establishment (at the time getting out their bids for the
Hartford and the Lancaster) came to me and asked my advice about
the kind of engine they should use, &c., and I told him that as a
government engineer I could not give them any advice. They asked
me if I could recommehd a draughtsman, which I did.
Question. Did they succeed in their proposals for either of those
vessels?
Answer. I was aware at the time that the kind of engine they
were going to adopt would not succeed.
Question. Did you sit upon the board to decide it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever been consulted by Reaney, Neafie & Co.
in relation to the drawing of their plans?
Answer. No, sir.
5c




66             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Iave you given them any aid in any way?
Answer. No, sir; I never was consulted before they got their contract. I have been asked by them about some points since they got
their contract in getting out their detailed plans, &c.
Question. What is your opinion of their plan as ultimately adopted
by the government?
Answer. I have not seen it, sir.
Question. Did you see Mr. Norris' plan as ultimately arranged?
Answer. I have never heard of its being altered from what it
originally was.
Question. Would it have been practicable to attain the speed of
twenty knots to the hour?
Answer. No, sir; not half of it.
Question. Have you examined all the plans ultimately adopted by
the government, and the prices, in every case except that of Reaney,
Neafie & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; only those I have been connected with upon the
boards.
Question. There were some one or other of all the plans submitted
to you upon the first board, except that of Norris' Griffith ship and
the bid for the Norfolk ship. You examined all the others?
Answer. Yes, sir; all the othes.
Question. The particular plan you gave your opinion in favor of
was adopted in four out of five cases?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Not the whole five, I think?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You say that all but three of the bids had your boiler?
Answer. Upon consideration I find I should have said all but four.
Question. On one occasion you approved the plan of' Reeder, which
did not have your boiler.  In doing that did you condemn other
plans which had your boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think I can tell you the names of the bidders,
and those that had my boiler upon that ship.  The Novelty Iron
Works had mine, and I condemned their plan; the Morgan Iron
Works had my boiler, and I condemned their plan; Reaney, Neafie
& Co. had my boiler, and I condemned their plan; Woodruff & Beach
had my boiler, and I condemned their plan.
Question. Was that the case where Reeder bid?
Answer. Yes, sir; I am speaking of the Norfolk ship.
Question. You rejected these other plans, and approved Reeder's
with a modification of the boiler, not making it yours.
Answer. Yes, sir. In making the modifications in that boiler I had
no idea of making it mine.  I was anxious that some vessel should
have the old form of boiler to compare with mine. But there was
not a plan of boiler proposed, with the exception of mine, that came
up to my views of what a boiler should be for a steam ship. They
were not properly proportioned.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                    67
By Mir Bocock:
Question. I think I have asked your objection to the plan of the
boiler of the Allaire Works?
Answer. Yes, sir.  I said that their boilers were not properly proportioned; that they had but five cylinders of steam room in them.
There were other objections, but that was the principal reason.  I
remember that their engineer came before the board, and one of the
questions put by the board was whether their bid included everything
required to fill the government contract. He said no; it only included
what was specified in the specifications.  That was one reason.
Question. Did not their boiler have an advantage over yours in
being chiefly below the water line, and therefore protected?
Answer. It had an advantage in that respect; but it had another
very great disadvantage.   They never would have been able to get
into it in a case of emergency. The boiler had not sufficient steam
room in it, and consequently the water would have gone over into
the cylinder, so that the engines could not work.  Besides, the boilers
were entirely too small for that power. The plan of the Allaire Works
had a fire surface of 5,800 square feet, while those of my form of
boiler averaged 7,500 feet. Their boilers had five cylinders for the
steam, while the others averaged about twenty.
By Mr. Sherman:
Question. Have you any patents for any other parts of steam engines
besides the boilers?
Answer. I have a. patent on valves-on relieving the pressure from
valves.
Question. Was this adopted in the plans submitted?
Answer. I rather think it was, in every proposal excepting one or
two.
Question. How much do you receive, or are you to receive, from
your patent right for the boiler for the sloops?
Answer. There are two sizes; for the large sloops $1,000, and for
the small sloops $750.  My original price is 15 cents per square foot
up to $500, and 10 cents per square foot after that.
Question. How much do you receive for the valves?
Answer. One dollar per cubic foot of the cylinder.  Mr. Murphy's
cylinder has 74 cubic feet, coming to $74, which is about as large as
any of them, I think.  It would be above the average.
Question.  Did you have any correspondence with these bidders
about your boilers?
Answer. They wrote for my plan, and for my price for it.  I do
not know that all these gentlemen wrote to me about the price; for
it was a general understanding; every body knew about it.
Question. Did you make any drawings for the machinery of the
ship Hartford, contracted for by Harrison & Co., of Boston?
Answer. I furnished them tracings after their contract was made.
Question. How much did you receive for that?
Answer. Five hundred dollars.
Question. Was it not more than that?
Answer. No, sir.




68             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Have you been paid the $500?
Answer. I have received about half of it.
Question. Was this during the time you were engineer-in-chief?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. When was it?
Answer. Within a year.
Question. Then the money was received by you while acting as a
chief engineer in the navy?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you upon the board of engineers which sat upon the
Hartford?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you made drawings for Murphy & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; not before nor since, excepting for the boiler.
Question. Have you made drawings for Woodruff & Beach?
Answer. I have not.
Question. For the Boston Locomotive Works?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. For the Morgan Iron Works?
Answer. No, sir; for none, excepting for the boiler.
Question. How much have you received for your plans of the
boiler?
Answer. Nothing, sir, unless it was adopted, and then I got my
patent fees for its use.
Question. You say that the attention of the Secretary, some time
after his appointment, was called to the subject of your interest in
the boiler?
Answer. That was one of the reasons why I was removed from the
office.  It was one of the objections against me that I owned patents.
I suppose that was the principal thing.  The President told me that
there was nothing whatever against me personally.
Question. You were omitted from all the boards until September
last?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Toucey about
it after that?
Answer. I do not think I did. I had told him that my boiler would
be brought before the board, and people would be demurring against
it, and requested that I might be left off the board, as I religiously
believed (I did then and do now) that mine was the best boiler in
existence, and consequently I should be compelled to recommend it.
Question. Did you have any further conversation with him, after
you came to Washington?
Answer. No, sir; not after I was ordered to sit upon the board.
Question. Do you know who first suggested your name as a member
of the board?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. The board were equally divided, were they not?
Answer. I believe they were; but we reported individually, and
consequently I cannot remember exactly how each one voted; we all




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 69
agreed upon certain plans, and upon others we differed a little in the
division.
Question. Was not your opinion adopted in every case?
Answer. I believe it was, sir; I believe you will find that the contracts were given according to my recommendation in every case.
Question. Did you receive a fee from the Light-house Board, or
from the Coast Survey, for the use of your patents?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you receive any from James Murphy & Co., at any
time?
Answer. I received my fee for the boiler of the Shubrick, from
James Murphy & Co.
Question. Did you receive any other fee from them?
Answer. No, sir; not a farthing.
Question. What fees have you received?
Answer. The patent fee upon the boilers of the Shubrick, the
Brooklyn, the Lancaster, and a portion of the fee upon the Hartford;
the balance I suppose I shall receive when the balance of the payments are made; these are the only vessels I have received a fee
upon.
Question. Have not Murphy & Co. actively endeavored to induce
other contractors to pay you a patent fee?
Answer. If they have, it was without my knowledge; I believe
Mr. Murphy told me some four or five months ago, after I left the
office of the engineer-in-chief, that he wrote a letter to different contractors proposing something or other in my behalf; it was entirely
unsolicited by me; after the thing had transpired he mentioned that
such was the case; it was to be a present of something or other to me
for the manner in which I had attended to my business, &c.
Question. Did you ever disavow that letter, or complain of it?
Answer. No, sir. I never saw the letter.
Question. Have you complained of those persons to whor the
letter was addressed, and who did not respond to it, as being illiberal?
Answer. I do not know that I have.
Question. Have you ever received patent fees from any other than
government vessels?
Answer. No, sir, I have not.
Question. Has not the mail steamer Fulton, of New York, a pair of
your boilers?
Answer. It has. The engineer spoiled them upon the first three
voyages; and as I had given the engineer when he went there a recommendation to the employers, they seemed to think it was my fault
that the boilers were injured.
Question. Does anybody in England use your boilers?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Do not the large majority use the horizontal tubular
boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir, a large majority of them.
Question. Do not the steamers of this country use the horizontal
tubular boiler?




70             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC,
Answer. Very few, sir.
Question. Have you not opposed its introduction into the United
States naval steamers?
Answer. I do not know that I have. I put one myself into the
Water Witch at this yard.
Question. As a member of the several Boards of Engineers to which
you have belonged, have you ever reported in favor of any plan containing boilers different from your own.
Answer. In these six frigates I reported in favor of the plan which
left it optional to use my boiler or the horizontal tubular boiler in the
Niagara, the Roanoke, the Colorado, the Merrimac, and the Wabash;
the Minnesota was built under my supervision in this very yard.
Question. Was it not understood that your boiler was to be used
in them?
Answer. No, sir.  They proposed my plan of boiler, almost all of
them; but it was left optional with them to see whether they should
use the horizontal or the vertical tubular boiler.  These are the
only vessels, I believe, that I have sat upon excepting these seven.
Question. Did the Secretary ever request you to assist Woodruff
& Beach in preparing their plans?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did not he request you to aid or assist them?
Answer. He never requested me in words. He never has said anything to me about that.
Question. Has he ever conversed with you about Woodruff & Beach?
Answer. When I laid this report before him he was talking about
all these plans, and he mentioned Woodruff & Beach's plan, I do not
recollect that he said anything in particular about it; but it is so
long since that I do not recollect distinctly.
Question. I wish you to try and remember what was said with regard to Woodruff & Beach's plan.
Answer. I cannot recollect anything in particular what was said
at that time about that.
Question. Did he not recommend the plans of Woodruff& Beach to
your favorable notice?
Answer. I cannot say that he did. He never said a word about
that before the report.  I am pretty certain that he had no conversation with me until after that.
Question. Was the relationship of Mr. Beach of that firm to Mr.
Toucey, known to that board?
Answer. I do not think that it was.
Question. Were you aware of it?
Answer. I had understood that Mr. Beach was connected with Mr.
Toucey's family in some way, but I did not at that time rightly know
how it was. I had heard that Mr. Beach was connected with the
family in some way.
Question. Have you not spoken to members of Congress seeking
compensation from Congress for your patent fees upon certain government vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  71
Question. Have you now a claim before Congress to that effect?
Answer. I have merely asked in a memorial that the government
would be as generous with me as I have been with them; that is all.
Question. Have you now a memorial presented?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Asking for compensation for your patent used upon those
vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you received any letters from engineers upon that
subject, commendatory of your plans?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is Mr- Wood interested in your plan of boiler?
Answer. No, sir, there is no soul interested but my wife and
children in my patents.
Question. Have you a letter from him commendatory of your patent?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What sum of money do you ask for in your memorial?
Answer. It amounts to 13,000 and odd dollars.  I ask to be paid the
same that I charge in the merchant service.
Question. Have you, since you have been engineer-in-chief, or
chief engineer, received any sums of money from anybody, either in
payment for patents, compensation for services, or as a gratuity,
other than those you have already stated?
Answer. Not one farthing, sir.
Question. Have you ever received from James Murphy & Co. any
gratuity or compensation in consequence of services rendered?
Answer. The only thing I ever received as a gratuity was in this
way: I was walking with Mr. Murphy in the Bowery one warm summer evening, and he stepped into a store to order a white hat, and
he ordered two, and directed that one should be sent on to Washington to me; that was the only gratuity, with the exception that I requested Mr. Bartol to procure for me an English book, worth about
75 cents in this country, expecting to pay him for it.
Question. Have you ever received any compensation for your boiler,
or for any patent, or for services rendered?
Answer. Not one farthing, with the exception of that for the
Brooklyn, Lancaster, the Shubrick, and part of that for the Hartford.
Question. Is not your business as consulting engineer on shore
more valuable than your pay as engineer in the navy?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think it is at present.
Question. What is your pay in the navy?
Answer. $2,000 a year.
Question. You are employed by different parties in consulation?
Answer. Yes, sir, at times.
Question. And received compensation for it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has your attention ever been called to the law of Congress, prohibiting the receipt of money for services rendered by an
officer of the government.
Answer. No, sir; I do not know  that it has.  My attention has




72             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
been called to one clause in relation to government contracts, saying
that no government officer or officers of the government should, in
any way or shape, be interested in a contract.
Question. Is that the only provision of law to which your attention
has been directed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Would you consider a contingent interest in a patent fee,
in proposals for contracts, as an interest in the contract?
Answer. I should not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you remember whether Mr. Norris' bid for the Griffith ship, which went before your board, had any specification as to
the time at which it would be completed?
Answer. I think it had not.
Question. Do you remember now how many of the Board of Engineers agreed to recommend the plan of Merrick & Sons, for the Philadelphia ship?
Answer. I believe all, sir.
[Subsequently the witness appeared and made the following statement:]
When the question was put to me whether I had received patent
fees outside of the navy, I was confused, and said, no. I should
have said, yes: for I received patent fees for the steamer Cestus.
Another remark, I was questioned upon my boilers. I have never
yet solicited a person to use them, and no person has ever used them
except of his own accord; never at my request, in any case.
DANIEL B. MARTIN,
Chief Engineer, United States Navy.
No. 54.-HENRY M. MCGILL, WASHINGTON, D. C.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
HENRY M. McGILL called and examined.
By. Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. I am assistant to Mr. Henry, who is private secretary of
the President.
Question. What is your business in that position?
Answer. Sometimes opening the President's mail, endorsing letters
for him, and recording commissions. I am kept in the office for that
purpose.
Question. Do you know anything of that lettter? [showing witness
the letter of W. C  Patterson to the President, bearing date Philadelphia, September 13, 1858, and which will be found in the appendix.]
Answer. Yes, sir.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  73
Question. Whose endorsement is that on the back of the letter?
Answer. It is mine.
Question. By whose direction was it made?
Answer. By the general direction of the President.  I endorse
nearly all his letters.
Question. Was there any special direction in regard to that letter?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I want to know what the custom of the President is when
he receives letters referring to business before the executive departments? Do you endorse them as a general thing?
Answer. Yes, sir, I endorse, in fact, nearly all the letters that come
to him. I take them in, in the morning about nine or ten o'clock.
He reads them over generally, or reads the endorsement on them
merely, and directs us to refer them to the departments, navy, war,
&c., as the case may be. Sometimes he takes them and marks on the
back of the letter a reference to the Secretary. That is the general
practice with all the letters.
Question. Is it common for him to make endorsements on the back
of letters, referring them to the department to which they relate?
Answer. Yes, sir, very common.
Question Do you mean to say that it is his custom, whether he approves the recommendation or not?
Answer. Certainly; whether he approves or not, it is a custom of
his. My understanding was, when he made that endorsement, that it
was merely to draw the attention of the Secretary to the fact that
there was such a letter existing.
Question. Do you know anything of that endorsement? [showing
witness the endorsement on the envelope, signed " J. B."]
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Whose handwriting is that?
Answer. The President's, sir.
Question. Is that the general form of endorsement for letters relating to the heads of the departments?
Answer. Sometimes he uses one form and sometimes another; sometimes it is, "referred to the Secretary of the Interior," &c.; sometimes
it is, "submitted to the consideration," and sometimes, " submitted
to the attention" of the Secretary.  He does not confine himself to
any one form.
Question. From your knowledge of his habit in this respect would
you be able to say whether that was a favorable or unfavorable endorsement?
Answer. No, sir. I take it he did not mean to be understood one
way or the other, from his general habit; it is the same formal reference
that he makes with the other letters.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I would like to ask you whether the President, no matter
what may be the character of the letters, destroys them, or is it his
practice to send them to the different departments?
Answer. Yes, sir; he sends every letter to the departments, unless
it is a silly letter, or a crazy letter.  I know further that the President has never interfered with the giving of contracts. I have heard




74             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
him express himself to that purpose.  Upon one occasion, when a
gentleman wrote to get a contract for wood, he directed his private
secretary in my presence to write to the applicant and tell him his
application should be made to the Secretary, that he never interfered
with contracts.
By Mir. Ritchie:
Question. Is the President in the habit of reading the letters addressed to him, or does he rely upon your endorsement of the contents?
Answer. He generally relies upon the endorsement.
Question. Does he not read these letters at all?
Answer. Yes, sir; I suppose he does not let eight out of ten pass
him without reading entirely. Some letters he sees from the endorsement that they are immaterial, and then he merely looks at the endorsement.  They are letters asking for office, &c., and he merely
reads the endorsements.
Question. You do not know whether he read this letter or not?
Answer. I could not tell; it has been sometime since; the endorsement is the 15th of last September. I know it to be his invariable
rule, for I have heard him express it-his mind is made up on that
point particularly-never to interfere in contracts.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have other letters been sent to the President, to your
knowledge, endeavoring to get the award of contracts for political
reasons?
Answer. No, sir, I cannot say that I recollect of any. I recollect
of this particularly.
Question. Was your attention called to a letter from Mr. Phillips,
member of Congress from  Philadelphia, in favor of Mr. Norris, of
Philadelphia?
Answer. I have some slight recollection of it, but I could not state
the circumstances.
Question. Do you know whether that letter was referred or not?
Answer. I could not tell.
Question. The endorsement which you make upon the back embodies
the substance of the letter?
Answer. Yes, sir, I intend to embody the substance in as few words
as possible, in order to save the President the time and trouble of
reading it.
Question. He then made this other endorsement upon the envelope
of the letter?
Answer. Yes, sir.  It was sent with all the other letters; a messenger seals them up at three o'clock and takes them.
Question. How frequently are letters of this kind, urging political
reasons in favor of awarding contracts to individuals, sent to the President?  How common is it?
Answer. I do not recollect any other case but this one. I cannot
speak of my certain knowledge.
HENRY M. McGILL.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC,                 75
No. 57.-D. B. ALLEN, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
D. B. ALLEN called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Richmond county, in the State of New York.
Question. Where do you do business?
Answer. In the city of New York.
Question. What business connexion, if any, have you with the
Allaire Works?
Answer. I am one of the board of managers of that corporation.
Question. State whether you made proposals to construct the machinery in any of the sloops-of-war now building by the government.
Answer. We did.
Question. What was the amount of your proposal for the machinery
for the sloop-of-war building at New York?
Answer. I think it was $105,000.
Question. To whom was the building of that machinery awarded?
Answer. To James Murphy & Co., as I am informed.
Question. Who are they?
Answer. They are engine builders in New York, doing business, I
believe, under the name of Fulton Iron Works
Question. What was the amount of their bid?
Answer. As I have been informed and believe, it was $132,000.
Question. Did you write me a letter in regard to this subject?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. What induced you to make the complaints contained in
that letter?
Answer. The belief that favoritism  and corrupt influence had
operated on those who had made the award for the building of the
machinery; such was the general impression.
Question. State what reasons or facts, that you know of, induced
you to entertain the belief you have expressed?
Answer. Perhaps, as preliminary to a reply to that question, it
might be proper for me to say what induced me, in the first instance,
to give any attention to the subject. As one of the managers of the
Allaire Works, (an establishment having a large capacity for doing
business, and at that time not having much to do,) and believing that
we could take one of those contracts at a low figure, situated as we
were, I thought that if fairness was exercised in giving out the contracts we might be successful; but, at the same time, I thought that
if we were unsuccessful it would be a damage to the concern to be
known as competing for a ship and failing every time in our efforts.
Therefore the subject came up among us as to whether it would be
politic to bid for this ship. Having bid several times before for work
and having never succeeded, we finally concluded to make another
attempt, and we did so, as I have stated. We bid for the New York,
Boston, and Philadelphia vessels. This matter, of course, is talked




76             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
of among engine builders, more or less, as different proposals are
made, and the subject will be discussed from time to time. As to the
giving out of contracts, it was common among them to make the remark that favoritism and improper influences had induced the giving
out of these contracts in a particular way, and that unless we could
be fortified by similar means it would be next to impossible for us to
be successful. After having failed, as we did, in securing these contracts, which we thought it possible for us to obtain, those at New
York, Boston, and Philadelphia, I then thought it was my duty to
make such inquiry as I could as to the means, if any, that had been
used by the successful parties in securing these contracts. I saw our
superintendent, who is the engineer of the establishment, and who is
entrusted with the active management of the works, and instructed
him to make all the inquiries he could upon the subject-Mr. Saunders
is the gentleman I speak of now. He did so; and after several days
attention to the subject he gave me the information which I embodied
in my letter to you.
Question. What is the capacity of the Allaire Works to build
engines for sea going vessels, as compared with the Fulton Iron
Works?
Answer. Its capacity is larger; considerably larger.
Question. What is the reputation  borne by the engines and
machinery built by the Allaire Works?
Answer. It would not be becoming for me to say, being one of the
parties interested; but I can say what it has done; what its capital
is; what are its means of doing business; what number of men we
employ, &c.
Question. It would be proper to state the number of engines built
at the establishment, and the number of men it employs.
Answer. It is an old establishment, of over 30 years' standing, and
has a capital of $300,000, and large available resources beyond that
sum.
Question. How many men does it employ?
Answer. It employs, upon an average, 500 men.
Question. How many engines does it build in a year?
Answer. I am not prepared to state that. Mr. Saunders would be
more competent to do that than I am.
Question. How extensively are your engines used in the mercantile
marine?
Answer. I think the Allaire Works have built more marine engines,
as many at all events, as any other establishment in this country.
Question. When you ascertained that Murphy & Co. had received
the contract for $132,000 and you had been rejected upon an offer of
$105,000, did you then proceed to ascertain what was the difference
between your engines; and if so, can you state that difference?
Answer. I cannot state it, except that I made the inquiry of our
engineer and superintendent as to the plans and specifications which
had been submitted by him to the board of engineers for that ship,
and whether the demand of the department was fully answered by our
plans and specifications.




CON] RACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                77
Question. What difference was there between your boiler and the
boiler proposed by Mr. Murphy?
Answer. As I understood it, his was the Martin boiler and ours
was not.
Question. What similarity, if any, was there between the engines
proposed by you and the engines proposed by Murphy & Co.?
Answer. That I could not state without going into matters of detail.
As I understand it, our plans and specifications fully answered the call
of the department.
Question. Had you or your firm any previous correspondence with
Martin in regard to the use of his boiler?
Answer. They had, as I understand.
Question. Do you know the purport of that correspondence?
Answer. I am not prepared to state it so fully as some others connected with the establishment could do. I can state my understanding
of it, if that is proper.
Question. Did you see the correspondence?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. Do you know whether the price of the Martin patent
was furnished to your firm?
Answer. I know it from being so informed; that is all.
Question. Do you know from members of the firm that they had
the price?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. They knew what it was?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did they insert it in their propositions?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Have you ever used Martin's boiler in constructing steam
engines of any kind?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is your opinion of it as a boiler.  Is it a good one?
Answer. I am not competent to say; I am not skilled in such matters. I can only tell from the information of others.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you prepared to say that the only difference between
your machinery and the machinery proposed by the Morgan Iron
Works for the Pensacola ship was in the plan of the boiler?
Answer. I do not think you could have understood me as saying
that. I was speaking of the New York ship and Murphy & Co.
Question. Do you say that the only difference between your plan
and that proposed by Murphy & Co. consisted in the difference of the
plan of the boilers?
Answer. I do not know that I stated that; I stated that there was
a difference. As to matters of detail regarding machinery, I do not
feel competent to go into that.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You say that that was one difference?
Answer. Yes, sir. I meant to say that the plan of machinery proposed by us fully answered the call of the department, and that we




78             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
conceived that our boilers did likewise; but that our plans did not
embrace the Martin boiler, while Murphy & Co.'s did.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You say that there was a difference in the plans?
Answer. Of the boilers. Yes, sir.
Question. Was not there a difference in other respects?
Answer. Undoubtedly as to matter of detail in arrangement, but not
as to capacity.
Question. Are you an engineer?
Answer. No, sir; I am not.
Question. Are you prepared to decide upon the merits of plans?
Answer. Not skillfully; but as one engaged in the business of steam
navigation the last twenty-five years, I have some general ideas on
the subject.
Question. Did you comply with the requirements of the specifications in stating the length of time you would require in finishing this
work for the government?
Answer. I believe we did. We meant to do so; we were not notified that we had omitted anything. Mr. Saunders came on to Washington for the express purpose of seeing to that. He went before
the board of engineers at my request, so that there should be no
opportunity for technical advantage over us upon that or upon any
other ground; and if any examination was needed by the board he
could be there to give it. He told me after he came back that he had
seen the board and had made explanations which were perfectly
satisfactory to them.
Question. How many engineers were on the board which decided
upon these plans and proposals? 
Answer. Four or five; I forget the number.
Question. Do you know how many were of opinion that your plan
was agood one?
Answer. I do not, for the reason that I understood their action was
secret.
Question. They reported afterwards?
Answer. It never came before the public; at all events, I am not
aware that it was ever made public; I mean it is not accessible to the
public.
Question. You have spoken in your testimony about the general
rumor of favoritism controlling these matters; can you give us any
knowledge, or any fact in your own knowledge to show that favoritism
has controlled the department in regard to this matter?
Answer. I can state this; that Mr. Brotold, who is one of the firm
of Merrick & Sons, of Philadelphia, informed me that they were
bidders for the Lancaster, a vessel building in Philadelphia.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you know he is one of that firm?
Answer. I believe he is; at all events he is in the establishment; I
may be under a misapprehension as to his being a member of the firm.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You state in your letter that the Morgan Works got




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  79
$120,000 for building the machine of the sloop-of-war at Pensacola,
and $10,000 for putting the machinery up there?
Answer I understood that the price they bid for the whole job at
Pensacola was $130,000 and they had named that sum, intending
$10,000 for putting the machinery up in Pensacola, after it was built
at New York.
Question. Have the Allaire works ever made the steam machinery
for any vessel-of-war?
Answer. Yes, sir, fbr the Harriet Lane, a revenue cutter, and other
vessels now in the Paraguay expedition.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Mr. Saunders states in substance according to my recollection, that he declined to give the guaranty for the contract, because
he found he could not put the engine in the space required in the
specification. Do you know anything about that?
Answer. I asked him why he did not put in the Martin boiler. If
that is more acceptable, that is their business and not ours. He said,
because it is impossible to get it within the compass prescribed.
Question.  In speaking of his bid he declines to give the guaranty
requisite, for this reason?
Answer. This is the first time I have heard that we had an opportunity to make the contract.
Question. Are you a brother-in-law of Horace F. Clark?
Answer. I am.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
D. B. ALLEN recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You state in your letter to Mr. Sherman that a gentleman "saw a letter written by President Buchanan to the Morgan
Works, requesting them to give the forging to the Reading Forge, a
concern in which J. Glancy Jones was at the time largely interested."
Who was the gentleman who saw that letter?
Answer. It was Dr. William Cockroft; at least he told me so.
I desire to state further in answer to the following query which was
made to me yesterday:
" Question. You have spoken in your testimony about the general
rumor of favoritism controlling these matters. Can you give us any
knowledge, or any fact in your own knowledge, to show that favoritism has controlled the department in regard to this matter?"
I would state now what induced that belief in my mind. The
fact that a nephew of the Secretary of the Navy is a partner of a
firm who were successful bidders; and the fact that that concern never
have before attempted to build a marine engine, and yet were able to
get a contract at a higher price then old established competitors.
The fact that the government vessels use the Martin boiler, while it is
scarcely used in the merchant service, and that the patentee of that
boiler, although his pretensions to that right are disputed, was a
member of the Secretary of the Navy's board of engineers, and the
general fact that the contracts are given to the highest class of bidders
and to establishments of an inferior capacity.
D. B. ALLEN.




80             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
No. 76.-EDWARD N. DICKERSON, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 12, 1859.
EDWARD N. DICKERSON called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your residence?
Answer. New York.
Question. What business are you engaged in at present?
Answer. An engineer of the firm of Dickerson & Sickols.
Question. Have you any contract with the government for steam
machinery?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have a contract with the government.  I have
three of them, made in the spring of this last year.
Question. What did you contract to do for the government?
Answer. We contracted to furnish the plans and to superintend
the construction of the engines of the Pensacola sloop-of-war, and a
part of the engines of the Richmond sloop-of-war, and for the alteration of the engines of the steamer Susquehannah, a side-wheel vessel
lying at the port of New York at this time.
Question. Where are you building the engines of the Pensacola?
Answer. At the Washington navy yard.
Question. It has been stated in the papers that you have proceeded
sufficiently far in the construction of that machinery to show that it
will be a failure. I wish your opinion upon that subject?
Answer. In order that the present condition of the case may be
understood, the circumstances under which that contract was made
should be stated. Last spring the Secretary of the Navy sent for me
one day when I happened to be in Washington upon some business,
and said that he was satisfied from the inquiry and examination he
had been able to make that there was something wrong in the condition of the steam navy; that he was very anxious to have it improved;
he had been investigating the subject as fully as he could to ascertain the difficulties, and he asked me if I knew what the'trouble was;
why the ships had been breaking down; why there had been failures
in the performance of vessels which did not seem to occur in the
merchant service. He thought they ought not to occur in the government service, but he had not been able to find out exactly the
difficulty. I told him that any statement I could make upon that
subject to him would perhaps be of no service, because it might very
easily be contradicted by any one interested to contradict it, and that
the best way probably was to send to the gentleman who had been
the engineer-in-chief of the navy during the last administration, and
such other persons as he felt confidence in, who were connected with
the service, and in their presence I would tell him just what the condition of the navy was, and the difficulties in its way, in order that
they might correct any mistake I might make. and then he would get
an understanding of the whole case. I was going from Washington
the next day, but at his request I stayed.  They kept me here a
month nearly, during wnich time we had several meetings before the




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 81
Secretary, in which a very thorough examination was made of the
whole subject.  The Secretary devoted a great deal of time to it,
both in office hours and out of them, for the purpose of informing
himself of the real condition of the navy, with a view to its amendment, if possible.
The first proposition that was made was to alter the engines of the
Susquehannah, about which I understand something has been said
here. We proposed to the Secretary that we would alter the engines
of the Susquehannah at our own cost, if we could be paid one-half the
benefit that would result from the alteration, to be tested by the
engineers of the navy.  I should have been very glad, and should be
very glad now, to have that proposition acted upon.  The Secretary
was very cautious in the investigation of it, and, finally, it was considered settled, I believe, that that should be done. But the Secretary became satisfied that the alterations would make so great an
improvement that the one-half the saving would be too much money,
and he then settled the contract upon a sum certain.  He offered a
sum certain, which we accepted, and have so far executed the work
that it is nearly ready to start.  In respect to the other ships, Mr.
Martin, who was the principal actor in itQuestion. The question was, what is your opinion in relation to
the engines for the Pensacola?
Answer. The engines of the Pensacola were contracted for under
these circumstances: it was. agreed by the engineers that if the
American plan of valves, as it is called, could be adapted to propeller
engines in the navy, it would be an enormous benefit to the service;
it would be an addition of about 40 per cent. to the efficiency of the
navy engines. But it was denied, as a matter of fact, that it could
be done in fast-moving engines That was the issue raised between
Mr. Martin and myself in that discussion.  The Secretary, after
hearing all parties about it, and investigating it for some time, believed that we could do it. I told him I did not wish him to give us
any credit or faith longer than necessary upon that subject; that we
would make a set of valves, which Mr. Martin said could not be run
at the rate necessary for these engines, and try them at the yard. If
they were successful, then the contract for the Pensacola should go
into execution; otherwise not. You will find in the contract that
clause incorporated. Under that provision of the contract we made
the valves; and in place of their running at the rate of 60 turns per
minute, which was claimed by Mr. Martin to be a speed which they
could not be made to run at, they have run at the rate of 120 turns,
and dispelled all doubt upon that subject. The Secretary and others
witnessed the running from time to time; they were running during
a month, more or less.
That was the only part of the case about which there was ever
any question.  That was tested; and thereupon the contract for the
Pensacola, which had been held in abeyance by the Secretary to
wait the result of that experiment, was ordered to be confirmed, and
we went on with it.  That work is in the progress of rapid construction.  There is no part of it which presents the least suspicion of
6c




82              CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
failure or difficulty, either in the forging, the castings, or in the
finish. The objections that have been made to it in the newspapers
to which you refer7 arise, I presume, from the fact that it is establishing a new system of engines in the navy, which will at once put
out of use all the plans that have been practiced under the contract
system, and, according to which, the new sloops that are being built
under contract are to be made. In these new sloops, however, the
Secretary has adopted the system of calling upon the contractors
to guaranty the result. That is a system he has introduced into the
service. If the contractors perform their guarantied results they are
entitled to the money, and richly deserve it; if they do not they are
not to be paid.  By the old mode the contractors only guarantied
that their engines should be made of cast iron; but now they are
called upon to guaranty that their work will accomplish the results
they agree to accomplish, or else they will not be paid.
Question. For how long a time does the guarantee last?
Answer. Long enough to establish the capacity of the machine.
The faults of a steam engine exhibit themselves in a very short time.
If an engine will run for six hours under its full power and keep cool
and not slacken its keys, there is no reason why it will not keep
running for an indefinite time.  The test which is made is long
enough to establish the capacity of the machine. The system adopted
by the Mr. Secretary Toucey invites the talent of the country to compete, and puts the responsibility upon the contractor; so that whatever they do they do at their own risk; whereas formerly the government took the risk and the contractors got their pay. If the
engine performed well it was all right, and if it did not it was all
right; they got their money either way.
Question. Have you been well acquainted with the manner in
which Mr. Toucey has conducted this business?
Answer. Intimately, for about a year, ever since the commencement of my intercourse with him, which was accidental, for under
the old system I never thought of talking to the Secretary of the
Navy or to the engineer-in-chief about improvements. I thought the
game was blocked up, and that they would go on, one after another,
repeating the old errors. It was of no use for anybody to talk to Mr.
Dobbin, for he would not listen. It was somewhat to my astonishment, therefore, that Mr. Toucey sent for me.  Since he did, and
since I have found that he was anxious to make improvements in the
navy, I have taken a great deal of pains to furnish all the information I could in every respect; and he has investigated the subject
with great care.
Question. What do you think of his diligence and skill in managing
these matters?
Answer. Mr. Toucey has astonished me by his ability in these
matters, by his capacity to comprehend these difficult physical questions, and by th,e industry with which he has persevered in learning
these things. He has taken the elementary books and studied them,
both in his office and at home, so as to become thoroughly acquainted
with principles, and has mastered the subject so as not to be imposed




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 83
upon by any one who may come to him with projects or offers to con
tract. I can say that he has become a pretty good engineer.
Question. Do you know anything of the circumstances under which
Mr. Martin was appointed upon the board of engineers to examine
these proposals and bids in the fall of 1858?
Answer. What are called Martin's boilers were spoken of between
the Secretary and myself, and the Secretary told me that Mr. Martin
had agreed with the Navy Department to make no charge for any use
of them by the department. My opinion was adverse to those boilers.
The Secretary investigated the matter, and has ordered a trial to be
made to ascertain what might be the relative value of that and of
another kind of boiler, by placing one of each sort in the same ship.
He wanted to find that out. But he told me that so far as Martin was
concerned he was getting nothing for them, and apparently had no
pecuniary interest in the question. He acted upon that impression
at the time, and was very much astonished afterwards to learn that
Martin had made some claim against the contracting parties for compensation. The Secretary was under the impression that I have referred to last summer, when Mr. Martin was put upon the board.
There was a very inadequate number of engineers here at the time,
and so Mr. Martin was put on with the rest to form a board with
other engineers of the navy.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did the Secretary consult you about appointing that
board of engineers?
Answer. No, sir; he did not.
Question. How did you know what he thought about putting Mr.
Martin on the board?
Answer. He talked with me in respect to Mr. Martin's connexion
with the boiler question.  That was the subject of several conversations between us.
Question. Were the conversations in reference to Mr. Martin's
appointment upon the board?
Answer. No, sir; they were in reference to the use of his boilers
in the navy and his claims, if he ever had any, for compensation.
That was the understanding of Mr. Toucey in respect to Mr. Martin's
position.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. As an engineer, are you acquainted with Messrs. Archbold, Hunt, and Wood?
Answer. Perfectly well.
Question. How do they compare, for reputation and skill with the
other chief engineers of the navy?
Answer. I think they compare very favorably with any in the
navy. Mr. Archbold is certainly a superior man to any who have
occupied the post he now occupies since I have known the navy.
Mr. Hunt is a man of very large practical experience, and that is a
valuable education.  Mr. Wood is a man that has thought a good
deal, studied a good deal upon engines, and has a very excellent
practical and theoretical knowledge of the subject.




84             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Did you contract to supply the steam machinery for the
Pensacola, including all parts of it?
Answer.. Yes, sir; every part of it.
Question. Where are you making the shafting?
Answer. Down at this yard-the Washington navy yard.
Question. How far have you proceeded?
Answer. The whole of the propeller shaft, and probably one-half
of the engine shaft, have been made.
Question. It has been stated that it would be perfectly impracticable to make a shaft at the Washington navy yard of sufficient size
and proper qualities for a naval steamer.
Answer. I think that statement will bear this explanation. The
government owns the best forge that I know of in the country at
present.  That forge has been standing at this yard idle, for about
three or four years. It was idle until Mr. Toucey set it to work.
During this time the shafts for the government ships have been forging at the private forges through the country. The forging of the
shaft is the most important part of the whole organization. It is the
one in which there is the most difficulty and the most deception.
One of these large shafts is forged by welding together pieces of
metal, one upon another, hammering them until they become solid.
If the shaft is not reliable in emergencies, there is no use in having
guns, since you will have no certain means to take your guns within
the range of the enemy's ships, and to carry them away again. Now
you never can tell whether a shaft is sound or not until it breaks.
The private contractor makes a shaft, and that shaft cannot be tested
until the accident happens. Time is a great element in forging a
shaft.  The men must wait idle seven or eight hours for that shaft to
heat, and yet they must have their wages.  Consequently, there is a
temptation not to heat the shaft sufficiently and to hammer it after it
gets too cold; and that temptation is almost too great for men doing
the thing by contract; whereas it just suits the workmen in the yard
to sit idle, and they can sit there and wait until the iron is thoroughly
hot, and they will be perfectly willing to stop as soon as it gets cooled.
Consequently you may have a perfect shaft in the yard, so as to carry
your guns with safety.
This difference is exemplified also in the manufacture of gun metal.
It has been made by Captain Dahlgren, under the government, to
bear a pressure of 63,000 pounds to the square inch, whereas private
contractors will not permit it to bear a pressure of above 30,000
pounds to the square inch.  This has been the result from making
our own guns in the navy yard; and perfection in shafts will be the
result of forging our shafts there. They will be cheaper and they
will be better.  But if the owners of private forges can stop the
government forge from making the shafts they will get the jobs. If
they cannot, that one hammer in the yard will make all the shafts for
the United States navy. This is the first time it has been called into
action.  I do not know by what means it has been kept idle; but I
think that any one who should say that it cannot do the work is probably actuated by the hope of having the shafts given out for private




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC                  85
contracts, so that they could get the jobs. Mr. Toucey, upon a representation made to him of the state of the case, immediately had
that forge put in action.  The result thus far has been most satisfactory.  The work is as fine and perfect as can be done.
Question. Do you express it as your opinion, from your familiarity
with the sort of work required, that it is unsafe to have shafts made
by contract?
Answer. It is unsafe. If I were to have a shaft made for myself,
I would go and see it done. Government never can have a shaft made
in the private yards with safety. Go down to this yard now, and you
will see broken shafts in abundance, and as they are cracked open you
can see the loose iron in the middle of them. They are made hot
upon the outside and the surface is sound, but when you come to a
strain they burst open, and then your ship is lying powerless.
Question. Do you know how often the shafts of our vessels in the
navy have proved unsound?
Answer. I cannot say how often; but there are a great many cases;
and there are shafts piled up now at the navy yard which you can go
and see at any time. In the Collins ships the Atlantic broke her
shaft at sea, and was out at sea for a month, and supposed to be lost.
She broke her main shaft from an unsound forging of the iron; and
there was a great difficulty between the company and the contractors
at the time. The contractor will agree to furnish you a shaft for less
money per pound than the iron out of which a good shaft ought to
be made will cost.  Throw it open to private competition and they
will furnish you a shaft for less money than good iron alone is worth,
and consequently the shaft proves to be perfectly worthless when it
is used.
Question. You have expressed your opinion unfavorably to Martin's boilers; how do they compare with the boilers formerly used in
the navy?
Answer. It is a better boiler than the flue boilers in use at the
time these superseded them, decidedly.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Are there other boilers now that are better?
Answer. Yes, sir; the Secretary of the Navy is now about to try
one of the other kind on the opposite side of the same ship, so that
the engines can be worked first from one and then from the other in
the same vessel. In that way the relative merits of the boilers as
generators can be ascertained with accuracy. I would like to state
here that there are two theories upon which engines are built. The
one is to make the simplest possible form of a machine, without
regard to its efficiency. The other is to make a machine that will
develop the highest possible power from  the steam, and then to
make that as simple as it can be made without detriment to its efficiency. The first case is exemplified by the country saw mill where
the slabs sawed off furnish more fuel than you want, and where the
man who tends the engine also tends the log.  The other case occurs
in the navy where you want to concentrate in the ship in the smallest
possible compass and weight the largest amount of power, and the




86             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
greatest efficiency from the heat, and where you have a corps of
engineers on duty with nothing to do but to attend to the engine and
to keep it right. In that case you should make the engine right, and
as simple as possible afterwards. Heretofore we have been making
for the man-of-war the same engine which was adapted to the country
saw mill, to get the engine into as few pieces as possible and then to
attain as much efficiency as possible with that simplicity. In other
words, we have been making the engine for the engineer, instead of
making the engineer for the engine. It is upon that distinction of
theory that our present operations are going on. We are making an
engine which shall produce the highest possible effect from a given
amount of fuel, and with the least possible weight. The old plan
was to seek simplicity even at the expense of efficiency. The new
theory is also to call upon contractors to guaranty results. These
changes are what were required in the navy, and have put it ahead
twenty years, and this has been done by Mr. Toucey.
EDW'D N. DICKERSON.
No. 78.-WILLIAM H. WITTE, OF PHILADELPHIA
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
WILLIAM H. WITTE called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you live?
Answer. In the city of Philadelphia.
Question. What business are you now engaged in?
Answer. I am engaged in more than one business.
Question. What is your principal business; are you a practicing
lawyer?
Answer. No, sir; I am not. I am interested in the manufacture of
cotton goods; I have mining interests in various parts of Pennsylvania
and other States, and I am also somewhat extensively engaged in
building.
Question. What connexion have you, if any, with the firm of Reaney,
Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I have the connexion of an equal in whatever work they
do for the government-having an equal interest in the profits of
whatever they do.
Question. I believe you have been a member of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long since?
Answer. I was a member of the thirty-third Congress.
Question. How long has your connexion with the firm of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. been in existence?
Answer. It commenced in July, 1857.
Question. Was that since you left Congress or before?
Answer. It was since I left Congress.
Question. Have you been the representative of Reaney, Neafie &
Co. in getting work from the Navy Department?
Answer. I have.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  87
Question. How much work have you obtained for them from the
department?
Answer. We have obtained two contracts, one for $137,500, and
the other for $139,000.
Question. What were those contracts?
Answer. One was for the sloop of war, now building in Philadelphia,
called the Lancaster; the other is a contract recently made. I do not
know the name of the vessel.
Question. The Lancaster is the largest of the two new sloops building there.  I believe there were two sloops authorized by the last act
of Congress to be built in Philadelphia, and the smallest one is called
the Griffiths' ship.  By what name is the ship known 
Answer. It is known as the Griffiths' ship.
Question. Did you frequently come to Washington to represent
them in relation to these two contracts?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you here last fall; can you call to mind the different times you were in Washington?
Answer. No, sir; I cannot; I was here frequently during a period
of two months, or perhaps a little more.
Question. Were you here when the Secretary ultimately determined
who should have the contract?
Answer. I was, sir.
Question. What inducements did you hold out to the department,
or to any officer of the department, to give to Beaney, Neafie & Co.
the last contract, or either of the contracts?
Answer. None other than that our house having a long experience
in the construction of marine engines, especially propeller engines,
and having, as I am informed by their books, built more propeller
engines than have been built in the country, besides, it would be for
the interest of the government to give them the contract. I held out
no other inducement except what their supposed superiority, skill,
and ability to construct engines of that particular character afforded.
Question. Were there any special or particular personal courtesies
between you and the Secretary, clerks, or Chief of the Bureau of
Construction?
Answer. None, sir.
Question. Did you ever make presents to them, or pay them money?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Did you never to Mr. Lenthall?
Answer. I never made any presents of any kind to Mr. LenthalT
or any other officer of the Navy Department, or of the government,
anywhere.
Question. I will mention Mr. Welsh particularly?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. While you were prosecuting the claim of Reaney, Neafie
& Co. for these contracts, how far did you resort to political influences?
Answer. I made no attempt to bring political influences to bear
upon the subject; I never asked a member of Congress or a senator,




88             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
or any politician, or any other person, to say anything to Mr. Toucey,
or any other officer of the Navy Department, in behalf of Reaney,
Neafie & Co.
Question. Did you not occasionally indulge in complimentary remarks to Governor Toucey about his own political prospects, and
what he might expect from the Charleston convention?
Answer. Never, sir; I am not in the habit of doing that.  I may
remark that I was not sufficiently intimate with Governor Toucey, if
I was disposed, to talk upon a subject of that kind.
Question. Did you ever ask the President to intercede with Governor Toucey to have this work given to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. Did you ever say anything to the President upon the
subject?
Answer. I did.
Question. What was the nature of the conversation?
Answer. I said to the President that I had formed a connexion with
the house of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and that we were anxious to build
some marine engines for the government.  We were only anxious,
however. if we could satisfy the department that it would be for their
interest for them to give us the contracts; if we could not, we should
not expect anything. To which he replied that the matter was entirely
in the hands of the Secretary; he himself would be very happy if the
Secretary should find it to be for the interest of the department and
the government to give us the contracts.
Question. Did you press upon the Secretary at any time that you,
as an active democrat, had claims upon him, and insist upon his
giving this work as you desired it should be given?
Answer. Never, sir. On the contrary, I told him, on more than
one occasion, that I did not wish him to give us any contract because
of any political or other influence or consideration of that kind, and
only expected and desired him, if he thought it was for the interest
of his department, to give them to us.
Question. Did you represent that it would be of great service in
the pending election-the election of last fall-or any other future
election, if the contracts should be given to Reaney, Neafie & Co,?
Answer. I did represent to the governor that it would be important, so far as our building machinery was concerned, to have the
contracts made as soon as possible.
Question. In what point of view?
Answer. Because it would be to our interest to commence the
work at that period.
Question. You said in answer to one of my former questions that
you were present when the Secretary determined to give this job to
Reaney, Neafie & Co. I wish you would state who were present at
that interview?
Answer. Mr. Archbold, (the engineer-in-chief,) Mr. Norris, and
myself were in the Secretary's chamber.
Question. What occurred on that occasion in relation to the charge
of Mr. Norris about the copying of his plans?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 89
Answer. The Secretary proceeded to give his reasons for making
the award to our house, by reviewing the charges which had been
made by Mr. Norris against the engineer-in-chief, the principal one
of which, as well as I remember, was that the engineer-in-chief had
furnished our house with copies or parts of plans submitted by Mr.
Norris, and that undue advantage bad been taken of him in that
regard.
Question. What occurred about that? Were Mr. Norris' plans
brought up and exhibited?
Answer. The Secretary asked the engineer-in-chief to exhibit the
plans-Mr. Norris' plans and our plans; and he asked Mr. Norris
whether they were alike in anything?  To which he replied that
they were similar in many respects. The Secretary asked Mr. Norris
to point out the particulars in which they were alike.  Mr. Norris,
after considerable hesitation, and, as it appeared to me, with considerable confusion, confessed that they were not alike generally. The
Secretary told him that the term was scarcely proper when speaking
of plans in such a connexion; and he wanted Mr. Norris to state in
what single particular they were alike.  Mr. Norris, after further
examination of the plans, with considerable hesitation and a very
great deal of confusion, admitted that they were not alike in any particular.  The Secretary then said to him: "Do you admit that you
have done the engineer-in-chief injustice?" or, "Do you admit that
you were in error?" To which Mr. Norris replied: "I was in error;
the plans do not resemble each other at all."
Question. Did he say anything about having done the engineer-inchief injustice?
Answer, He admitted that injustice had been done the engineerin-chief in that particular.  I do not remember that he said he had
done the engineer injustice; but, as my memory serves me, he said
that injustice had been done in that regard to the engineer.
Question. You say you were a partner in that firm. Do you know
anything about that firm having had copies of any part of Mr. Norris'
plans sent to them?
Answer. I have no knowledge of their having had access to them
in any way, either here or elsewhere.
Question. Did you have access to the room of the engineer-in-chief
while you were in the city?
Answer. I went in there as I suppose anybody else would do,
openly and without any special privilege.
Question. Did you see the plans of Mr. Norris, and look over them,
in the engineer's room?
Answer. I never did.  They might have been upon the table or
elsewhere; if so, I did not recognize them as Mr. Norris' plans, or
anybody's plans. I should not have known much about them if I had
looked at them.
Question. Did you ever examine the plans?
Answer. I did not. I never saw them, to my knowledge, until I
saw them in the Secretary's room, upon the occasion to which I refer.




90             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Were you, at any time, either comparing or examining
any plans in the room of the engineer-in-chief.
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Was Mr. Reaney here, or any other member of the firm
of Reaney, Neafie & Co., at the time when you were here, and between the time of the second board and the decision of this question
of the award?
Answer. I think Mr. Reaney was here more than once.
Question. Have you any knowledge whether he saw the plans of
Mr. Norris or not?
Answer. I have none. As I am informed, he came here, as he is
in the habit of coming now, for the purpose of seeing the engineerin-chief about the work going on in the Lancaster. He was obliged
to have frequent interviews with the engineer.
Question. You represented the firm at the time the contract for
building the machinery of the Lancaster was given. Are you able to
say upon what ground that contract was given to the firm of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. rather than to the firm of Merrick & Sons?
Answer. I understood it to be for two reasons-one being on account of the superiority of the plans, and the other was because the
price was the lowest.
By the Chairman:
Question. Your interest with Reaney, Neafie & Co. was confined
to government contracts, I understand?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Had you no interest in the works or management of the
works?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Why were you employed only in government contracts?
Answer. Because it was supposed that I could get government
contracts for them.
Question. Did they employ you to get any contracts of any one
else?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What particular influence was contemplated at the time
they employed you?
Answer. The general management of the business with the government.
Question. What particular influence had you over the department,
that they should desire to secure your services?
Answer. I do not know that I had any particular influence, except
that I had the advantage of having (or being supposed to have) some
business capacity, that having been my business as a merchant, and
having also the advantage of some personal and political character.
Question. Do you know no other reason?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did they or you first suggest this arrangement?
Answer. They sought it.
Question. When did they seek it?
Answer. During the spring of 1857.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 91
Question. Had you previously been engaged for any one in getting
contracts?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Had you acted as agent for claims?
Answer. No, sir, never.
Question. You were to get half the profits that were made, as compensation for your services?
Answer. No, sir; I was to have an equal interest, and as there
were three partners in the concern, I was to share with them and
have one-fourth of the profits.
Question. Do you know anything about the cost of this machinery?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You took their estimate of the cost, and was willing to
take one-fourth of the profits?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And you rely upon their making a statement of what the
profits are?
Answer. Yes, sir; they keep all the accounts.
Question. How much have you received under this arrangement?
Answer. I cannot tell exactly; I think I have received somewhere
in the neighborhood of six thousand dollars upon the Lancaster.
Question. What is the amount of profits contemplated by you upon
the Lancaster?
Answer. Well, sir, we had a conversation upon that subject a few
days ago, and Captain Levy, who is rather the managing partner of
the concern, did not think the profits upon the Lancaster would exceed twenty thousand dollars.
Question. How much profits had you contemplated on the Griffiths'
ship?
Answer. I have no idea.
Question. Have they made no estimate or statement of the probable profits?
Answer. No, sir, they have not.
Question. Have they not told you what they could probably make
on the contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What business arrangements had you previously with
Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. None, sir.
Question. Had you any previous intercourse with them?
Answer. It was very slight.
Question. Can you state what induced them first to call upon you?
Answer. I cannot, unless it was because they thought I could furnish what they wanted.
Question. Furnish what-political influence?
Answer. No, sir; because I could furnish, if I may be allowed the
expression, brains, talent, character, and energy, and such business
qualifications as I was supposed to possess.
Question. You say you had no knowledge of this kind of machinery
at all?




92             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. None, except a very general knowledge; I had no claim
to a knowledge of the science.
Question. Could you distinguish between the different parts of
machinery or the different kinds of machinery?
Answer. No, sir, I could not.
Question. The services you were to render them were of a personal character in soliciting the contracts?
Answer. Yes, sir; altogether.
Question. Are you not a lawyer by profession?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you not establish intimate personal and social relations with Mr. Archbold when you came here?
Answer. I did not establish them here; I was personally intimate
with Mr. Archbold before he came to Washington, he being a resident
of our city.
Question. Did you join in the application for his appointment?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. How frequently was he at your room during the time
you were here?
Answer. I cannot state with any degree of accuracy; he was there
frequently.
Question. How frequently did he dine with you?
Answer. Very rarely, to my regret.
Question. Had you any intimacy with any other employees in the
Navy Department?
Answer. No, sir, I had not, except such intimacy as would be
likely to grow up between persons who are frequently brought in contact with each other.
Question. Did you not present to Mr. Welsh some boxes or bottles
of wine?
Answer. I did not, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is the character of Mr. Archbold as a man of
science in his profession?
Answer. I know nothing about it, excepting what I have heard
from those who are supposed to be competent to give an opinion.
Question. What is his general reputation as a man of character
and integrity in the city of Philadelphia?
Answer. His reputation for integrity and for good character, so far
as I have ever heard, is unexceptionable.
Question. Are you intimately acquainted with Mr. Lenthall?
Answer. I cannot say that I am very intimately acquainted; we
have met here often, and I know him very well.
Question. Do you know where he came from when he was appointed here?
Answer. He came from the Philadelphia yard, I think; I am not
sure, but I think he did.
Question. Could you speak of his general reputation as a man of
integrity and character; do you know it?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  93
Answer. I do not know it; I have never heard anything against
him.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. You say you never brought any political influence to
bear upon the Secretary in reference to giving out these contracts?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you inform the Secretary what the politics of Mr.
Reaney and his partners were?
Answer. I think I may have done so; I certainly always spoke of
them as a democratic house in contradistinction to a business house
in the city of different politics.
Question. Did you procure any letters to be written in their behalf, assuring the Secretary that they were sound democrats?
Answer. No, sir; I never did.
Question. Did you makeany calculations upon favor with the department on account of their politics?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. Then why did you assure the department that they were
democrats, in contradistinction with another house?
Answer. I meant to say that I spoke of them simply as democrats
who desired no advantage on account of their being democrats.  On
the contrary, I told both the Secretary of the Navy and Mr. Archbold, on more than one occasion, that we did not want a decision in
our favor upon any application for a contract unless they thought it
was due to us because of the superiority of our plans and the acceptability of the price.
W. H. WITTEo
No. 86. —HENRY HUNT, WASHINGTON, D. C.
FEBRUARY 15, 1859.
HENRY HUNT called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your profession?
Answer. I am a chief engineer of the navy.
Question. Where are you employed?
Answer. In the navy yard at Washington.
Question. Were you upon the board which met in September last
to decide upon the bids and proposals for constructing the steamr
machinery for the seven sloops?
Answer, Yes, sir.
Question. Do you remember who were the other members of the
board?
Answer. The engineer-in-chief, Mr. Archbold, chief engineer
Martin, and chief engineer Wood.
Question. Are you well acquainted with each and all of these
gentlemen, officially and personally?




94             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. Yes, sir; I have been acquainted with them a number of
years. I have sailed with some of them.
Question. From the manner in which you were directed to report,
and from your knowledge of the transaction, would it have been
practicable for any one engineer to exert a controlling influence over
the decisions of members of that board?
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. Do you know Mr. Martin well?
Answer. I do, sir; very well.
Question. How far do you think Mr. Martin exerted a controlling
influence over the decision of the board?
Answer. I should say that he had no control at all over the decision
of the board.  He had no control over me, I know. I could not say
that he had no control over any gentleman. Mr. Martin is looked up
to as an engineer of good judgment, &c.; but so far as his influence
went to control any one of the members in his report, I do not think
he had any at all.
Question. Did you confer as members of the board, sitting together, in relation to your decision, and determine what you would
decide, or did you examine into the bids and, proposals together, and
afterwards retire and separately make up your reports?
Answer. We conferred together.
Question. Did each know the opinions of the others before you
left the board?
Answer. No, sir; not altogether.  There were two reports which
went in which I did not see nor hear the copy read at all.
Question. Has chief engineer Wood the reputation among engineers of being particularly under the influence of Mr. Martin?
Answer. Not that I am aware of. I never heard anything of the
kind.
-Question. Please look at the table reported by Mr. Archbold of
the several bids before the board. You will see that several of the
firms make proposals for several different ships. Were these plans
similar in all these cases?  Did the plans of Murphy & Co., for
instance, for different ships, vary?
Answer. No, sir; as nearly as I can recollect, the plans were similar,
excepting the difference in the size of the ships.  The general arrangement was the same for the different sized ships, the engines and
boilers only differing in size.
Question. Did the plans of the Morgan Iron Works for the different
ships agree in their general arrangement?
Answer. I think they did, as far as I can recollect.
Question. Was it the same with those of the Allaire Works, and
of the others?
Answer. Yes, sir; pretty much the same in the general plans.
Question. The table states that Messrs. Archbold, Martin, and
Wood, recommended the plans of Murphy & Co for the New York
ship, and that Mr. Hunt recommended the plans of Murphy & Co.
for the Boston ship.  From your recollection of the plans, and from




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 95
this statement, do you say that the entire board approved the plans
of Murphy & Co?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think they did.  There was no fault in the
plans. Some little modifications were made in nearly all the plans.
Question. The statement is that Mr. Archbold recommended the
plans of the Morgan Iron Works for the Boston ship, and that Messrs.
Martin and Wood recommended their plans for the Pensacola ship.
Would you say that their general plans were approved by three
members of the board, by all excepting yourself?
Answer. Yes, sir; as near as I can recollect. I had no objections
to the plans offered by the Morgan Works, but to the price, when
other plans just as good were offered at less price.
Question. The plans of Merrick & Sons were approved by all the
board?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. The plans of the Boston Locomotive Works are recommended by Messrs. Archbold and Hunt for the Pensacola ship, and
by Messrs. Martin and Wood for the Boston ship.  Did the whole
board approve their plans?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And all agreed in recommending the plans of Woodruff
& Beach for the Kittery ship?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then I understand you to say that the entire board approved of the plans of all the successful bidders for five of the ships,
and three members approved the plans for the sixth?
Answer. Yes, sir; they approved of the general plans of the engines.
And with reference to the New York ship there was a vast difference
in the price. I was in favor of the Novelty Iron Works, because it is
an old established firm, and gave a guaranty for the work, while the
price was very low.
Question. What was your opinion of the plans of the Allaire Works?
Answer. I did not approve of them at the time. I forget what I
considered to be their defects. I recollect that the plan of their boilers
was rather defective, and I thought they would not operate well.
Question. What do you think of the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co. for
the Griffith ship?
Answer. It is a very good plan, and I think it will operate well.
Question. I think you reported in favor of Mr. Norris?
Answer. Yes, sir; but not so much because his plans were superior
as because there was a good deal of difference in the price, while I
thought there was little or no difference in the value or efficiency of
the engines. Mr. Norris' drawings were more full and perfect.
Question. Are you superintending the building of any engine at
this navy yard at this time?
Answer. Yes, sir. I am superintending the building of a part of
the engine for the Richmond, now building at Norfolk. We are building part of the engine here.
Question. What plan of boiler do you prefer of those now employed in the navy?




96             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. That is a difficult question. It is undecided yet. What
is called the Martin boiler is an excellent boiler; but in my opinion a
horizontal tubular boiler is just as good. I should not make a cent's
difference between them if I were to put one in for myself. Some
engineers are in favor of the horizontal tubular boiler, and some in
favor of the vertical tubular boiler.  Martin's is the vertical tubular
boiler.  The difference between the merits of the two has never been
tested. I think that horizontal surface is the most efficient heating
surface; and I should not suppose that so much horizontal surface
would be required as of vertical surface.
Question. Do you know the general reputation of Mr. Archbold as
a man of integrity?
Answer. I have never heard anything against him.
Question. Have you ever aided persons in making out plans, with
a view of bidding for those works, in preparing their plans?
Answer. No, sir; never.
Question. Is that done by members of the corps of engineers in the
navy?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. To what extent do you allow men to change their plans
and specifications after they have been accepted upon the board?
Answer. That is owing to circumstances. There has never been
much change in any of the plans before the board, which has been
demanded or required by the board.  I have understood that there
have been changes since they have concluded the contract, but what
they are I do not know, nor the extent. When the board was considering plans, looking over specifications, &c., I consider it a great
duty of the board to look for defects; because there cannot be too
great a number of good qualities. If there have been any radical
defects which the board would not like to sanction, they have been in
the habit of calling some of the bidders before them, asking their
opinion about it, and asking whether they would have any objection
to making any alteration or modification.  This has never been
carried to any great extent, however, in any board of which I have
been a member.
Question. Anything interfering with the general plan?
Answer. No, sir; not before the board.  What has taken place
afterwards in making contracts I do not know. The changes have
been matters of minor importance. For instance, the pump rod might
be foul, as the engineers would say, and require shifting. The bidder,
in such a case, would be very willing to change the plan to correct
an error which happened to escape their notice in making their
drawings.
Question. If you were to allow bidders to make material changes
in pursuance of your suggestions, what need would there be of calling
for plans and specifications at all?
Answer. I do not see that there would be any need of it.
Question. How would it do to let the board of engineers of the
navy agree upon a particular plan for machinery, and then call for
bids to determine the price?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                  97
Answer. I think that would be the proper way to do it; and if the
department think they could get better machinery or have better
advice, they might call in one or more engineers from outside for
further information in regard to steam machinery.  They could then
get up such a form of engine as would meet the wants of the service,
advertise for proposals, and give out the contract to the lowest bidder.
That I think would be the proper way.
Question. How long has the plan been in existence of calling for
plans and bids?
Answer. It has been in existence since 1854, to my knowledge.  I
was upon the board to decide upon the plan of those old steam frigates
built at the time Mr. Dobbin was secretary. That was the first time
I noticed it.
Question. What was the great object to be accomplished in pursuing
the scheme of calling for plans upon the part of these bidders, as well
as prices?
Answer. I do not know unless to call out the talent of the country.
Question. Do you know whether a larger space in the ship than
that proposed in the specification was allowed to any successful bidder
for these seven sloops?
Answer. No, sir; I think not. We went over them particularly
and measured every drawing.
Question. Does not a geared engine necessarily require more space
than a direct acting engine?
Answer. Yes, sir; none of those engines were geared.
Question. The plan ultimately adopted for the Norfolk ship was
geared, was it not?
Answer. Yes, sir; but their bid was accepted under a new specification in October or November last.
H. HUNT,
Chief Engbineer, U. S. Nlavy.
No. 88.-JAMES MURPIIY, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 16, 1859.
JAMES MURPIY called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside, and what is your business?
Answer. I reside in New Yoik; I am a manufacturer of steam
engines and boilers.
Question. What is the name of your firm?
Answer. James Murphy & Co.
Question. Of what firm were you a partner before that?
Answer. Of the firm of Pease & Murphy.
Question. How much or this kind of work have you done for government vessels within the last four or five years?
Answer. I have built the engines of the Niagara, the Shubrick, the
Brooklyn, and I am now building one other vessel, not named yet.
7 G




98             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Was the Shubrick for the navy?
Answer. She was built for the light-house department, to go round
to California.
Question. How may shafts have you found it necessary to have
forged?
Answer. I have had shafts forged for all those vessels.
Question. Who has done your forging for the Niagara?
Answer. Tugnot, Dally & Co. Dr. Cockroft was one of the partners of Tugnot, Dally & Co.; they did one part, Charles Tupper &
Co. the other.
Question. Who forged the shaft for the Brooklyn?
Answer. The Brooklyn shaft was forged at the Reading Works,
Pennsylvania.
Question. Who forged the shaft for the Shubrick?
Answer. Really I cannot recollect who did forge that. I forget
whether it was forged by Tugnot, Dally & Co., or at the Reading
forge.
Question. Waho forged the shaft of the vessel now building?
Answer. They are forging in Bridgewater, Massachusetts.
Question. How did it happen that you employed the Reading forge
to forge the shaft for the Brooklyn?
Answer. Their offer was lower than that of anybody else to do the
work.
Question. Did you call for proposals?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. From how many did you receive them?
Answer. From two besides the Reading forge; from Tugnot, Dally
& Co., and from the West Point foundry.
Question. And you employed the Reading forge because their bids
were the lowest?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. With whom did you make the contract to build the steam
machinery of the Brooklyn?
Answer. Jacob A. Westervelt & Son.
Question. How did it happen that you contracted with him for the
machinery of that vessel?
Answer, The government advertised for proposals to build the
steamship complete, with everything except tile guns.  There were
eleven bidders, and Mr. Westervelt was the successful one.  I furnished the plans for his engine.
Question. Did you have any contract with the government in any
way in relation to the Brooklyn?
Answer. Not at all, sir.
Question. So far as you know, with Westervelt or yourself, was
there any interference, upon the part of the government or of any officer of the government, to procure that forging for the Reading forge?
Answer. No, sir. After the contract was made I met Mr. Welsh
one evening at Willard's Hotel, and he told me that Mr. Jones had
spoken to him to mention to me, in case all things were equal, to send
that forging to Pennsylvania.  I think Mr. Harris also mentioned it.
Question. Is Mlr. Harris an officer of the government?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 99
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was this agreement subsequent to the contract being
concluded?
Answer. Yes, sir. It was the night before I went home from
Washington.
Question. Before the contract was made was there any intimation
upon the part of any one that you should give the forging to the
Reading forge?
Answer. No, sir. It was reported in New York that Mr. Buchanan
had spoken to me about it. I never spoke with Mr. Buchanan or Mr.
Toucey about it in my life. I never asked Mr. Toucey for a contract,
or spoke to him upon the subject.
Question. How have you carried on your negotiations with the
government in relation to this?
Answer. They advertised for bids and I sent them in, trusting to
the merits of my plans.
Question. A witness has deposed that he spoke to your former partner, Mr. Pease, in relation to the shaft for the Brooklyn; that Mr.
Pease referred him to you, and you gave him no satisfactory answer;
that you subsequently employed him upon one shaft, but said in relation to the shaft of the Brooklyn that you could not help yourself;
you were obliged to give it to the Reading forge.  Do you recollect
such an expression, and if so, what did it mean?
Answer. No, sir. I recollect distinctly what passed. I had a conversation with Dr. Cockroft perhaps a week or ten days before I made
the arrangement for the forging. I gave him plenty of warning that
his bid was too high.  I told him I should prefer to have the work
done in New York, where I could see it done.  He said he could not
afford to do it for less than he had offered; that he thought New
York was entitled to it, and that he was entitled to the work. I told
him he would lose it, and he did lose it.  He came down a day or two
afterwards, and appeared to be in a very excited state of mind about
it. evidently disappointed in not getting the contract.  He said he
would write to the President about it, and would try to prevent the
President from interfering with contracts, and the Secretary of the
Navy and everybody else in Washington who was interfering with
his just rights, for he was entitled to the contract as a New Yorker.
That was the only conversation we had, and was the only thing that
ever passed with regard to it.
Question. Has Dr. Cockrolt any other business besides his profession
and this forging?
Answer. I know him to be a practicing physician and he told me
once that he was a stockholder in the Allaire Works.
Question. Who is the President of the Allaire Works?
Answer. Daniel B. Alien.  I think he is a son-in-law of Mr. Vanderbilt.
Question. Who is the manager?
Answer. Mr. Cross; another son-in-law of Mr. Vanderbilt.
Question. Who owns the Allaire Works?
Answer. They are principally owned by Cornelius Vanderbilt. He
has twice within four or five years desired me to join my estalish



100            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
ment with the Allaire Works. He told me he was the largest stockholder.
Question. You never had any conversation with the President
about the contract?
Answer. Never; I never have been to see the President but once
since I have been in Washington. I never saw him but once before to
speak with him.
Question. Have you had any correspondence with him?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. Has he ever written to your firm?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Have you ever got up and sent him political testimonials
in order to bring party influence to bear in giving you contracts?
Answer. No, sir, never; I have asked members of Congress to take
care of my interests if they could.  I spoke to Mr. Maclay about it
before this last contract. I told him that I would like to have him
look out for my interests. That was all the conversation, and I do
not know whether he ever did or not.
Question. Did he ever write to you that he had?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he ever tell you that he had?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had you any assistance in preparing your plans from a
government engineer?
Answer. No, sir, none.
Question. Did not Mr. Martin assist you to arrange your plans?
Answer. Nothing more than this; sometimes when he was in the
office I would ask him a question what he thought in relation to the
air pumps, or something of that kind. He gave me no further assistance, except that he made drawings of his boilers for me.
Question. When you arranged the plans for the engine which you
are now building, was Mr. Martin with you at any time?
Answer. No, sir, Mr. Martin was absent then. Mr. Martin has an
office in the room adjoining my office; but I did not have these
drawings made in my place at all. They were made by a young man
by the name of Maine, not on my premises, but some distance therefrom.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Martin saw that before it
went before the board?
Answer. I do not think he did. He did not to my knowledge.
Question. You say that Mr. Martin was absent; where was he?
Answer. He was on some duty for the government, down in North
Carolina. He was away for some five weeks.
Question. Did Mr. Toucey ever directly or indirectly indicate to
whom he wished you to give your forging?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Have you ever made steam engines for any other than
government vessels?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To what extent?
Answer. I have made a great many, sir. I have made the machinery




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 101
for six steamers, now  at the Island of Cuba coasting around the
Island. I have made the machinery for six or seven in the waters
around New York.  I have made the machinery for one that went to
China.
Question. Have your engines been successful?
Answer. They have, sir. I have just heard from the Brooklyn this
morning.  They have received news at the Navy Department that she
has done remarkably well.
Question. What kind of boilers has the Brooklyn?
Answer. The Martin boilers.
Question. Did you put in the Martin boiler as part of your plans,
laid before the board last fall?
Answer. Yes, sir; all of them.
Question. Why did you do that?
Answer. Because I thought it the best marine boiler in use.
Question. Have you ever tried it in any other than government
vessels?
Answer. I have a pair on hand now, building for the steamships
Brother Jonathan and California, about half done; they are about the
same size as the Brooklyn.
Question. Did you incorporate the Martin boiler in your plan for
the Niagara?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Was Mr. Martin in favor of your proposition that time,
or not?
Answer. That was the first time I became acquainted with Mr.
Martin. I understood that he was not in favor of my proposition.
The Niagara was advertised in a different way from the others.
Question. How did you find out that he was opposed to your plans?
Answer. He did not like them; they did not suit his views.
Question. How did you find that out; did he tell you so?
Answer. He told me so afterwards.
Question. Do you know whether he was upon the board that decided
upon that plan?
Answer. I think he was. He was the engineer-in-chief at that
time.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did that board decide in favor of Martin's boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you mean that the other members did?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know that Mr. Martin did not agree with the
other members in their report?
Answer. I do not remember distinctly about that. There were only
two bidders for the ship at that time. The government advertised
for six ships, all of the same size. When the plans came to Washington, they agreed with the specifications of the government: but
one of these ships was to be larger than the others. There were two
of us that had the lowest bids and the best plans, and it lay between




102               CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
us.  We had to make new bids, and were allowed six weeks to put
them in and to prepare plans for the larger ship.
Question. Had the other plan the Martin boiler as well as yours?
Answer. Yes, sir; they had the Martin boiler.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Some other gentlemen have been questioned about the
profits they made upon their contracts. You have had some work for
the government, will you state the profit upon that work?
Answer. I thought before I left home that you would ask that
question, and have made a memorandum  from my books.  It will be
seen that government jobs are not as profitable as is sometimes supposed.
The engines for the Niagara cost............................  $213,829 07
The contract price was..........................................   220,500 00
This engine took us two years to build.
The engines of the Shubrick cost............................   $19,739 86
Contract  price.....................................................  20,478   00
The Mississippi's boilers were built by the pound.  There were ten
or twelve bidders, and we made the lowest bid. The cost
was.............................................................    $17,323 84
Contract price............................................    18,204 40
The boilers of the Despatch cost..............................    $6,747 81
Contract  p ice.....................................................  7,480    22
The Brooklyn contract is not settled yet. We have not arrived at
what we have made upon that job.  It was also a private contract
with Mr. Westervelt & Son.  I am building two boilers now for the
San Jacinto, for which also we were the lowest bidders.
Question. What you make upon the machinery of the Brooklyn,
you make from Mr. Westervelt & Son, not from the government?
Answer. Yes, sir; it has nothing to do with the government at
all. Our contract is with them.
By the Chairman:
Question. Does not the cost, as stated by you, include ordinary
profits upon work and materials?
Answer. No, sir; the materials are put down as we purchased them,
and the men's labor at what we paid them.
Question. How can you separate and distinguish, in such a large
establishment, the cost of any one piece of work?
Answer. Every sheet of iron that goes into the boiler is weighed,
and is charged to that account.  What every man is working upon is
recorded three times a day, and this labor is charged to that account.
Question. Is anything added for interest, &c.?
Answer. Nothing.
Question. Have you ever paid Mr, Martin, or agreed to pay him,
for the use of his patent right?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much?
Answer. I forget his charge; ten cents per foot, I think.
Question. Hbw much in the aggregate have you paid him, or agreed
to pay him, for patent rights?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 103
Answer. I have paid him upon the Shubrick, and part upon the
Brooklyn; that is all.
Question. Where is his office?
Answer. Under contract with the government we are obliged to
furnish office room to a United States engineer, as in the case of MTr.
Martin, engaged superintending the work.
Question. Is he not usually at your place?
Answer. Some days he is there an hour; some days half an hour;
some days two hours; some days not at all; some days all day.
Question. Is Mr. Maclay, or is any relative of his, interested in your
works?
Answer. Not at all, sir.
Question. Did you pay, or agree to pay, any one for services in
obtaining your contract?
Answer. Not a dollar. I have never paid a government officer a
dollar in my life.
Question. What member of your firm negotiated those contracts
generally?
Answer. I was the one. Neither of my partners ever came to Washington to obtain a contract.
Question. Have you not had recommendations and statements of
your political position to lay before the officers of the government?
Answer. I did when I got the contract fbr the Niagara. I had several letters from different persons to let the Secretary know who I was,
and that I was competent to do the work.
Question. Did they state your political position?
Answer. They stated that I belonged to the democratic party.
Question. Were those letters filed in the department?
Answer. I do not know what became of them.
Question. Was any objection or any allusion made to them?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Your political position is well known to the officers of'
the government?
Answer. I believe it is, sir.
Question. Are such letters usually procured by contractors to show
their political opinions?
Answer. I do not know what other people do.
Question. Do you not know that this is a general custom?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you any acquaintance with Hon. J. Glancy Jones?
Answer I never saw him but once in my life, to my knowledge, and
then he was pointed out to me in a carriage passing by on Pennsylvania avenue of this city.
Question. Had you a correspondence with him?
Answer. He sent me a letter once to see whether I would take a
young man as an apprentice; that was all.
Question. Did you know of his acting as agent for the Reading
forge?
Answer. No, sir, I did not.
JAMES MURPHY.




104            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
No. 89. —HENRY B. BEACH, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.
FEBRUARY 16, 1859.
HFENRY B. BEACH called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside and what is your business?
Answer. I reside at Hartford, Connecticut; I am a manufacturer
of steam engines and machinery.
Question. What is the name of your firm?
Answer. Woodruff & Beach.
Question. What contracts with the government have you now?
Answer. We have one for building the engine for the sloop at
Portsmouth.
Question. What other contract have you ever had with the government?
Answer. We have had no other during the present administration.
We built the pumping engine for the Norfolk and Charlestown navy
yards.
Question. How many bids did you send in before the board that
met in September last?
Answer. We bid, something like a year ago, for the engines advertised for at that time.
Question. Did you get any contract at that bidding?
Answer. No, sir, we did not.
Question. How many vessels did you propose to build engines for
last fall?
Answer. Only one.  We proposed to build for either yard. We
did not specify the yard. We had two prices and two specifications;
one for each size.
Question. Have you any acquaintance with Mr. Martin, the government engineer?
Answer. I knew him from having come in contact with him since
we had this contract.
Question. Did you know him before that?
Answer. Never previously, any more than being introduced to him;
not to know him at all.
Question. Did he, or any other government engineer, render you
any assistance in making out your plans?
Answer. No, sir; we had no engineer but our own.
Question. What is the relationship or connexion between you and
Mr. Toucey?
Answer. My stepmother and Mrs. Toucey were sisters.
Question. Were you any blood relation at all?
Answer. No, sir; none at all.
Question. You are not the son of Mrs. Toucey's sister?
Answer. I am not.
Question. Was your mother or father in any way related to Mrs.
Toucey?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               105
Answer. No, sir; there is no other relation than that my father
married Mrs. Toucey's sister.
Question. What are the relations of intimacy between you and
Mr. Toucey?
Answer. I know him very well; but I never have been at his
house, I think, but once in my life, and that was in Washington, at
a party.
Question. Have you never visited his house in Connecticut?
Answer. Never. I have seen him at my father's house, but never
more than once or twice there.  I have always known him as alawyer
in the city.
Question. Have you ever, in private correspondence, appealed to
him to give you aid in getting through your contracts?
Answer. Never. I should not go to him for any favors. He would
be the last man I should go to, expecting any return.
Question. What explanation have you to make to that remark?
Answer. I mean the last man in connexion with the government,
because he is connected with my father's family. That is why I
would not go to him. I know his peculiarities, and that is just the
reason why he would not do anything for me. That is my belief,
and that is why I would not apply to him if I wanted anything.
Question. Do you know how many of the members of the board
that sat in September approved your plan?
Answer. I have always been told that all four of them  were
agreed; that they were unanimous in their approval.
Question. Do you know Mr. Welsh, the chief clerk, or Mr. Lenthall, or Mr. Archbold?
Answer. I do not know Mr. Lenthall at all. Mr. Welsh I have met
once or twice, been introduced, and spent an hour or two with him.
Mr. Archbold I have met several times.  I have met him at our own
place, in New York, and I met him here when I handed in the bids.
Question. Did any presents pass between you and these gentlemen?
Answer. I never made any presents to any of them, excepting
giving Mr. Martin, about four weeks since, a Charter Oak cross for his
daughter, which I would give to almost any one calling upon me. I
may have given it to half a dozen. I never made a present to any
engineer or government officer, to my knowledge.
Question. Did you pay anything to get this contract?
Answer. No, sir; I have never paid a dollar, excepting my own
expenses.
Question. What agent had you to act for you?
Answer. No one; I came on here myself, with my superintending
engineer.
Question. Did you ever bring any political influence to bear in
giving you contracts?
Answer. No, sir; not that I am aware of.
Question. Did you get members of Congress to intercede for you?
Answer. I never have.  I never asked the first one to do it.
Question. Have you sent any letters relating to your official position to the President or the Secretary of the Navy?




106            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. Never.
Question Did you ever speak to the President upon the subject?
Answer. I never saw the gentleman.
Question. You never saw Mr. Buchanan?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. What experience have you had in building engines?
Answer. We have built a great many stationary engines. We are
now putting up the largest stationary engine in the United States, for
the city of Brooklyn, for pumping. We are building it in competition
with New York and the whole country.  We had the preference.
Question. Upon what ground did you get that contract?
Answer. On account of the superior plans and the lowness of the
price, together with the style of the work we have always turned out.
We flatter ourselves that we are second to nobody in this country
upon stationary engines.
Question. Have you made any marine engines?
Answer. Some three or four small ones; nothing larger than
a three-feet cylinder.
Question. How did that succeed?
Answer. Very well indeed.
Question. What is the capacity of your firm for doing work of this
sort? How many men do you employ?
Answer. We now have about 225; but we work 350 when full, and
400 if necessary.  There are not more than one or two shops in the
country where they have more or better tools than we have.
H. B. BEACH.
CONTRACT FOR MACHINERY OF GRIFFITH SHIP, PHILADELPHIA.
No. 22.-TESTIMONY OF W. E. EVERETT.
FEBRUARY 1 1859.
W. E. EVERETT called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. Chief engineer in the navy, sir.
Question. How long have you been in that service?
Answer. Fifteen years.
Question. Were you a member of the first board on the machinery
of the Lancaster sloop-of-war?
Answer. Yes sir.
Question. Who composed that board?
Answer. It was composed of the engineer-in-chief, (Mr. Archbold,) Mr. Hunt, and myself.
Question. What was the substance of the report of that board?
Answer. Mr. Hunt and myself reported in favor of awarding the
contract to Messrs. Merrick & Sons; Mr. Archbold reported in favor
of Reaney, Neafie & Co.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                107
Question. To whom was the vessel awarded?
Answer. To Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.; but it is proper to state
that there was another board ordered afterwards.
Question. What was the occasion of calling a new board?
Answer. I am not able to tell you.
Question. How did the next board decide?
Answer. I only know from report; I have no knowledge of my own
upon the subject.
Question. Who finally built the vessel?
Answer. Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. When was that vessel built?
Answer. The contract was awarded, I think, two years ago; it was
a good while ago, I know.
Question. Was it done out of the appropriation under the last
administration?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was it built since Mr. Toucey's time?
Answer. Yes, sir, it was since his time.
Question. Were you in this city between the 12th and 20th of
October last?
Answer. I do not know that I can speak positively on that point;
but my impression is that I reported on the 14th day of October.
Question. I will ask you whether you were at that time shown the
plans and machinery of what is called the Griffith ship?
Answer. I saw them; there was no secret about the thing.
Question. In whose possession were they?
Answer. They were in the office of the engineer-in-chief, Mr.
Archbold.
Question. Were they lying on the table, accessible to any one?
Answer. I do not know how that was. There was no confidence,
so far as my seeing them was concerned.
Question. Did they lie open upon the table?
Answer. At the time I was looking at them they were.
Question. At the office of the engineer-in-chief?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was that the office where he received visitors?
Answer. The drawings were ordinarily put aside whenever strangers
came in whose business was not connected with that department.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Archbold about
those plans?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he say anything about those plans?
Answer. He might have said something, but no conversation passed
between us about them which I can recall.
Question. Did he in your hearing make any allusion to the plans?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether you were a member of the board
of November 4, 1858, on the Griffith ship?
Answer. Yes, sir, I was.
Question. Who composed that board?




108            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. The board was composed of Chief Engineers Wood, Hunt,
Whipple, and myself.
Question. Was Mr. Archbold a member of that board?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether he addressed you, or others in
your presence, in favor of any particular plan?
Answer. No, sir, he did not.
Question. Did he express any opinion on the plans upon that vessel?
Answer. No, sir; not to me.
Question. Did he in your presence?
Answer. No, sir; I never heard him.
Question. What was the report of that board?
Answer. Myself and Mr. Wood recommended that the contract be
awarded to Reaney, Neafie & Co.  Mr. Hunt and Mr. Whipple
reported in favor of awarding it to Mr. Norris.
Question. I will ask you whether the diameter and propellers of
these two vessels were the same?
Answer. I do not think I can answer that question positively. My
impression is that they were, or very nearly so.
Question. Were the boilers of the same form and kind?
Answer. It is a long time since I looked at those drawings, and
it is pretty difficult for me to answer that question. If you mean to
ask me whether there was any similarity between the plans, I can
answer that.
Question. I will ask you whether they were of the same form and
kind-whether there was any difference between them?
Answer. I do not remember. My memory is this about it, that the
engines had about the same capacity and the boilers about the same
capacity; that is, they were of equal sizes, or very nearly so, but in
form and in arrangement they were totally dissimilar.
Question. Which was the lowest bid?
Answer. That of Mr. Norris.
Question. Can you state whether or not the plans of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. specified the weight and centre of gravity required by
the advertisement?
Answer. I do not think they did.
Question. Was that fact mentioned in your report?
Answer. I think not; for the reason, if my memory serves me right,
that at the original opening of the bids, neither party furnished the
centres of gravity. I think Messrs. Reaney & Neafie furnished the
weights, but not the centre of gravity; but I would not like to speak
too positively on these points.
Question. Were you a member of the board on the Norfolk sloop?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Where were the plans of the Atlantic works in Boston
made?
Answer. I am not able to tell you.
Question. Have you any information upon the subject?
Answer. I was applied to, to make them.
Question. In Boston?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 109
Answer. No, sir; in Washington.
Question. By whom were you requested to aid and assist in making
those plans?
Answer. By Mr. Hibbard.
Question. Of what place?
Answer. Of Boston, I presume; I never saw the gentleman until
then.
Question. Were you requested by other persons to furnish plans?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Were you requested to aid and assist in plans for that
board?
Answer. No, sir; not for that board.
Question. Were you, for any boards?
Answer. I have been asked heretofore-I can hardly tell when or
where-to look at drawings; but this thing I have studiously avoided,
and never did such a thing.
Question. I will ask you whether Engineer Martin has not aided,
directly or indirectly, in making plans for vessels?
Answer. I have so understood, and also-but it is a mere understanding-that it is with the Secretary's consent; that, in consideration of his past services, the Secretary deemed it proper to allow him
an opportunity of practicing his profession, as it were, in private life
to a certain extent.
Question. Do you know, either from your own knowledge or from
information derived from others-and in the latter case, state the
source of the information-that engineers in the service have been
employed by citizens to draw plans or specifications, to be afterwards
submitted to them?
Answer. I never knew of but the one case of which I spoke, and
in which I understand the Secretary granted permission; that is the
case of Mr. Martin.
Question. For what particular case was that permission granted?
Answer. I do not know that it applied to any particular case.
Question  It was a permission to him generally?
Answer. Yes, sir, as I understood it; in consideration of his past
services, as I before remarked.
Question. Do you know that Mr. Martin is the owner of a patent
boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is that understood among the engineers of the navy?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Do you know how much he receives for the use of that
right?
Answer. I believe he gets so much per square foot; I do not know.
Question. State about the average for a vessel.
Answer. For these smaller sloops I have understood that it was
about five to seven hundred dollars.
Question. What would it be for the larger?
Answer. For the larger ones it would be something like fifteen
hundred dollars; at that pro rata rate.




110            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. When was this permission granted by the Secretary?
Answer. Directly after he left the office, as I have understood. That
is mere understanding with me.
Question. What office does Mr. Martin now hold?
Answer. He is superintending engineer on the part of the department for the engines being constructed by James Murphy & Co., of
New York, and Woodruff & Beach, of Hartford.
Question. Does he occupy the same rank, or a higher one, than
you do in the service?
Answer. The same rank.
Question. Receiving the same pay that you do?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether you have ever received a gratuity
or employment from private citizens, since you have been an officer
of the navy?
Answer. No, sir; I have not.
Question. Have you ever received any compensation for services
in preparing plans or drawings for private vessels?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know of any cases of that kind?
Answer. I do not know any case, and I do not think there is a case
except the one I have mentioned, which, as I understand, is authorized.
Question. Do you remember the names of the guarantors offered
by Reany, Neafie, & Co., on their bid?
Answer. I do not, and I do not think they were furnished to the
board; at least, not in that case.
Question. Do you remember the names of Peter G. Rambo and
Samuel Rotan?
Answer. I do not remember them, sir.
Question. Had you any interview with the Secretary of the Navy
with regard to the plans of this Griffith ship?
Answer. Not until after our reports had been made.
Question. Had you in regard to any of the ships?
Answer. I did have an interview with him in regard to the Griffith
ship after we had made our report.
Question. What opinion did the Secretary express in regard to the
bids?
Answer. I do not remember; the conversation was not very marked,
or else I should have remembered it.
Question. Did he express his favor of or advocate the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Neither.
Question. Were you a member of the board that convened, I think,
in September, in regard to the sloops of war generally?
Answer. No, sir; I was not.
Question. Did you examine any specifications of those vessels?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know whether any of those plans were prepared
by engineers of the United States?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                111
Answer. I have no knowledge upon that point.
Question. Do you not know, either of your own knowledge or by
information from others?
Answer. I have already supposed that Mr. Martin made the plan
for Woodruff & Beach, or supervised it.
Question. From whom did you derive that information?
Answer. I cannot state.
Question. Was it spoken of in the department among the officers?
Answer. It has been spoken of among members of the corps.
Question. What other plan did he supervise?  Did he supervise
that of Murphy & Co.?
Answer. The probability is that he did, although I do not know
that to be the case.
Question. Do you know whether he supervised the plan of Morgan
& Co.?
Answer. I should hardly think he did; on the contrary, I think
not.
Question. I will ask you, as an engineer, whether Mr. Martin would
not know from the bids and specifications submitted, taking into consideration that he was a member of the board, which of the bids
would embrace his boiler and secure to him the profit on his patent?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think he would.
Question. I will ask you to look at the specifications under which
the bids are furnished, [handing witness a copy.] Look at the second
clause of those specifications.
Answer, (after examining the specifications.) I hardly think he
would; because I know that very many have proposed his boilers
without any conversation with him at all in regard to it.
Question. Do not the bids necessarily specify whose boiler was to
be used, or what particular kind of boiler?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is it not necessary to specify the kind of boiler?
Answer. It is, of course; but it does not necessarily include Martin's boiler.
Question. But would he not describe the boiler so that the engineer
would know that Martin's boiler was meant?
Answer. Certainly.  Whatever boiler would be bid for would be
described and furnished.
Question. And Mr. Martin, sitting as a member of the board, would
know whether his boiler was embraced in the bid or not?
Answer. Certainly he would.
Question. Is there anything upon the face of the specifications
before you which prescribes, as a condition of acceptance, any particular boiler?
Answer. No, sir, there is not.
Question. If the board should choose a particular boiler, they would
be at liberty to place their award upon the choice of the boiler?
Answer. They could place their award upon the choice of the
boiler as furnished; but as a general thing-as a rule almost-it is
the custom for bidders to include both kinds of boilers.




112             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. To specify both?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is almost a rule.
Question. Do you mean that it is the custom to specify in alternative bids?
Answer. In their specifications they would say boilers having a
certain amount of heating surface and of grate surface, with tubes
either vertical or horizontal.
Question. Would the board then prescribe the boiler?
Answer. No, sir. In every case where Mr. Martin's boiler has
been introduced, so far as my knowledge extends, it has been at the
special request of the party constructing.
Question. I will ask you, as an engineer, whether it is considered
proper among the engineer corps that Mr. Martin, as an engineer,
should sit in judgment upon bids involving the use of his own boiler,
or the choice between his own boiler and another?
Answer. I think the impression has been that Mr. Martin made a
mistake in so doing; not that any one in the corps would believe, so
far as I know, that he would be biased selfishly by the amount of his
fee.  I do not think that at all; but all have looked upon it as a mistake, in laying himself open to be criticised.
Question. Your corps generally regard their professional character
so far above pecuniary inducements as to regard a pecuniary interest
as not of any moment?
Answer. I speak especially of Mr. Martin.  For myself, I have
that sort of respect and esteem for him that I do not for one moment
believe that Mr. Martin is a man that could be influenced by any
consideration of that kind.
Question. Your remark only applies to Mr. Martin?
Answer. It is hardly necessary to carry it any further.
Question. I will ask you whether you know of any inducements,
recommendations, or influences having been brought to bear by any
officers of the government to influence the award of these contracts?
Answer. I do not, sir. I was one of those unfortunate persons
that always get on the wrong side; I am always in the minority, and
therefore am ignorant in regard to the matter.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You have said that it was a common practice to refer to
boilers in alternative in the bids; I will ask you to state whether in
the boards in which you have sat the character of the boiler has been
a chief subject of examination?
Answer. Not a chief subject.  In determining a contract I do not
now recollect an instance where the kind of boiler controlled the
determination.
Question. You do not know an instance where it decided the opinion
of the board in making the award?
Answer. No, sir, not one.
Question. Your attention has been called to the fact of Mr. Norris'
plans being seen by yourself-in the office of Mr. Archbold; was that
the proper place for them in the department?
Answer. Yes, sir; it was so far as I know.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               113
Question. Do you know of their having been exposed to a single
visitor who came to the office?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.
Question. Did you ever compare the plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
with those of Mr. Norris?
Answer. Of course I saw them and examined them.
Question. Did you see anything in them that led you to suppose
that one was copied from the other, or borrowed from the other?
Answer. There was no similarity at all between them; not the
slightest; but it is fair to state this; we will suppose that Reaney,
Neafie & Co., had those drawings; they could borrow from them and
yet not copy from them; what I mean is, that they could borrow from
comparison.
Question. The question is whether, looking at the two sets of plans
it would strike any one that one had derived anything from the other?
Answer. No person would ever detect anything of the kind; they
are as totally dissimilar in their arrangement as they possibly can be.
Question. You saw the plans of Mr. Norris in the office of Mr.
Archbold; was there anything in reference to those plans that could
be at all the subject of criticism in regard to the manner in which
they were kept?
Answer. Not at all; I never heard anything about it until long after
these boards had been sitting, that there was any such thing supposed.
Question. I understood you to say that you heard that Mr. Martin
supervised the plans of Murphy & Co., and Woodruff & Beach?
Answer. No, sir; I said that I had heard that he supervised the plans
of Woodruff & Beach, and I supposed that he did those of Murphy
& Co.
Question. Was he upon either of the boards who decided upon
those plans?
Answer. I believe he was.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When did Mr. Martin leave the office of engineer-inchief of the navy?
Answer. I was not in the country, but I understand that it was a
year ago last fall, if I remember right.
Question. During the present administration?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.
Question. Do you know anything, of your own knowledge, of his
having supervised the plans either of Woodruff & Beach or Murphy
& Co.?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Why did you say you supposed so?
Answer. I have heard so; I made the statement that it was merely
hearsay.
Question. I want to know if you have ever examined the bids and
plans submitted to the board of which Mr. Martin was a member?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You cannot say how many of the bids and plans included
the Martin boiler?
Sc




114            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. No, sir; I do not know anything about that.
Question. You stated in your examination by the Chairman that
you gave the preference to the bid of Reaney, Neafie & Co. over that
of Mr. Norris?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What did you think of the plan of Mr. Norris as a plan
proper to be adopted by the government?
Answer. The plan of Mr. Norris is a very good one, but the plan
of Mr. Reaney, in my opinion, is a better one. My report to the
Secretary of the Navy was that I considered the plan of Messrs.
Reaney, Neafie & Co. was more simple and more accessible to repairs.
It is patent to all the world that the more simple the machinery is
the more efficient it is. There was another very marked difference
between them  in regard to the propeller arrangement, the plan of
the one revolving both of the propellers in the same direction, while
the other revolved them in different directions. That probably is omay be the most important feature connected with the matter, I am
inclined to think it is. The truth is there is perfect diversity of
opinion in regard to it, because there is no precedent to establish
judgment upon; it is a mere matter of theory.
Question. Do you mean to say that there is no practice in favor of
either one of these plans?
Answer. One of them is self-evident.
Question. And the other is a scheme and experiment?
Answer. You might call it so; many people call it so.
Question. Which of these parties had the self-evident plan; and
which one had the plan which is experimental?
Answer. Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. had the plan in regard to
which there was no doubt; what I mean is that the steering of the
ship would not be affected by it. But there is a mechanical difficulty
in getting around it which embarrasses their plan. But of the two
evils I think that one the least.
Question. Was there never any machinery constructed for the
vessels of the navy upon the plans of Mr. Norris, so far as you know?
Answer. Do you speak of the two propeller system, or of the plan
of the engine?
Question. I speak of the whole plan.
Answer. We have never had the plan of the two propellers before;
that is entirely novel, and embodied in both of their plans. That is
a matter with the naval constructor; he was the gentleman who directed the two propellers.
Question. In what other respects did those engines differ?
Answer. Besides what I have said the engines were totally dissimilar?
Question. From what you have seen and from what you know, have
you any reason to suspect that the Secretary of the Navy was guilty
of partiality in awarding this contract to Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. I have no reason at all to suppose anything of the kind.
What the Secretary's particular reason was, I do not know. The
reports were always very evenly balanced in regard to the giving out




CONTRACTS FOR MACHENERY ETC..                 115
qf that contract,  It was the only case I have ever known where the
reports were so evenly balanced. In the two boards they were two
Pand two, it all arose from this thing of turning the propeller.
Question. What was the difference between the bids?
Answer. Mr. Norris' bid was $13,000 the lowest..
Question. Who composed the second board?
Answer. I do not think I can answer that question.
Question. Do you know how the second board was divided in relation to these plans 
Answer. I think the second board was in favor of Mr. Norris' plan,
t may be mistaken; I never paid much attention to it. The third
board was decidedly in favor of Mr. Norris' plan.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know of any circumstance in the case calculated
to prevent an impartial decision?
Answer. I do not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You decided in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co.  What
was there, which, in your opinion, made it proper for the Navy Department to give $13,000 more for their plan than for that of Mr.
Norris?
Answer. For the reason that if one plan is better than another, it
is measured by dollars and cents to the Navy Department. In the
single department of simplicity alone, it is measured by dollars and
cents, because it goes into the account of the repairs, and that is the
only standard by which you can measure one plan with another.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. It is not measured then by the mere difference in the
cost of the construction of the engines to the two builders of the engines?
Answer. No, sir. It would not surprise me much if Mr. Norris'
plan should cost fully as much to construct as the other, if you take
the mere construction of the engine. The object in boards being to
obtain the advantages of the best plan, that is the consideration with
us. It is not by any means the leastexpensive engine which is best
for the government to adopt.
By Mr. Bocockb
Question. One plan may be originally cheaper than the other, and
yet the other one would save money to the government if bought at
a high price?
Answer. Sometimes it is the case that it would be cheaper to take
one that cost double the money that the other would, so far as the
first cost of construction is concerned.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you know the firms of Reaney, Neafe & Co. and William Norris?
Answer. I do not know either of them. Mr. Norris I never saw
until about that time. I cannot say whether it was before I saw his
plans or after, but it was about that time; and Reaney, Neatie &  (1
I never saw,




116            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Do you know the reputation of the house of Mr. Norriy
for doing the kind of work that is here required?
Answer. It is probably hardly to the point, but my idea about the
building of government steam engines is that they should never go to an
establishment except one for building marine steam engines. It has
always been the rule with me to vote for no plan except for those of
legitimate steam engine builders.
Question. What do you know in this case?
Answer. In this case the establishment of Mr. Norris is a locomotive
establishment of undoubted reputation, so far as that is concerned;
but that is not the kind of business that gives experience always for
the building of marine steam engines.
Question. How with regard to the other establishment?
Answer. That is an establishment of more reputation.
Question. Reputation for what?
Answer. For building marine engines.
Question. What kind of engines do they build?
Answer. A great number of propeller engines, but none very large;
their reputation is not equal to that of Merrick & Sons; I do not
wish you to understand that by any means.
Question. This is a smaller engine than the other one?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were the plans of the Allaire Works brought before the
first board as well as the plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co. and of
General Norris for this Griffith plan of the sloop-of-war?
Answer. They had in a plan originally. They put in a plan for which
they asked $140,000. Their price would throw them out.
Question. Was it for this particular vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were ruled out in that case.
Question. Was it in consequence of excessive price?
Answer. No, sir; they were ruled out because their plans were not
adapted to the vessel. In order to obtain any speed in this Griffith
ship the propeller must revolve 100 times a minute. Their engines
were direct action engines, and no member of the board would endorse
such engines for that number of revolutions.
Question. Was any member of that board in favor of that plan and
bid?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What would be the effect of 100 revolutions upon such
engines?
Answer. That is too great velocity to drive machinery of that size
and weight; this bid of the Allaire Works was before both boards;
the Allaire Works also had a bid before the board before whom the
other contract was laid; there it was laid aside for a different reason;
but in our case it was laid aside for the reason I have given, their
using a direct action engine.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was their plan submitted to the civil board?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.              117
Answer. I think not; the issue was between the two, Norris, and
Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. You say that the first boards were divided between the
two; but that none of them approved the plan of the Allaire Works?
AnsWer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You speak of so many revolutions a minute, was there
any guarantee of the number of revolutions, and of the speed of this
vessel?
Answer. No, sir; that would be ridiculous; how can people guaranty the speed of a thing they never saw built; they do not know
whether it is in a square box or not.
Question. Did they not have a drawing of the section of the ship?
Answer. Yes, sir; people may say they will do so and so, but it is
nonsense to talk that way.
Question. Can you not determine with some certainty, if you have
a model of the vessel with the engines to go into it, the number of
revolutions required; can you not make the guarantee?
Answer. Yes, sir, when you have a great number of boats of similar size and the data to go upon; but in sea-going vessels they are all
different sized vessels, and differ in almost every respect.
Question. Then you stipulate for a number of revolutions a minute
without regard to the speed?
Answer. Yes, sir, we can guaranty the number of revolutions per
minute, but it depends upon the model of the vessel whether that
will give the speed or not.
Question. Did the Secretary appear to take an interest in getting
the best vessel?
Answer. The Secretary appeared to take a very great interest,
especially in regard to speed. He seemed to have a great desire that
the vessels he was building should attain a speed superior to anything that has ever been built; that has always been the wish he has
expressed in every interview I have had with him.
FEBRUARY 3, 1859.
W. E. EVERETT recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Has the Secretary of the Navy ever asked your opinion
as to the novel machinery at this navy yard for the new Pensacola
sloop?
Answer. I think I volunteered it; I do not think I could say he
asked me; but we had some conversation in relation to this subject.
Question. How many ships are building at Pensacola?
Answer. Two.
Question. One by contract with Merrick & Sons?
Answer. No, sir; one is built under contract with the Morgan Iron
Works, and one by the government, at this yard.
Question. Where is the machinery constructed for the second
vessel?




]  8           CONTRACTS FOR MACEINERY, ETC.
Answer. That is building at the yard in Washington, by the gov.ernment.
Question. What is the peculiarity or novelty of this vessel?
Answer. It has four engines, and a peculiarity of valve motion.
Question. Has it been approved, to your knowledge, by any engineer of the navy of the United States?
Answer. I am quite certain that it has not been approved by any,
or by any other engineer excepting those immediately connected with
its construction.
Question. Who are the superintending engineers?
Answer. The plans are to be made by Mr. Sickles, I suppose,
although it goes by the name of Dickinson & Sickles.
Question. What is your opinion of its success?
Answer. I do not endorse the plan at all, sir.
Question. What is the name of that vessel?
Answer. Neither of these new vessels are yet named.
Question. Were they ordered to be built by the last act or by the
act of 1857?
Answer. By the last act.  There are two sizes of sloops, and the
larger is called sloop No 1, and the smaller sloop No. 2, by way of
designation.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Is that being built under contract?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. It is built directly by the government at the navy yard?
Answer. The arrangement, I believe, is that the Secretary gives
Mr. Sickles $5,000, (I think is the amount,) for the patent fee and for
supervision.
Question. Its construction is quite different from the usual plans?
Answer. It is entirely novel.
Question. What do you say the peculiarity is?
Answer. It may be said to be novel throughout, so far as the steam
portion is concerned. It has four engines.
Question. You would call it an experiment, would you?
Answer. I should, certainly.
Question. Is it highly commended on the other hand by scientific
engineers and skillful men?
Answer. I think not. I think it would not be, for I have never
heard any one speak well of the plan.
Question. How happened it that that was not put out to contract?
Answer. I presume the object of the Secretary was to permit Mr.
Sickles to have an opportunity to test his particular ideas of propulsion.
Question. I suppose he could not attain this experiment under contract, because there would be no bidders upon such a proposition?
Answer. I suppose not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You have been shown an affidavit of Mr. Griffith in
relation to the tracings sent from the office of the chief engineer of
the navy, to Reaney, Neafie &  Co.  Please to state from your




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                119
judgment and knowledge as an engineer, how far the information
which appears by that affidavit to have been sent, would enable
Reaney, Neafie & Co. to copy the drawings of Mr. Norris, how far it
would be available.
Answer. It would be a matter of no particular information. It would
be simply a saving of the labor of making that very simple arrangement.  That portion of the drawing is of a very simple character.
It is of no particular importance, because both would be necessarily
almost identical.
Question. Do these things, shown there to have been sent, constitute any material part of the peculiar plan of machinery of either
party?
Answer. No, sir; so long as the naval constructor had decided to
have two propellers.
Question. Was it information that was obliged to be given?
Answer. It was of no importance so long as it was a foregone conclusion, that the ship was to have two propellers.
Question. When the naval constructor, Mr. Griffith, decided that
his ship was to have two propellers, was it or not, fair that all the
bidders should know that fact?
Answer. Undoubtedly it was.
Question. Was it necessary?
Answer. Most certainly.
Question. As a chief engineer of the navy, was it in your judgment
improper that these plans and drawings should have been placed
where you could see them?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. As a chief engineer of the navy would you have felt at
liberty, having seen the plans and drawings of any bidder to communicate anything in reference to any of those plans and drawings to
any competing bidder?
Answer. No, sir; nothing of any moment or importance. If you
will allow me, I will here make an explanation.  I notice that Mr.
Whipple is spoken of as having told Mr. Norris that the centres of
gravity were not marked upon the drawings.  This might seem of
some importance; but really it is not of the slightest importance;
no more than to tell him the color of the paper upon which it was
drawn.
Question. As a chief engineer of the navy, familiar with the rules
and plans of letting work, do you say that, in your judgment, it
was improper that the Secretary of the Navy should communicate to
Reaney, Neafie & Co. the information which appears, by the affidavit
of Mr. Griffith, to have been communicated?
Answer. Strictly speaking there was no impropriety in it, because
there was no absolute information furnished; yet it is just one of those
things that the opposing bidder might take exception to. It was of
no real value.
By the Chairman:
Question. Do you know what information was furnished to Reaney,
Nefie & Co?




120           CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. No, nothing further than appears from this paper to have
been given.
Question. If no other information than that was given you think it
would not be improper?
Answer. I think it would not.
Question. Suppose that the side elevations and general plans of
Mr. Norris were shown-would that be improper?
Answer. In this particular shape, having two propellers, the side
elevation becomes a necessity to show, for the reason that it becomes
necessary in making these plans to know where the shafts would pass
through the ship. When there is but one propeller, of course the
shaft passes through the middle, but when there are two they must
be located, in order that it may be known whether they are to come
out sixty feet, fifty feet, or forty feet from the stern, or what the distance will be. It becomes a necessity to make the drawing intelligible.
Question. But further information than that given in the drawing
you think ought not to be given?
Answer. It depends upon how much further information it is.
Question. Could any further information have been properly given
to one and not to the other?
Answer. Unless you give me particulars I should answer generally,
no, but there might be some little technical thing.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Suppose that Mr. Norris was in consultation with Mr.
Griffith from the beginning in planning this vessel, the machinery,
and models not given in the plan-do you or do you not consider Mr.
Norris as being more greatly favored in bidding than Reaney, Neafie
& Co., having only the information alluded to in that paper?
Answer. He would be, because he would have more time to digest
his plans.
W. E. EVERETT.




CONTRACTS FOR MACIHINERY, ETC.             121
NO. 23.-TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM NORRIS, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 1, 1859.
WILLIAM NORRIS called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your business?
Answer. That of civil and mechanical engineer.
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Philadelphia.
Question. Did you submit any proposals for furnishing the engines
and machinery for the sloop-of-war now building at Philadelphia?
Answer. I did.
Question. When did you submit those proposals to the Navy Department?
Answer. September 8, 1858.
Question. Who composed the board that acted upon your proposals?
Answer. The first board was composed of Mr. Archbold, the engineer-in-chief, Mr. Martin, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Hunt.
Question. What information did you receive from any of the members of the board or any of the officers of the government as to the
action of this board?
Answer. I understood that there was no action at all, except to
recommend, inasmuch as there was one set of drawings suited to the
peculiarity of the ship, to the department to call for bids afresh.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Martin expressed any opinion
upon your plan at the time?
Answer. I understood so.
Question. From whom did you hear that Mr. Martin had expressed
an opinion?
Answer. I heard it second-hand, through Mr. Archbold.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Archbold or
Mr. Martin about it?
Answer. No, sir; not with either of them.
Question. Did your proposals include what is known as the Martin
boiler?
Answrer. They did not.
Question. What was your plan of- boiler?
Answer. The horizontal tubular boiler.
Question. What kind is Mr. Martin's boiler?
Answer. The vertical tubular boiler.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Martin or Mr. Archbold, after
making the report you speak of, took any position in regard to your
proposals?
Answer. Not of my own knowledge.
Question. What did the Secretary of the Navy do upon this report?
Answer. He immediately ordered a new board, consisting of four
engineers of the navy. But upon my complaint to the Secretary
that neither Mr. Martin nor Mr. Archbold were in favor of my plan;




122            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
that, in fact, they were opposed to me, as I well knew, he left both of
them out, and appointed Messrs. Wood, Hunt, Whipple, and Everett.
Question. There were two of the old board and two new names
upon this new board?
Answer. Yes, sir. I may as well remark here, that knowing almost
to a certainty the animosity of Mr. Martin in regard to other boilers
than his own, and that he would certainly object to horizontal boilers,
that was the cause of my urgent request to Secretary Toucey to leave
him and Mr. Archbold off.
Question. You made that request?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you have any conversation with the Secretary in
regard to Mr. Martin's interest in his boiler?
Answer. I did. I stated to him that for that very reason I did not
want him upon this board.
Question. What did the Secretary reply to that?
Answer. "Hardly possible," said he; those were his very words;
"hardly possible that Mr. Martin would object on that account."
Question. What is the amount that Mr. Martin receives for the use
of his boiler?
Answer. I really cannot say.
Answer. There was but one besides my own.
Question. Do you know what proposals were submitted to the new
board?
Question. Whose was that?
Answer. Of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Of what place?
Answer. Of Philadelphia.
Question. What was the action of the second board upon these two
propositions?
Answer. As I was informedQuestion. By whom were you informed?
Answer. By one of the engineers of that board.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. That two of that board were absolutely in favor of my
plans, the other two were not against; but in their report they state
to the Secretary that they consider the engines of Reaney, Neafie &
Co. more easily accessible than mine; but inasmuch as they took up
two-thirds more space, thereby destroying the very first principles of
the strength of the ship, by taking away the bulkheads, they thought
it would be better, so I understood it, to close with me, for they
thought my machinery would be very successful.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know the reason why the other plan was finally
preferred to yours?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you know of any advantage that their arrangement
has over yours?
Answer. I know that it has none.
Question. That is your opinion about it.
Answer. Yes, sir, as an engineer.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                123
Question. Do you know of any advantage that is alleged of it in its
favor by other engineers?
Answer. There was a question in regard to the action of the propellers.  The plan, or rather the engines of Reaney, Neafie & Co,
drove their propellers contrarywise, while mine drove them both the
same way; and there appeared to be an idea. with the engineer-inchief that propellers would work improperly if they both worked the
same way; that they would act badly upon the steerage of the vessel.
Question. Was there any allegation made in reference to the action
of the engine upon the propeller?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was that?
Answer. The engineer-in-chief stated that he knew of three instances where propellers, operating in the same way as mine, had
been tried and were failures. Now these allegations were found to be
false by Mr. Wood, one of the engineers and one of the examiners.
I understood that Mr. Wood addressed a letter to the Secretary tc
that effect.
Question. Do you know that?
Answer. I do not know that for a certainty; but I have heard so.
Question. Did you hear it from the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You say there were but two bids for these enginesyours and that of Reaney, Neafie & Co. Did your bid comply with
all the requisitions of the specifications issued by the department?
Answer. With every one of them.
Question. What do you know of the bids of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Did their bids comply with the requisitions of the specifications?
Answer. They did not.
Question. In what respect were they deficient?
Answer. They were deficient in several respects-in eight points,
I think, as well as my recollection serves me now; at least so I was
informed by one of the examining engineers.
Question. Did you examine these bids yourself?
Answer. I did not.
Question. Then you cannot state this from your own knowledge?
Answer. Certainly not; but from what two of the engineers told me.
Question. What ones were those?
Answer. Mr. Whipple and Mr. Jones.
Question. Are they here?
Answer. Mr. Whipple is here in waiting now. Mr. Toucey admitted
all these delinquencies at a later period.
Question. To you?
Answer. Yes, sir, to me.
Question. That is in regard to the failure of the bids of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. to comply with all the requisitions of the proposals
called for by the department?
Answer. Yes, sir; he said that they were matters of no moment.
Question. Then he did not consider them at all material?
Answer. No, sir.




124            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Do you know who were the sureties of Reaney, Neafie &
Co. under this contract with the government?
Answer. I heard from three of the members of these boards that
one was their chief clerk, and the other was a hand on week' s wages.
Question. Chief clerk of whom?
Answer. Of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Do you know the persons yourself?
Answer. I do not.
By the Chairman:
Question. After the action of the second board, what did the Secretary of the Navy do?
Answer. The Secretary called me in and stated to me the difficulty
of the second board. Taking a piece of paper he made a diagram of
the action of the propellers. He agreed with me precisely in my
view of the case. He confirmed and endorsed my opinion of the true
effect of the action of the propellers revolving the same way, as in
my plan.
Question. What further was said?
Answer. Some four or five days afterwards he decided, as he said
he was anxious to give me the contract, to have a board outside of
the navy. At my earnest request, begging him not to let any one
know who should be upon that board, he wrote each individual letter
himself, and no one in the office knew anything at all about the parties he had selected.
Question. What induced you to give this caution to the Secretary?
Answer. Rumor was rife everywhere; I was surprised at it. I was
told that nothing could be trusted in the officers. This was upon my
first visit to Washington upon the contract, and I was advised to
avoid the officers.
Question. Did you communicate this to the Secretary?
Answer. I did.
Question. What reason did you give to the Secretary why you
wished the board of civil engineers should be known only to himself?
Answer. The fear that some of the officers of the department, and
particularly the engineering bureau, would interfere against my plan.
Question. What did you state to the Secretary about your fears that
such had been the previous course of action?
Answer. I stated that I had been informed that the engineer-incharge had done everything in his power against me.
Question. What did the Secretary reply to this?
Answer. I forget his reply. I believe he made no reply at that time.
Question. Whom did the Secretary appoint as members of this outside board?
Answer. The Secretary appointed Mr. Corryell, Mr. Jones, and
Mr. Smith.
Question. Who was Mr. Smith?
Answer. Mr. Erasmus N. Smith; and, by the by, I have received
from Mr. Smith his recommendations to the department. They are
voluminous- and of the very best character.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.              125
Question. But who is this Mr. Smith?  What is his employment,
and where is he?
Answer. He is chief engineer for the Havre line of steamers.
Question. Who was Mr. Jones?
Answer. He is the superintendent of the works of IsaacP. Norris
& Co., in Philadelphia.
Question. What was the result of the action of this Board of Civil
Engineers?
Answer. Two of them reported in my favor, and one of them reported against me.
Question. Who reported in your favor?
Answer. Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith.
Question. Was Mr. Corryell, at this time the superintendent of the
Morgan Works in New York, then and now engaged in building one
of the government sloops?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you have any interview with the Secretary then?
Answer. I had, after some days.
Question. State what transpired at that interview.
Answer. The interview was not very definable, if I may say so,
because the Secretary would not speak much upon the subject. I
asked him  repeatedly, day after day, when he intended to decide.
I did not know the result of that board, however, until it came
through the department. I asked Messrs. Smith and Jones what the
result was, and they both individually replied, "You must get it
from the Secretary."
Question. They declined to give you any information?
Answer. Yes, sir. Of course there was some doubt and anxiety in
my mind about the matter; and when I heard that they had reported
in my favor I asked Mr. Toucey if that was the fact. He said it was.
Question. What then occurred?
Answer. Nothing. He was too busy to decide to take up the matter, he said. He replied, for four days consecutively, that he had
not time to take up the matter.
Question. From whom did you first hear of the actual award?
Answer. From a gentleman of the name of Lynch, who said he had
got it from the department.
Question. Who is this Mr. Lynch?
Answer. I do not know what his occupation is.
Question. Did he tell you that he had got the information from the
department?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In the interview you had with the Secretary, between
the time of the report of the civil engineers and his own award, did
he say anything to you about a variation of the specifications or a
variation of the proposals?
Answer. He did.
Question. What did he say?
Answer. He stated that he wanted speed, and that he wanted it
guarantied; and he gave me a formula, noting it down with a pencil.




126            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC
say $150,000 for 17 miles per hour, deducting $10,000 for every mile
not so performed, and adding $10,000 for every mile gained, over
and above the $150,000. I then gave him the addition to my proposals, beginning at $180,000 for 20 miles per hour.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Are you willing to guarantee 20 miles an hour?
Answer. Statute miles, most assuredly I am.
Question. Is not that a pretty strong guarantee?
Answer. It is; but with these light draught vessels, of proper
build and with proper lines, there is no kind of difficulty in it. But
it will be at the expense for power I would not have guarantied, as I
said to Mr. Toucey, for the price of $126,000, for the weight of material would have amounted to at least 331 or 40 per cent6 more.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you give him the guarantee?
Answer. Yes, sir; I did so, according to his own formula.
Question. Did he notify you that he expected to ask any other
person to make this guarantee?
Answer. Not in the least. When he gave me that formula I could
have sworn that I had the contract. I looked upon it merely as a
matter of favor to the Secretary, as he had requested me to give him
that great speed.
Question. Did you have any interview with the Secretary after
giving that guarantee and before hearing of the final award?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was said then?
Answer. He then stated that I had lost in price; that my competitors had offered the lowest sum for a greater speed.
Question. When was this?
Answer. This was some days after I had given the guarantee; some
time about the 27th of December, or thereabouts; on the 28th of
December, perhaps.
Question. Did he tell you upon whose recommendation he had
finally made the award?
Answer. He did.
Question. Upon whose was it?
Answer. Upon the recommendation of the bureau of the engineer.
in-chief. He said he had sent back the documents to the engineerin-chief.
Question. Did he exhibit to you the statement of the engineeriini
chief?
Answer. He did not.
Question. What did you say to him then, if anything, in regard to
this action of the engineer-in-chief?
Answer. I said that it was fraudulent, that it was wrong, and that
I would not submit to it.  I then observed to him that I would give
him an affidavit, the affidavit which I have the honor to submit to the
committee.
Question. I would ask you to look over this paper and see if it is
the complaint filed by you in the department, This is the official copy.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                127
Answer. This is correct, with two exceptions: the expression "to
answer their plans" should read "to alter their plans;" and then the
schedule of sums. I was induced by Mr. Toucey's advice and request
to make those sums $175,000; consequently, making the seventeen
miles per hour $145,000 instead of $150, 000.
Question. Was the time included in your propositions for furnishing the engines after the ship was launched, less or more than the
time specified by your competitor?
Answer. I do not know about that; my time was two months after
launching.
Question. Look at the letter now shown to you and state whether
that letter or communication was ever exhibited to you, or its contents made known to you?
[Witness was here shown a communication from Samuel Archbold
to the Secretary of the Navy, dated "Office of the Engineer-in-Chief,
December 24, 1858."]
Answer. This is the first time I have ever seen it or heard of it.
Question. Did you have any conversation with the Secretary of the
Navy when you presented your affidavit, a copy of which has been
shown you?
Answer. I had not at the moment.
Question. Did you have at any time afterwards?
Answer. Yes, sir; immediately afterwards, perhaps half an hour
afterwards.
Question. What did he say to you then?
Answer. After he had read it, he said:' I can hardly believe this;
but I do assure you, Mr. Norris, that if you can bring further proof,
and can substantiate the fact that Mr. Archbold has furnished copies
of your drawings, I will discharge him  forthwith, and see you
righted."
Question. Did you ever, at any time, furnish him any affidavits?
Answer. Yes, sir; I furnished positive affidavits; that is, certified
copies from different persons: Mr. Griffith, Mr. Everett, Mr. Whipple,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones, and others. This is a copy of the testimony I
furnished.
[See Appendix "A " to this deposition.]
Question. Who acted for Reaney, Neafie &  Co. in all these
transactions?
Answer. A gentleman by the name of Witte, an ex-member of
Congress from Pennsylvania.
Question. Is he a member of the firm of Reaney, Neafie and Co.?
Answer. Not that I know of; I have always understood that he
was their agent.
Question. To what is his agency limited?
Answer. To the obtaining of contracts at Washington.
Question. Do you know how many contracts he has obtained from
Washington?
Answer. I do not.  I never knew him until about a month or six
weeks ago.




128            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. What was the degree of intimacy existing between
Archbold and Witte?
Answer. Of my own knowledge I can say nothing of that.
Question. Did you have an interview afterwards with the Secretary
of the Navy, in the presence of Mr. Witte, in regard to the charges
made by you?
Answer. I had an interview with him, and one of the most surprising that I have ever encountered in my life. Mr. Toucey took
this testimony and looked over it very carelessly, and then commenced
by saying that he held in his hand the testimony which I had sent
him.  Then said he: "In regard to furnishing copies of your plans
from the office, that is a matter of no moment, for I authorized Mr.
Archbold to furnish them." I was struck dumb with astonishment;
for he had said only a few days before that if I could substantiate
the.fact that those copies had been furnished he would discharge Mr.
Archbold forthwith, and see me righted.
Question. What further did he say in regard to the want of compliance with the specifications of the plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. He said it was of no moment, as there was a clause in
every contract whereby these deficiencies could be made up.
Question. Was this conversation before or after the award was
made to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. It was before the award; the same hour. I will say here
that I pronounced the securities given a fraud at once.
Question. What do you know about that? You said a while since
that you knew nothing about these sureties.
Answer. I know nothing personally; but I have been told by two
of the chief engineers.
Question. Did you mention that fact about the sureties to Secretary
Toucey?
Answer. I did.
Question. What did he say to you; or, rather, what did you say
to him first?
Answer. I said the sureties were " bogus;" that was the very term
I used.
Question. Did you tell him the relation the sureties sustained to
Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was his reply?
Answer. It was, that that could be easily rectified; for when the
contract was made it was the duty of the navy agent to see that the
securities were ample.
Question. Did you say anything to Mr. Toucey in regard to certain
engineers testifying to the frauds contained in the charges you made
against Mr. Archbold?
Answer. I did. I requested permission for them to do so, as it is
a delicate matter always for an officer of the government to testify
unless he has permission of his superior to do so. I earnestly requested Mr. Toucey by letter to enable me to substantiate the fact of




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                129
the copies of the drawings being furnished; but Mr. Toucey paid no
attention to my request.
Question. Did he make you any answer at all?
Answer. Not at all.
Question. Something has been said about your specifications not
mentioning the work at which you proposed to build this machinery.
Did you mention in your proposals the works at which these engines
were to be made?
Answer. I did before the expiration of the time required by the
advertisement.
Question. What was the name of the works you proposed?
Answer. The Norris Works, Bush Hill, Philadelphia.
Question. What is the capacity of that establishment?
Answer. They can work from 1,000 to 1,200 hands; have worked
900.
Question. How large is it in comparison with other establishments
in the United States?
Answer. I think it is the largest in the United States. It covers
more ground, and it is more commodious.
Question. How does it compare with the works of Reaney, Neafie
& Co.?
Answer. It is of twice the size.
Question. Do you know, of your own knowledge, or have you been
informed by any officer of the government, of any recommendations,
influences, or inducements which either Reaney, Neafie & Co., or their
agent, Mr. Witte, brought to bear upon any engineer or officer of the
government in awarding this contract?
Answer. I know nothing of my own knowledge.
Question. Is there any other fact bearing upon this matter that you
deem material; if so now is the time to state it; any fact within your
own knowledge?
Answer. Nothing within my own knowledge, but thousands of
rumors.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Are you one of the owners of the Norris Works?
Answer. I am interested in it.  I was the original founder of that
firm in 1832; in 1842 I went to Europe.
Question. Do you mean by being interested that you are a part
owner of the establishment?
Answer. No, sir; only that I have an interest in the proceeds.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Are you one of the firm?
Answer. No, sir; I am the consulting engineer occasionally.
Question. You are not liable for any of the obligations of the eom-.
pany?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Then you are not upon the firm in any way?
Answer. No, sir.
9c




130            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What description of engines are built principally at these
works?
Answer. Locomotive engines only.
Question. Would there be any difficulty in the company building
proper engines for sea-going vessels?
Answer. Not the slightest.  I said they make locomotive engines
only; they make shafts and heavy castings for steamers.
Question. Was it your intention to have built this engine out and
out at your works?
Answer. No, sir; no shop in the country can do that.
Question. You would have built the most of it?
Answer. Yes, sir; the greater part of it.
By the Chairman:
Question. Please state in what particulars the proposals of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. do not conform to the specifications.
Answer. There are eight particulars.
Question. State them if you please.
Answer. 1. Consumption of coal for horse power per day, as
required by the advertisement.
2. Working power of steam.
3. Weight of machinery.
4. Centre of gravity of machinery.
5. Area of foot valves.
6. Surface of propeller.
7. Kind of propeller.
8. The space taken for their engines exceeds the space allowed in
the mid-ship section of the ship as furnished to them by the department.
Question. Are these the variations to which you called the attention
of the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. Yes, sir; these are the same.
Question. Did you communicate these things in writing?
Answer. I did.
Question. I will ask you whether you sent to the department any
political letters, or letters of a political character, to favor your application?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Please state the reasons for that course.
Answer. I should qualify my statement.  When I found there was
a doubt and a delay on the part of Mr. Toucey, and when I heard that
I was considered a whig and not a democrat, I immediately went off
to Philadelphia, obtaining letters stating my position there, what it
had formerly been, and what it was at the present time. I received
letters from the collector and the surveyor of the port, from Mr. John
Brenner, jr., Mr. Phillips, &c.
Question. What are your political relations, and what is the political
standing of your competitors, Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I have always understood that they were whigs.
Question. Are these copies of the letters sent in in regard to your
political standing?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 131
[Witness was here shown official copies of letters furnished from
the Navy Department.]
Answer. I think they are correct copies.
Question. Is it a common thing among bidders and applicants for
contracts let by the government to establish this point first?
Answer. It is absolutely necessary now. When I first sent in my
proposals I had no idea that it would be necessary. You will perceive
by the dates of these letters, being November 10, November 16, and
December 20, 1858, that it was not until I found that there was a
halt on the part of Mr. Toucey that I obtained them.
Question. Was this award made before or after the election in
Pennsylvania?
Answer. After the election.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
WILLrAM NORRIS was recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Under what specifications did you put in your first bid
for the ship building at Philadelphia?
Answer. Under those that are at present in this office.
Question. The specifications for all the ships?
Answer. For all the ships, sir.
Question. Was there anything peculiar to the ship at Philadelphia
in the manner of its construction?
Answer. It was very peculiar and distinct from all other ships in
the way in which it was to be built.
Question. State the peculiarities of that ship.
Answer. That ship was to be built by Mr. John W. Griffith. He
was appointed, at my instance, temporary constructor at the Philadelphia navy yard. This ship was intended for great speed, and was
constructed with a broad beam, necessarily requiring certain bulkheads
in order to strengthen and make the whole complete and perfect, and
as strong as anything could be built. It was necessary to make the engines accordingly, to suit these bulkheads spoken of by several of the
witnesses.  The machinery and the ship were a unit, all calculated
at the same time with that one view of great speed, great strength
and efficiency.
Question. State more fully the peculiarity attending the construction
of that ship by Mr. Griffith, in relation to the manner of superintending that ship in its construction, so far as the immediate responsibility
of the Navy Department and the officers of the navy are concerned.
Answer. The officers of the navy had no responsibility. The whole
responsibility was given to Mr. John W. Griffith.
Question. He was not an engineer of the navy?
Answer. He was not an engineer of the navy, but in my opinion
the first naval architect, and of European fame.
Question. In all the other cases they were to be built under the
superintendence of the regular engineers of the navy?
Answer. Yes, sir; under the Bureau of Construction.
Question. Through the supervision of one of the engineers of the
navy?




132             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. Not tlrough the engineers of the navy, but through the
constructors.
Question. Was not an engineer appointed to superintend their construction?
Answer. No, sir; but constructors were.  In this case Mr. Griffith
was appointed naval constructor, and a great deal of latitude was
allowed him in fashioning the shape and planning the vessel. He had
a carte blanc with regard to it.
Question. Were the same specifications which were suited to the
other vessels adapted to this?
Answer. By no means.
Question. Do you know whether other bidders had any opportunity
to know the peculiarities of this ship?
Answer. It was never intended they should; that was Mr. Toucey's
plan from the first.
Question. Did Mr. Griffith inform you as to the particulars?
Answer. We formed the ship and engine together, sir, from the
very beginning.
Question. Was it possible before the first board that there could be
competition for the machinery of this first vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir; because the orders were given so that all bidders
would find the midship section of the ship at the office of the Bureau
of Construction in this city.  They applied there and received the
midship section.
Question. Was that before the assembling of the first board?
Answer. Yes, sir; before.
Question. Had Mr. Griffith furnished that midship section?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was that sufficient to enable parties to bid?
Answer. It is the only thing given by the Bureau of Construction 
the midship section.
Question. Was that sufficient in this particular case?
Answer. It was.
Question. You say that the department did furnish sufficient data
to enable parties to bid intelligently for this vessel?
Answer. I do not know whether the department furnished it; but
it was furnished by Mr. Griffith to the department, and was sent to
the Bureau of Construction, and then the officers of the Bureau of
Construction gave the midship section to applicants.
Question. Then there was an opportunity for fair competition for
the machinery of this vessel before the first board?
Answer. No, sir; not before the first board; I do not think there
could have been.
Question. Then you misunderstood my question.
Answer. I beg your pardon; before the first board I do not think
there could have been.
Question. Then this information with regard to the midship section
was lodged in the department and communicated by the department
after the first board sat?
Answer. No, sir; it was before the first board; the information




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                133
given to the bureau was sent in before the first board met; but
whether they received this information I do not know; Mr. Toucey
said they had not, and that was one of Mr. Toucey's arguments for
calling another board; the drawings were in and the midship sections
taken.
Question. But you have no knowledge whether any information
was given before the first board?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I think you stated that your drawings were the only
drawings suited to the ship?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were the only drawings suited to the ship.
Question. What did that first board decide?
Answer. That first board decided nothing.
Question. Did none of the members of the board express any
opinion at all upon your plan?
Answer. I understood that two gentlemen did; but inasmuch as
there were no competing bids they gave no opinion as a board.
Question. How was it with Messrs. Martin and Archbold?
Answer. They did give an opinion, as I understand by hearsay.
Question. Do you not know the fact from information received at
the department?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You say that you stated to the Secretary of the Navy
that you did not wish Mr. Martin and Mr. Archbold to sit upon the
second board; was that because they had expressed an opinion
against your plan?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You acted then upon that belief?
Answer. Yes, sir; I stated what I certainly believed.
Question. How about the other board? Did they express any
opinion either way?
Answer. That is hearsay also.  I understand that two were in
favor and two opposed. That was the general belief.
Question. Have you any knowledge that two upon the first board
expressed an opinion in favor of your plan?
Answer. I heard it stated that two were in favor of it, but that the
two in favor of it thought it best not to say a word about it, but inasmuch as there were no competing bidders, to let it go again before
the public.
Question. Those two others who were in favor of your plan sat
upon the second board, did they not?
Answer. I believe they did.  Let me see-they did.
Question. Who were they?
Answer. Mr. Hunt and Mr. Whipple.
Question. What opinion had Mr. Hunt as a member of the second
board?
Answer. Mr. Hunt was in favor, as I understood.
Question. You have seen the report of the second board?
Answer. I have not seen the report of that board.
Question. How did the second board decide?




134            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC
Answer. The second board decided, two absolutely in favor, and
two demurred, in consequence of the greater accessibility of the
plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. All preferred your plan to the plan of Reaney, Neafie &
Co.?
Answer. No, sir; and yet they did not prefer the plan of Reaney,
Neafie & Co., because they stated that it took up one-third more
room.
Question. Do you mean to state that none of that board recommended the adoption of the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. They did not, so far as I know.
Question. Did you state the complete specification in your first
proposition entire?
Answer. There might have been one or two or three little items
which I did not.
Question. In what particulars were you deficient, so far as you remember?
Answer. The first was with regard to the centre of gravity of the
m hinery.
Question. Did you state at first the length of time within which
you would finish the machinery?
Answer. I did.
Question. That accompanied the first proposal?
Answer. Yes, sir, within two months after the launching of the
ship.
Question. Did that go before the first board?
Answer. Yes, absolutely.
Question. Was the third board composed of outside engineers?
Answer. Of civilians.
Question. Did you ever say anything upon the subject to either of
these gentlemen?
Answer. Religiously, I never knew one of them; I never saw one
of them.
Question. One of them was from Philadelphia?
Answer. I never saw him in my life until I met him here in Washington.  I was informed at Washington that he was one of the
examiners.
Question. What was the next thing that occurred after the action
of this board of civil engineers?
Answer. I have no idea.
Question. Did you go forward and claim the contract under their
award?
Answer. Certainly I did.
Question. Did the Secretary delay from day to day?
Answer. He did; he gave me no information at all.
Question. Did he say anything about the speed being guarantied?
Answer. That was considerably later.
Question. Before the action upon the bids, did he submit any proposals with regard to guarantying the speed?
Answer. Yes, sir; when I was as confident of receiving the con



CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                   135
tract as I now am  that I am  sitting here, Mr. Toucey wished the
speed guarantied, and thought I should do it. Mr. Toucey's formula
was seventeen miles, at $150,000, which he would be willing to give,
with a falling off of $10,000 per mile.
Question. Did he submit a guarantee for speed, for your adoption?
Answer. He did; and the day after the other parties got my
figures and cut me down $1,000.
Question. Are you sure of that?
Answer. I am confident of it.
Question. Did they alter their bids at all? Did not they submit
their bids in the first instance upon the day after you did?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did they change their bids thei?
Answer. They changed their bids after that, as you will find if you
will refer to the documents.
Question. Did they guaranty the speed in their original bid, or did
they change their bid?
Answer. They offered to contract, according to the report of the
engineer-in-chief, that, "under favorable circumstances, on the trial
trip they will guaranty a speed of sixteen miles per hour, price
$139,000, and will forfeit $15,000 if fifteen miles per hour only is
attained, or $7,500 for each half mile between fifteen and sixteen
miles per hour which they fail to accomplish."
The engineer-in-chief also says in this report: "Being also of the
opinion that, with steam machinery in this vessel of good design and
well executed, a speed in smooth water of fifteen miles per hour may
be obtained, and as Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s bid for this speed
($124,000) is $6,000 less than Mr. Norris', I consider it would be to
the public interest to award this contract to them, with the distinct
understanding that if any slight modification of their present plans
is considered necessary by them to fulfil the contract, that no increase
of space for the steam  machinery be allowed; that the stipulated
speed is to be performed during at least six consecutive hours at the
load draught of water, the successful performance at sea for three
months guarantied, and that during the trial trip the engines, boilers,
and dependencies are not to be subjected to any undue strain or
pressure to produce the stipulated speed."
Now, sir, the difference between my offer and this is this: I guaranty to go, successively, hour by hour, day by day, week by week,
at a speed of 16 miles per hour, while they, Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
only guaranty six consecutive hours' running at that rate of speed.
If they do it for six consecutive hours at any time they please they
have performed their contract, their duty, according to the report of
Mr. Archbold.
Question. If they do it for six consecutive hours at any one time,
can they not do it at any other time?
Answer. I doubt it.
Question. You guaranty to make a vessel run 20 miles an hour for
$180,000. With what rapidity do our swiftest vessels go now?
Answer. The Niagara can be pushed to 20 miles per hour; and I




136             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
have no doubt that Mr. Everett, who has been the chief engineer on
board of her, will say she has been able to do that.
Question. Will you say that it is practicable in a vessel of that size
and in the space allowed you to build her machinery so as to run 20
miles an hour?
Answer. I can in the space allowed, but not with the present
machinery.
Question. You could in the space allowed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you submit a plan of machinery to the department
that would enable you to propel this Griffith ship at 20 miles per hour?
Answer. I did not. But it would be necessary to increase the fire
surface of the boilers; the space occupied lengthways of the ship
would of course be larger, but not the width sideways.
Question. Upon the guarantee of time, giving 16 miles an hour for
6 consecutive hours, they bid their original bid of $139,000 which
was $1,000 less than your bid. Now what is the difference between
their bid and yours at 15 miles an hour?
Answer. It was $2, 000 less.
Question. Is that stated so in that report?
Answer. I am speaking of the original bid; this is wrong. My
price for 15 miles an hour was $126,000.
Question. Did you stipulate for 15 miles an hour?
Answer. No, sir; I stated it verbally at the very commencement to
Mr. Toucey.
Question. When called upon to make an offer for a guarantee of
time what proposals for 15 miles an hour did you make?
Answer. $130,000.
Question. What was the bid of the other side?
Answer. $124,000 as appears by Archbold's report.
Question. When you ascertained that the Secretary of the Navy
was likely to give the bid to Reaney, Neafie & Co., you protested?
Answer. I did.
Question. What was, or what did you make, the ground of your
protest?
Answer. The fraud that I was certain could be proven, and which,
I think, has been proven.
Question. In what did the fraud consist?
Answer. In the engineer-in-chief furnishing copies of my drawings
to Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Have you ever put in any affidavits to that effect, besides
what you filed before the secretary?
Answer. No, sir; but I shall receive more to-day.
Question. What proof did you bring of that fact before the Secretary?
Answer. I brought proof that young Mr. Reaney stated to Mr.
Griffith that he had certain drawings from the department.
Question. Of what did those drawings consist?
Answer. They consisted of the stern of the vessel, with the propeller shafts and propellers.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 137
Question. -Was that a part of your plan or of Mr. Griffith's plan?
Answer. A part of my plan.
Question. Was this information such as might have been varied by
the engineers, or was it such as was necessary, according to Mr.
Griffith's plans.
Answer. They could have been varied.
Question. Are Mr. Griffith's plans carried out?
Answer. Not according to his idea.
Question. Was not this information, which was communicated to
Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., necessary parts of Mr. Griffith's plan?
Answer. Not absolutely necessary, because other arrangements
could be adopted.
Question. Were not these arrangements adopted by Mr. Griffith
himself?
Answer. No, sir; by myself.
Question. Do you mean by yourself alone?
Answer. In consultation with Mr. Griffith; for the machinery and
the ship constituted a unity from the beginning.
Question. Is this the testimony to which you refer? (showing witness appendix to this deposition.)  I read from  the letter of Mr.
Griffith to you as follows, under date of December 31, 1859: "During
the interval between the adjournment of the first board and the meeting of the second, Mr. Reaney of the firm of Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
called on me in reference to machinery for vesseland desiring information. During the interview, Mr. R. informed me that he had received
a tracing from Washington of section of the vessel. On questioning
him I found that the tracing he had received was one of your plans,
showing side elevation, with shaft and propellers; as I had furnished
no such drawings, and you had, I was satisfied that the tracing was
from your drawing and not mine."
Answer. Yes, sir; that is what I referred to.
Question. Was it possible for a man to adapt his machinery to that
vessel without having that information?
Answer. Without having my machinery?
Question. Without having this information?
Answer. Certainly they could do it.
Question. And do it properly?
Answer. Certainly they could.
Question. Did the adaptation of the machinery have reference to
the side elevation of the vessel, or did not the side elevation of the
vessel have control over the adaptation of the machinery?
Answer. Not at all; because it depends altogether upon placing
the bed plates of your machinery; the engines, you may put them too
high or too low down; and if you wish to have the propeller for a ten
foot draught vessel you must have certain centres.
Question. You said yesterday that when you made this statement
to the Secretary, he told you that this was impossible, and that if
any officer of the government had furnished these drawings he would
turn him out?
Answer. He did say so.




138            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. When you brought these papers to the attention of the
Secretary, did he have any paper from Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. State what took place when you came to ask his decision
upon the evidence?
Answer. When the Secretary said if I could substantiate my charge
he would discharge the engineer-in-chief and see me righted; I told
him I would go on to Philadelphia at once in order to get this testimony to prove everything in my paper; I did go on, but while I
was in Philadelphia it struck me that it was necessary to obtain the
Secretary's permission to enable Messrs. Everett & Whipple to testify; I accordingly addressed the Secretary a letter to that effect, to
which he never replied; I obtained my testimony as you now have it
on file, and called to see Mr. Toucey; after a day or two he took the
testimony up, sheet by sheet, affidavit by affidavit, when he came to
the first, Mr. Griffith'  statement, he said, "  in regard to taking these
drawings, that is a matter of no moment, for I authorized the engineer-in-chief to send these drawings"  when he said this I saw very
evidently that the Secretary had condemned himself; I said,'"Mr.
Secretary, it is impossible for you to say so now when you were so
indignant the other day;" he then passed on to the other papers,
and paid no attention to what I had said; he said that Mr. Whipple
did very right not to testify; and, as for Mr. Smith, he considered
him to be a very able engineer, but he had been waylaid and influenced by me to vote in the way he did, and as his previous determination had been not to select a man from  Philadelphia upon this
board, but that in consequence of other parties resident in New
York and in other places being occupied, and not hearing from them,
he was compelled to go to Philadelphia, and lie had therefore selected Mr. Jones, of Philadelphia, who with Mr. Smith and Mr.
Corryell, constituted the board; therefore, said he, I considered Mr.
Jones of no account at all; I cast him out; I did not consider his report as anything; but I considered that Mr. Smith, of New York, and
Mr. Corryell, of New York, were the only two members of that board,
and one voted in favor of your plan and one voted against it; then he
summed up all the reports together and said, that there was one majority against me; he then went on to the question of the delinquencies in the plans and specifications of Reaney, Neafie & Co; he
said that those delinquencies were of no moment, for there was a
clause in the contract by which all those delinquencies might be
remedied;'how about the strict compliance with the advertisement,"
said I;''that is neither here nor there," said he; he then went on
to the matter of the guarantors; he said that when they came to make
out the contract they would take care to have proper securities; then
he said, that inasmuch as lie had referred the matter back to the
bureau, and the bureau had reported that on account of speed the
bid of Reaney, Neafie & Co., was the most favorable, he would decide in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co.; that was the whole of the
matter.
Question. Are you sure that was the whole of the matter?  When




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                139
you insisted that copies of your drawings had been given to Reaney,
Neafie & Co., were those drawings brought up into the room in the
presence of the Secretary?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were they laid down before you?
Answer. They were.
Question. Were you asked to show wherein they had copied your
plans?
Answer. I was; and I said at once that it would be impossible for
ne, having no instruments to measure, to say at once what was the
similarity.  But there is a general appearance of similarity, said I.
But do you see anything in particular, said they, that you can say was
copied? Yes, I do, said I.
Question. Did you say so then?
Answer. I did.  Will you point it out? said they.  It is impossible
for me to point it out, said I; you cannot tell from the boiler, unless
you closely examine it, whether it is the same or not. I replied that
the cylinders appeared to be sixty-five inches by three feet.  Mr.
Archbold immediately said, some other ships are of the same size. I
believe that was all.
Question. Did you state that you had been mistaken in your supposition that your plans and drawings had been copied?
Answer. I did not; religiously I did not; for I could not say so.
They were copied, and I never could have said that I had been mistaken.
Question. Not in the presence of Mr. Witte?
Answer. Not in the presence of any one.
Question. Will you tell me how  you ascertained, between the
meeting of the first and second boards, when you filed a protest
against Reaney, Neafie & Co. having this contract, so I see by these
papers here?
Answer. Not between the first and second boards, but between the
second and third boards, I think.
Question. Perhaps that may be so.  You stated various defects in
their bids.
Answer. Exactly so.
Question.  Well, how did you get at their bids, to know what these
defects were?
Answer. I received that information from one of the engineers.
Question. Which one of them?
Answer. Is it necessary for me to say?
Question. It is.
Answer. Mr. Whipple.
Question. You then received specific information of their bids from
Mr. Whipple between the first and second boards?
Answer. Not of their bids; but I received specific information that
these delinquencies were there, that is between the second and third
boards. 
Question. Did you receive any other information than that these
delinquencies were there?




140            CONTRACTS FOR MACIINERY, ETC,
Answer. None.
Question. Did you hear anything about the particulars of their
plans?
Answer. No, sir, nothing.
Question. Mr. Whipple merely said to you that they had been delinquent in these particulars?
Answer. In certain particulars.
Question. Are you aware that any body informed the other side
that you had been delinquent in any particular?
Answer. I have never heard of it.
Question. Will you tell me what, in your opinion, is of the most
advantage to a bidder, to know the side elevation of the ship of his
competitor, if that ship is a propeller, or to know the defects in the
papers and plans of his competitor?
Answer. If you will pardon me, the cases are entirely different,
because I got this information two weeks after this board had adjourned
and sent in their report, not before.  I never said one word to Mr.
Whipple before that time.
Question. Did Mr. Whipple give you this information before your
final proposals upon the subject of speed?
Answer. None that could have had or did have any effect upon that
offer. The matter was considered as settled when I got this information. It strikes me that it was November 25 that he told me that,
and the board sat on November 2.
Question. The board of outside engineers sat after that time, did
they not?
Answer. The board of government engineers sat on November 2.
I think the third board sat in December.
Question. December 20 is the date of their report.
Answer. It was about the 20th or 25th of November that I got this
information. The instances cannot be regarded as the same, because
this information was given to me two weeks, 18 days at least, after
the adjournment of the board, after everything had been finished on
the part of the board of November 2.
Question. I intended to have asked you to state specifically the
difference between the machinery for this ship and the machinery for
the other ships that were bid for, under general proposals. What
was the difference in relation to the number of propellers?
Answer. All the other ships lhad but one propeller, and were calculated for but one propeller. For the Griffith ship the calculation
was for two propellers.
Question. Did all the bids that came in under the original specifications, except your bid, have but one propeller?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Your original bid, for this ship, had two propellers?
Answer. Yes, sir:
Question. From whom did you get the information as to the number of propellers for the ship?  Was that your plan, or Mr. Griffith's?
Answer. My own.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                141
Question. Did Mr. Griffith design the ship for two propellers, or
for one?
Answer. We designed the ship together, for two propellers, and
not for one.
Question. Did you expect the contract to be given you upon your
original bid?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. Would you have thought that it would have been fair to
have so given it?
Answer. Nothing could have been fairer, in my opinion.
Question. When you had all the information from  Mr. Griffith,
who was acting for the government, and the other bidders had none?
Answer. The Bureau of Construction had the midship section, and
they could have gotten that at any time.
Question. It appears from the bids that these other bidders did not
have the information that you had.  You and Griffith, the government constructor, co-operated together, and he gave you this full information; and yet you think it would have been fair for you to have
had the contract under these circumstances?
Answer. Most certainly; because, as I had told Mr. Toucey himself, I did not consider myself in the same condition as the others.
This was a special ship, for a special duty; and as a carte blanc had
been given for the ship. of course the machinery was included.
Question. I understand you to say that in this case Mr. Griffith
was acting for the government, and had been appointed temporary
naval constructor?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And he gave you this information that nobody else got?
Answer. No, sir; he did not give me information, because he gave
but a general information, the usual information.  He sent his drawings down, according to the requisition of the Bureau of Construction, and no other person but the chief of the Bureau of Construction
could give out the midship section, or any other information.
Question. Did you get the mid-ship section from the bureau?
Answer. No, sir, I knew it before.
Question. You got it in consultation with Mr. Griffith and not from
the department?
Answer. Certainly not from the department, because, as I said
before, the ship and the machinery were to be a unit.
Question. What do you think of the plan of having political testimonials, and getting contracts upon political testimonials?
Answer. I think it is a very shameful way of proceeding.
Question. Did you think so last November?
Answer. I did not, indeed; I thought it was the best thing in the
world, for I hurried down to Philadelphia to get all the testimonials
I possibly could.
Question. Do you know whether Reaney, Neafie & Co., sent any
political testimonials to the department in relation to the subject?
Answer. Not that I know of; I saw a good many gentlemen of the
House of Representatives there upon one occasion when I went in




142           CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
with Mr. Witte and other parties; and I understood there, in the
ante-chamber of the secretary, that they were boring.
Question. You did not know, however, in November, that any
political testimonials in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co., had been sent
to the department?
Answer. I could not account for the delay, for really I thought my
name was of sufficient strength-I was fool enough tb believe so-to
carry this contract without any outside aid.  I was asked who were
my political friends here.  Said I "I know Mr. Phillips and Mr. Florence, the member from  my city."  And. some of my friends at the
hotel said, "who have you got here to go with you?" Said I "nobody."
They told me it would be far better for me to get some political help
in Philadelphia.  I thought so myself from the great delay, which I
could not understand the reason of. So when I came down fiomr
Philadelphia I brought a great number of letters; I did not read some
of them.
Question. It was the delay that induced you to resort to political
influence then?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And not because you heard that Reaney, Neafie & Co.
had sent testimonials of that sort?
Answer. I think it was from what I saw also.  I saw that Mr.
Witte was surrounded by two or three gentlemen, all members of the
House of Representatives, and had gone into the office of Mr. Toucey;
and that was what first startled me.  There was a gentleman in the
anteroom  at the same time.  Said I: "What are these gentlemen
doing here  "Oh, they are borers for Reaney, Neafie & Co." was
the reply.
Question. Do you know who used this language:
"On the score of politics, which I have never mentioned before,
I have greater claims upon the government than my competitors.
Our shop at Bush Hill, Philadelphia, was the first institution in this
country that raised the banner of Buchanan and Breckinridge.  The
day after the nomination we raised the standard, with full length portraits of the President and Vice President, and at the election our
shop furnished 764 votes for them.  Notwithstanding the present
monetary depression we gave 312 votes for the administration at the
last election.  We have supported the party with material aid by
thousands of dollars, and worked hard, as any of the party in Philadelphia will testify. Now, my dear sir, our competitors in Philadelphia were most violent working  opponents against the present
administration, as is well known in Philadelphia"?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is a letter which I wrote to the Secretary
of the Navy, and what is there stated is all correct.
Question. Did you think that was proper ground on which to base
your claim for work from the government?
Answer. I am sorry to say, I did.  I did think it was proper then
to do that which I never attempted to do at first.
Question. Who went with you up there when you first went-what
member of Congress?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                143
Answer. No one, sir.
Question. Did any one take you in charge?
Answer. Mr. Buchanan Henry introduced me to Mr. Toucey by
the request of the President.
Question. Did any member of Congress undertake to manage your
case or aid your cause?
Answer. I called on Mr. Florence in the early part of November or
December, and I requested him to assist me. Said I "I have got a
pretty hard matter here, and I want you to come up and help me."
Question. Did the Secretary of the Navy give this work according
to his political affinities at last, or did he give it against a democrat,
and in favor of those who had been "violent working opponents
against the present administration T?
Answer. I do not know what the reasons were for the honorable
Secretary's making his decision, but it looked mighty strange.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You stated that you had got some information from Mr.
Whipple with regard to defects in the specifications, I believe?
Answer. Delinquencies in the specifications was what I called them.
Question. Well, I call them defects. I wish to ask you whether you
had an opportunity in consequence of that information from  Mr.
Whipple to change your bid in any way?
Answer. None at all.
Question. It was not such information as would enable you to make
any @uch alteration?
Answer. Certainly not.
Question. It was not asked for or given iwith that intention?
Answer. Certainly not.
[Mr. Ritchie remarked that he had asked these questions for the
purpose of bringing the matter out clearly, as the previous testimony
of the witness might convey an erroneous impression.]
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How did it happen that you and Mr. Whipple were in
conversation in relation to these bids? Was Mr. Whipple a friend
and adviser of yours?
Answer. No, sir. I had not the pleasure of Mr. Whipple's acquaintance until about November 1st, 2d, or 3d. I had never known him
and never seen him.
Question. Did you ever build a marine engine in your life?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have constructed machinery for one.
Question. How many have you built?
Answer. Not a great many. I constructed machinery for one in
Vienna, Austria.
Question. How long ago?
Answer. In 1843 or 1844.
Question. Did the present house of Norris & Sons, in Philadelphia,
ever build a marine engine?
Answer. No. sir.
Question. Do you consider that experience in the matter of building marine engines conduces to success?




144            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. Most assuredly.
Question. If you were acting for the government upon a trust under
equal circumstances, would you give a job of work to a house that
had built a large number of marine engines, or to one that had never
built one?
Answer. If that house that had never built one would engage a
good marine engineer and superintendent, I would give the job to
them as soon as to anybody else.
Question. To which one would you give it in preference? Divest
yourself of this case, and speak on behalf of the government.
Answer. As a natural consequence to the house that had built the
most marine engines.
Question. Do you know anything about the experience which
Reaney, Neafie & Co. have had in building marine engines; how
many have they built?
Answer. I know nothing in regard to that from my own knowledge,
but from report I do.
Question. Does it come within your knowledge that they have been
employed a good deal in building marine engines?
Answer. No, sir; not marine engines. They have built tug-boats
for the Delaware.
Question. Have they never built one?
Answer. I believe they have built one of some four or five hundred tons; and that is all, with the exception of the Lancaster and
the present ship.
Question. They had the contract for the Lancaster?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are these smaller ones than those built upon the same
plan-the same principles?
Answer. Not generally.
Question. What difference is there?
Answer. One is the high pressure, and the other the low pressure.
One is a condensing engine, while the other is a high pressure engine,
and the latter is the class of these little ones.
Question. Do you mean to say that, according to your best knowledge
and belief, Reaney, Neafie & Co. never built any low pressure engines
except for the Lancaster and this other vessel?
Answer. I believe they never built but one or two over five hundred tons. That is what I understand.  The majority of these small
tugs are from sixty and seventy to a hundred tons.   o
Question. What patent of boiler did Reaney, Neafie & Co. employ
in their proposals for this vessel?
Answer. I think they copied mine.
Question. Did they put in Martin's boiler?
Answer. No, sir; they did not.
Question. You think theirs was a copy of yours?
Answer. I think so, sir.
Question. It was then fully as good as yours?
Answer. I have no doubt of it.  Mr. Toucey himself said that the
plans were so perfectly similar that they could not tell any difference
between them.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                145
Question. Did you ever observe the report of the engineer-in-chief
in relation to your plans and those of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and upon
what grounds he reported against you?
Answer. I never observed the report, but I heard the grounds.
Question. He says: "Mr. Norris' circulating air-pumps are singleacting, while Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s are double-acting.  Double,
acting air-pumps have several advantages over single-acting ones, for
engines intended as these are to make over forty revolutions per
minute."  What is your opinion about that fact?  Was there that
difference between your plans and those of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Did you have single-acting air-pumps while theirs were double?
Answer. Yes, sir, that was the case.  As to the comparative advantages of the two, that is a matter of opinion between Mr. Archbold
and myself; and that very matter has been decided upon by all the
boards.
Question. There is one thing in your testimony yesterday that I
wish to ask you about in relation to the guarantors on the bid of
Reaney, Neaffie & Co. Do you know whether the sufficiency of those
guarantors was attested to by the collector, or any of the government
officers, at Philadelphia?
Answer. Their sufficiency was attested to by the navy agent at
Philadelphia. I will refer you to the contract if you have a copy of it.
Question. I will ask you more definitely what I ought to have asked
you before. Is the testimony here given, accompanying your affidavit, the whole testimony that you brought before Secretary Toucey
upon the charge made by you that copies of your drawings had been
communicated by the engineer-in-chief to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Is this all the evidence you submitted to the Secretary of the Navy,
and upon which he decided the question at the time? You will understand, I do not mean to ask you whether this is all the evidence
you had, but whether it is all you submitted to the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. The paper presented yesterday, marked "A," contains
all the evidence which was submitted to the Secretary of the Navy?
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Explain a little more fully what you mean by the machinery and the ship being a unit?
Answer. They were both suited to each other.
Question. You stated in your testimony before, that the ship and the
machinery were calculated at the same time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Am I to understand you as saying that while the ship
was being modelled, the machinery and ship were modelled together?
Answer. I will explain.  For instance, we want a certain power.
Now, how to get that power? We decide at once that it is an impossibility to get that power out of one screw, and therefore we adopt
the plan of two screws for that purpose.
Question. Then you consider this particular ship as not in the same
category as the others?
Answer. Certainly it was not.
10 c




146            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. And I understand you to infer that the authority intrusted
to Griffith in this matter was an unlimited authority in making this
particular ship?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do I understand you to say that you understood it to
embrace the machinery as well as the ship?
Answer. Not exactly; when he received his appointment, it may
not have then been so considered, though I believed it.
Question. You said something to that effect and that was the reason
I asked your view of it?
Answer. Yes, sir; I said so.
Question. Was Mr. Griffith appointed to this duty upon your recommendation?
Answer. Yes, sir.  In August or September, 1857, during the
summer of 1857, Mr. Buchanan requested me to give him the formula
for vessels for the navy, which I did; and it was embodied in Secretary Toucey's report which accompanied the President's message,
word for word, line for line, figure for figure. It was there that this
sloop-of-war originated. These papers are now on file in the department, and it was perfectly well understood at the time that I was to
have the building of the ship. And to carry out that promise, the
only way was to appoint Mr. Griffith temporary constructor inasmuch
as Congress required, by amendment moved the day before the adjournment, that the ships should be built in the navy yards of the
government.
Question. Then I understand you to say that Mr. Griffith was appointed to comply with the requirements of the department in giving
out contracts for building ships; that you considered his appointment
a mere matter of form, and that you expected to have the building of
the machinery of the ship?
Answer. Yes, sir, to build it anywhere I should please to do so.
Question. But a certain form had to be gone through with in giving out the contract?
Answer. Yes, sir.  In order to carry out the intention of the
President and the Secretary of the Navy, they had to appoint Mr.
Griffith temporary constructor, as the ship had to be built in the navy
yard of the government.
Question. And you recommended Mr. Griffith as this temporary
constructor?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was there any great peculiarity in the plan of this ship?
Answer. Yes, sir, very great; differing from all other ships afloat.
Question, I want to ask you again. I understood you to say that
you were not a member of the firm of Norris & Bro?
Answer. I am not.
Question. What is your interest in that firm?
Answer. I have a creditor interest in it.
Question. Have you any interest in any work that you get for it?
The building of this vessel, for instance?
Answer. I was to build it myself.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 147
Question. At their shop?
Answer. Yes, sir, or at any other place.  It would have had a
large amount of the work to do.  My intention was to have gone,
perhaps to Reaney, Neafie & Co., perhaps to New York, anywhere
that I deemed it to be to my interest to go.
By the Chairman:
Question. You say that the paper drawn by Mr. Toucey was shown
to your competitors, and that on the next day they carried in their bid?
Answer. I have no positive knowledge of that; but I am perfectly
satisfied that such was the fact.
Question. Upon what facts do you base that conclusion?
Answer. Upon no facts, only that when I gave my price, the very
next day Reaney, Neafie & Co. came in lower.
Question. Do you know that the next day there was a communication sent in from Reaney, Neafie & Co., varying their bids?
Answer. I see that from this report of the engineer-in-chief.
Question. Who was present at the last interview with Mr. Toucey
about what you have testified?
Answer. Mr. Witte and Mr. Archbold.
Question. Who invited them to be present?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did you call upon Mr. Toucey at the time?
r Answer. No, sir.  Mr. Toucey sent for me.
Question. Did you find these two gentlemen in the room when you
went there?
Answer. They were there, and Mr. Toucey said he had been
waiting for me.
Question. Are the proprietors of these Norris Works your relatives?
Answer. They are younger brothers.
Question. You started the establishment, and in 1847 you retired,
leaving them to carry on the works?
Answer. Yes, sir; I then went to Europe.
Question. And since that time you have been a creditor there?
Answer. Yes sir.
Question. Do they owe you for original purchase-money?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Could the same information have been obtained at the
department in relation to the Griffith ship as in regard to each of the
other ships? That is, the mid section of the ships?
Answer. Yes, sir; the mid-ship section could have been had before
the first board met.
Question. Was any other information given in regard to any of the
ships building than this?
Answer. None other; that was the customary information-the midship section.
Question. The same information could have been obtained of the
department, then, in regard to the Griffith ship as in regard to the
other ships?
Answer. Yes, sir.




148            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. You speak of an interview with the Secretary of the
Navy by Mr. Witte and several members of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When was that?
Answer. It was sometime in November-perhaps after the meeting
of the second board.
Question. In November last?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were these members of Congress stopping here in the
city at the time?
Answer. They came on here expressly for the purpose.
Question. How do you know that?
Answer. I was told so by a gentleman there; it was generally
acceded to.
Question. Please name the gentlemen who went in at that time?
Answer. Mr. Landy, now a member of the House of Representatives,
was there.
Question. Who else?
Answer. Upon my word, I forget the others.
Question. How many were there of them?
Answer. There were two members of Congress with Mr. Witte.
The other gentleman I really do not recollect.  I have forgotten his
name.  Seeing these gentlemen there was what first alarmed me, and
started me off to get political aid.
Question. Up to that time had you obtained any certificates as to
your political character?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know where the other members of Congress was
from?
Answer. I do not; I merely heard it stated that they were members
of Congress; they all went in together with Mr. Witte and Mr.
Toucey.
Question. Do you know how frequently Mr. Witte was at the Navy
Department, or at the bureaus?
Answer. I do not know anything about it of my own knowledge.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When was this that you saw Mr. Landy and Mr. Witte
at the Navy Department?
Answer. Some time in November.
Question. What part of November?
Answer. In the early or middle part; perhaps in the middle part;
I have no recollection of it, only that it was just about the time I
went off to Philadelphia, for seeing them there induced me to go.
Question. Can you not by a little reflection call to mind the time
when you went to Philadelphia?
Answer. I think it was some where from the 20th to the 25th of
November.
Question. And that was the time you saw those gentlemen there?
Answer. It might have been previous to that time that I saw them
there.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 149
Question. How long previous?
Answer. It is impossible to say; that first induced me to return to
Philadelphia.
Question. I wish you would put it within some limits; say that it
could not have been earlier or later than such a time. Was it before
the 15th of November?
Answer. I cannot say. If I could see the letter of John G. Brenner,
I could tell exactly.  It was before November 15.
Question. How long before?
Answer. A day or two.
Question. Do you think it was as much as a week before?
Answer. I do not know; I cannot say.
Question. Could it have been more than a week before?
Answer. Let me calculate.  [A pause.]  It was on the Friday
previous to the 16th of November; it was about the 12th or 13th of
November.
Question. It was seeing them there that induced you to resort to
political influence; that is, to put your claims upon political grounds.
Answer. Yes, sir.  It strikes me that these gentlemen might also
have been there in October.
By the Chairman:
Question. Besides this visit you speak of?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr, Bocock:
Question. Can you be at all certain about that?
Answer. I cannot be absolutely certain; but it strikes me so upon
second reflection.
Question. Your letter reporting yourself a democrat, and asking
favor of the government on political grounds, was dated November 2?
Answer. Then it was in October that I saw Mr. Landy and the
other gentlemen here.
Question. After the action of this board of outside engineers, it
was then, as I understand you, that the Secretary of the Navy called
upon you for proposals for guarantees of speed?
Answer, Some long time after.
Question. You consider that you had authority under that proposition of the Secretary to alter your bid and adopt another to your guarantee of speed?
Answer. Yes. sir.
Question. And the other parties had the same right?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. You put in your new bids on a particular day, the 21st
of December, and Reaney, Neafie & Co. put in theirs on the 22d.
They had the same right to put in new bids that you had?
Answer. I presume so.
Question. Have you any knowledge that they were informed of
your bids then?
Answer. Not any certain knowledge.
Question. Then it is because they put in their bid one day after
your bid that you think they had reference to your bid?




150             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was thert anything in the proposition of the Secretary
of the Navy that made it more proper for you to put in your bid on
the 21st instead of the 22d? Could you not have exercised the right
to have held back until the 22d? In other words, was there any day
fixed in the Secretary's proposition?
Answer. There was no day fixed; but the Secretary said, earnestly, that he wished me to give him a response to it immediately.
Question. If you had had no conversation with Mr. Griffith, and
had had no knowledge of the particular plan of this ship, and had
only got from the department the midship section of the ship, would
you have been able to have put in the bid and plans that you did
put in?
Answer. Certainly I should.
Question. For the ship?
Answer. Not the same plans.  The peculiarities of the ship required a peculiar engine.
Question. Do you say that the peculiarities of the ship, besides the
midship, require a peculiar engine?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then, with a knowledge simply of the midship section,
you would not have put in the same plans?
Answer. No, sir; not in this ship, but in any other ship.
Question. Look at this plan, [showing witness copy of tracing of
drawing from the department, purporting to be that sent to Reaney,
Neafie & Co.]  Whose drawing is this?
Answer. This portion appears to be Mr. Griffith's; the red lines,
showing the propeller, are from my drawings, and the stern of the
ship is also mine.
Question. What does that represent?
Answer. The ship's lines.
Question. What portion of the ship?
Answer. Different portions of it.
Question. Does it give the side elevation?
Answer. No, sir; I see here the stern of the ship and the drawing
of the stern, the mid-ship section, another section further abaft, a
section in front of the bulkhead. This seems to be a copy of part
of Mr. Griffith's plan.
Question. Was a copy of this sent you after the first Board met?
Answer. No, sir; I had no occasion for it.
Question. You had it before?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I perceive from the statement accompanying this drawing that a copy of this was sent to the original bidders?
Answer. I will say, upon reflection, that I am not sure that these
are copies of Mr. Griffith's plans.  I see one or two things here which
lead me to doubt it somewhat.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                151
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I should like to have your definite understanding whether
there was a drawing of the mid-ship section of this Griffith ship in
the department before the first board assembled?
Answer. Certainly; I know it was.
By the Chairman:
Question. You speak of bids; I will ask you whether on the 21st
of December, during your interview with Mr. Toucey, he informed
you of any design on his part to ask further bids as to speed?
Answer. No, sir. There was no idea of that at all. It appeared
to me, as I stated before, that Mr. Toucey had determined to give me
the award of the contract and wished to have the additional speed
included.
Question. Did he inform you that he would receive additional bids
from other parties?
Answer. He did not; but led me to infer that he would receive it
from no one else.
Question. Did you sign the paper as he drew it out?
Answer. I made out a separate paper.
Question. Was it of the same amount of figures that his was?
Answer. Yes, sir. I said seventeen miles for $150,000, and so on.
Question. Was it regarded by you as a new bid, or merely as a
statement to satisfy the Secretary?
Answer. Merely an addition to the general proposal.  I considered
that it was a matter of favor to him.
Question. To satisfy his mind that your vessel would accomplish
his purpose, as to the speed he had in view?
Answer. Yes, sir.
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
No. 25.-TESTIMONY OF J. P. WHIPPLE, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
J. P. WHIPPLE sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. Chief engineer in the United States navy.
Question. How long have you been an engineer in the service?
Answeri. Nearly twelve years.
Question. Were you in Washington between the 12th and 20th of
October last?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were you shown at that time a plan of machinery presented by Mr. Norris for the Griffith ship?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. By whom was it shown to you?
Answer. By Mr. Archbold.
Question. Where were those plans?
Answer. In the office of the engineer-in-chief.




152            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. State more particularly where they were.
Answer. They were lying open upon a large board, similar to this
table.
Question. Could they be seen by any person coming into the office?
Answer. They could, sir.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Archbold received his visitors
in that room?
Answer. He did, sir.
Question. State whether Mr. Witte was a visitor there.
Answer. I have seen him there, sir.
Question. Did you see him there at that time?
Answer. Yes, sir; during my stay in Washington at that time.
Question. Could he have seen the papers lying upon the table?
Answer. He could.
Question. What did Mr. Archbold say to you about those plans?
Answer. He remarked that the engine would break down before
running two hours.
Question. Give us the date of this conversation, if you please.
Answer. I could not give it with any certainty; but it was during
my stay in Washington upon that occasion.
Question. What reply did you make to that remark?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. What were you then discussing or talking about?
Answer. We were speaking about the plans generally. I think
that was the subject.
Question. Did he say anything further about the Norris plan?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Were you a member of either board that sat upon the
plan of building the Griffith ship?
Answer. I was upon the latter board.
Question. Upon the latter board of United States engineers?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who were your associates upon that board?
Answer. The chief engineer, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Everett.
Question. Did Mr. Archbold say anything to the board in regard
to the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question, Did he say anything to you personally about it?
Answer. Not one word, sir.
Question. Did he say anything further about the plans of Mr.
Norris?
Answer. Not to my recollection, sir.
Question. What was the action of the board at that time?
Answer. The vote was a tie; Mr. Hunt and myself voted for Mr.
Norris; Mr. Everett and Mr. Wood, I think, voted for Reaney, Neafie
& Co.
Question. You submitted your views in writing?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Each of you?
Answer. Yes, sir; each of us.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                153
Question. In comparing the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and of
Mr. Norris, how did you find the diameter of the cylinders and the
length of stroke? Were they the same, or were they different?
Answer. They were the same.
Question. How did the diameter of the propellers compare?
Answer. They were alike with regard to that.
Question. How did the boilers compare?
Answer. The plans were similar.
Question. Was one vertical and the other horizontal?
Answer. No, sir; they were both horizontal.
Question. What was the difference in the price, in favor of either?
Answer. Thirteen thousand dollars in favor of Mr. Norris.
Question. Did Mr. Archbold speak to you about your report? Did
he ask you how you had reported?
Answer. He did, sir.
Question. Did you tell him?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. What did he reply to that?
Answer. He said, in a laughing way-I think these were his very
words-" You have got yourself into a scrape."
Question. Did he indicate any further his meaning?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you remember the names of the guarantors for
Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. One was Peter G. Rambo; the other was Samuel Rotan.
Question. Did you have any interview with the Secretary of the
Navy upon the subject of these plans?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he indicate to you his choice between them?
Answer. I thought, from the nature of his remarks, that he fell
into the plans of Mr. Norris.  He made a diagram and explained it.
Question. What else occurred?
Answer. Nothing else. The subject of the conversation turned
upon the screws.
Question. Would the plans of Reaney, Neafie &  Co., if adopted,
destroy what is called the longitudinal bulkhead?
Answer. They would.
Question, What effect would that have had upon the strength of
the ship?
Answer. It would weaken the ship.
Question. In what capacity did Mr. Witte, of Philadelphia, appear
before you in this contest?
Answer. Mr. Witte did not appear before us.
Question. Did you know the capacity in which he was acting?
Answer. Not certainly.
Question. What was your belief upon the subject at the time?
Answer. My belief was, that he was acting for Reaney, Neafie &
Co.
Question. Upon what do you found that belief?




154            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. Upon having seen him upon various occasions in company
with Mr. Archbold. and also in company with Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. What degree of intimacy existed between Mr. Witte
and Mr. Archbold?
Answer. I am not positive as to the degree.
Question. State your observation, as near as you can.
Answer. I should think they were intimate.
Question. Did you know Mr. Witte?
Answer. I was introduced to him, and had perhaps one minute's
conversation with him; not more than that, I think.
Question. Here, or at Philadelphia, was that?
Answer. At Philadelphia.
Question. What is his occupation?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. Do you know of his having been concerned in any other
applications for contracts?
Answer. No, sir.
Examined by Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you know that Mr. Witte, or any one representing
Reaney, Neafie & Co., saw the plans in that office as you have described?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. Was there anything unusual or improper in the plans
being where you saw them?
Answer. It certainly was improper.
Question. Why improper?
Answer. Because it would expose them to the observation of other
bidders.
Question. Do you.know that they were exposed to the observation
of other bidders?
Answer. They would be likely to be so exposed.
Question. Could they not have been rolled up if any other bidders
came in?
Answer. They might have been.
Question. Was it not probable that the plans were under examination at that time?
Answer. They were not under official examination at the time.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was the board in session?
Answer. It was before the board sat.
Question. Were they not under some sort of examination? Were
they not put in that place to be examined?
Answer. I suppose so, sir.
Question. You saw the plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and those of
Mr. Norris?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was there any similarity between them?
Answer. In many dimensions they were very similar.  In sizes they
were very similar in many respects.
Question. Were they not as dissimilar as any two engines that were
submitted?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 155
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You were asked if Mr. Archbold spoke to you about the
report of your board, and you say that he said in a laughing way that
you had got yourself into a scrape. Was there anything improper in his
asking you about it? Would not any one have asked you the question?
Answer. It would be natural.
Question. Do I understand you to say that the plan of Reaney,
Neafie & Co., impaired materially and to an objectionable extent, the
strength of the ship?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. That is your opinion?
Answer. That is my opinion.
Question. What did you think of the plan of the engine of Reaney,
Neafie & Co.; did you condemn it?
Answer. No, sir, I did not condemn it.
Question. You preferred the others?
Answer. I preferred the others.
Question. I now speak of the plan itself; did you consider it a good
plan?
Answer. Under certain circumstances it would be a good plan.
Question. You thought, however, that the other was better?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you think it better in other respects from the fact
that the price was lower?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You preferred it in itself, regardless of the price?
Answer. Yes, sir; I preferred it so far as regards the ship for which
it was intended.
Question. Why so far as regarded that ship?
Answer. Because it admitted of the construction of these longitudinal bulkheads.
Question. That is the only reason then why you preferred it?
Answer. No, sir; I had other reasons, other grounds for preference;
I considered it the more reliable engine.
Question. More reliable?
Answer. Yes, sir; in case of accidents.
Question. Was it a more complicated or more simple engine than
that of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. They were about equal in simplicity; or I would say that
the engine of Reaney, Neafie & Co. was rather more simple in design.
One was a direct acting engine, and the other was what was called
a back-acting engine.
Question. Which was the direct acting engine?
Answer. That of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. The other was back-acting?
Answer. Yes, sir; in the former, the connecting rod passes directly
to the crank; in the latter, the piston rods are elongated and come
back; the connecting rod comes back.
Question. Were they both geared engines?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were both geared engines.




156            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. I understand you to say they were both fine engines?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were both good engines.
Question. I understand you to say that you did not condemn the
engine of Reaney, Neafie & Co., but preferred that of Mr. Norris,
under all the circumstances, for that ship?
Answer. I preferred that of Mr. Norris for that ship.
Examined by Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your profession?
Answer. Chief engineer in the navy.
Question. Was there any impropriety in your being permitted, as
chief engineer of the navy, to see those plans?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Were you consulted by Mr. Norris in relation to drawing
up these plans before they were submitted?
Answer. I was not.
Question. Were you approached by him  at any time to get your
opinion upon his plans?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know anything about the drawings of Mr. Norris'
plan being seen by Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I do not.
Examined by Mr. Ritchie:
Question. At the time you saw the plans upon Mr. Archbold's
table had the board of engineers been appointed?
Answer. No, sir; I think not.
Question. You had not then been appointed a member of that
board?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You were not then in the room upon any business connected with the examination of this plan?
Answer. I did not go there for that purpose.  I was there waiting
for orders.
Question. Were you spoken to either by Reaney, Neafie & Co. or
by Mr. Norris in relation to sitting upon this board?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Were you spoken to by any party?
Answer. No, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Had you any acquaintance with Mr. Norris previous to
the meeting of the board?
Answer. No, sir.
JOHN P. WHIPPLE,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               157
No. 30. —TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL ARCHBOLD, NAVY DEPARTMENT.
FEBRUARY 3, 1859.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have you been consulted as to the machinery now
building at the Washington yard for the Pensacola sloop No. 1?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have been consulted about it.
Question. Did you advise the adoption of that machinery?
Answer. I did not.
Question. What is the peculiar character of that machinery?
Answer. The peculiarity is, that they are using four cylinders in
place of two, with a peculiar arrangement of valves, condensers, and
main crank shaft.
Question. What is your opinion as to the success of that plan?
Answer. Doubtful.
Question. What will be its probable cost over other engines of well
known and approved forms?
Answer. I suppose about $20, 000.
Question. Upon whose recommendation has it been adopted?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. Did any naval engineer of the United States concur in
recommending it?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Were you a member of the first board upon the Lancaster
machinery?
Answer. I was, sir.
Question. How did you report?
Answer. I reported in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. How did the majority report?
Answer. I think the board was composed of three, and that there
were two against Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Was there a second board convened upon that ship's
machinery?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the report of the second board?
Answer. I only recollect my own in that case.
Question. How was yours?
Answer. In favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Still the same?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were not the others all against them?
Answer. There have been so many boards that I do not recollect
that.
Question. Do you not remember that the other three were against?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Why did the Secretray order a second board upon that
machinery?
Answer. I do not know, sir.




158            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Did you not learn?
Answer. If I did I have forgotten.  I do not know his reasons.
Question. Do you know whether he ever read the first report?
Answer. I do not think he did.
Question. Wly?
Answer. Because he handed the report back to me.  Merrick &
Sons, I think, entered' a protest against the decision of the board, and
the Secretary had not opened this when he handed me back the report sealed.
Question. But I understand that the first board reported in favor
of Merrick & Sons?
Answer. I think two were in favor and one against, but they entered
a protest, and the Secretary ordered a new board in consequence of
that protest.
Question. What induced the protest?
Answer. I only know that one of the firm of Merrick & Sons, Mr.
Vaughn Merrick, who came to my room, and, from his arguments
with me, seemed to know exactly what my opininns were upon the
subject.  To the best of my recollection the Secretary had not opened
the report at all, and I believe his reasons were founded upon the
protest of Merrick & Sons.
Question. You say that Mr. Vaughn Merrick came to your room
and argued. Did he know that the majority was in his favor?
Answer. I do not know. He seemed to know my views and discussed them with me, and tried to make me believe his way the best.
He came on several occasions.
Question. Still I do not understand why Merrick & Sons should
protest. If you know any reason please to state it.
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. A second board was then ordered. What occurred after
the report of the second board?
Answer. Mr. Lenthall, the chief of the bureau, and myself were
appointed to make a report upon the whole board. Mr. Lenthall and
myself decided to recommend the adoption of the plan of Reaney,
Neafie & Co., for various reasons; and the Secretary, upon that report, awarded the contract to Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. The final award was made upon the report of yourself
and Mr. Lenthall?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know whether the Secretary read the second
report of the Board of Engineers?
Answer. Yes, sir, I know he did, because he handed me the second
report open.
Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. Witte, of Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is he an agent for Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I have understood him to be; he has acted in that capacity.
Question. Is he their agent in any other respects than in obtaining
government contracts?
Answer. I do not know that he is.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC                 159
Question. Is he a regular agent for persons having claims or pressing for contracts before the department?
Answer. I do not know that, sir.
Question. Has he acted for other parties besides Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Question. What are your relations with him?
Answer. Merely the same as with any other gentleman of my acquaintance.
Question. Were they of a friendly character?
Answer. No more than with a great many others.
Question. How long have you known him?
Answer. About two years and a half, I suppose.
Question. When did you become acquainted with Mr. Witte?
Answer. While stationed at the navy yard at Philadelphia.
Question. How often has he called at your office?
Answer. He has called very often when in the city. I also know
Mr. Witte's family.
Question. You have been at his rooms here?
Answer. Yes, sir; often.
Question. Please tell us whether you were a member of the board
which passed upon the bids of Norris and of Reaney, Neafie & Co. for
the Griffith ship?
Answer. I was a member of the first board, I think-the first board
upon the whole seven sloops.
Question. What action did that board take?
Answer. Two of the members reported against Mr. Norris' enginesMr. Martin and myself.  The other two in their report, to the best
of my recollection, said but little about those engines, but recommended the Secretary to issue new proposals because the other parties had not been furnished with the section of the vessel as it would
be changed by the appointment of Mr. Griffith, naval constructor,
and the adoption of this plan. They recommended to issue new proposals and to send the section of the vessel to the different bidders.
Question. Did you furnish the section of the vessel to Mr. Norris?
Answer. No. sir.
Question. What did you furnish, and to whom?
Answer. We sent to Reaney, Neafie & Co. and the other original
bidders three sections and plans of the vessel copied from Norris'
drawings, but none of the engines or boilers, and no portion of the
specifications; that is a copy of the drawing which has been sent up
to the committee.
Question. Did you furnish them any other information?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you show Mr. Witte any other plans and specifications?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I ask you whether or not you have had the plans lying
upon the table where they could have been seen?
Answer. They may have been seen. All the drawings in my office




1C0            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
are open in the same way.  After the first board sat, there was no
longer an effort to conceal these drawings.
Question. Would you have shown these drawings to any one?
Answer. I would not have shown them to any one outside the navy.
Question. But still they may have been seen by others?
Answer. Yes, sir; all drawings in the office.  The drawers of the
table are open, and everything else.
Question. After the first board, you treated these as other drawings in your office were treated?
Answer. Yes, sir; I expected that they would be called for by Mr.
Norris, and that they would receive modifications.
Question. Was there any difficulty in seeing those drawings?
Answer. There was no difficulty in persons seeing the plans upon
my table or in the office drawers if they chose to look for them in my
absence.  I could not know by whom they were seen, because very
often while comparing the plans I might be called off over to the Navy
Department, across the street; so that any chief engineer or any
member of the corps might have seen them.
Question. Any one else?
Answer. Decidedly. All drawings in the office might have been
seen in my absence.
Question. Did you make any distinction between the plans for the
Griffith ship and the plans of Norris, and other drawings of sloops?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. I will ask you whether the fact that Mr. Norris' bid had
not been finally acted upon should not have made a difference with
regard to these plans?
Answer. I do not know, sir; if I had been directed to keep them
strictly private, I would have done so; but as it was I treated them
as I treated other drawings.
Question. You cannot say, then, whether they were seen or not by
the other parties?
Answer. I cannot say.
Question. Do you know, or have you been informed by any party
that Reaney, Neafie & Co. advised with Mr. Martin in regard to their
plans with regard to the Griffith ship?
Answer. I presume I have been informed so.
Question. Why did they advise with Mr. Martin?
Answer. I do not know, excepting that Mr. Martin is an old and
experienced engineer. I do not know positively whether they did
advise with Mr. Martin; I have only heard so.
Question. Is it customary for engineers in the service of the United
States to draw plans and specifications for bidders, to be submitted
to them?
Answer. I have never done so.
Question. Have you known other engineers to do so?
Answer. I have heard of it; I must say one thing, as engineer-inchief of the navy: when we advertise for machinery for the navy any
gentleman who comes to me and tells me that he intends to be a
bidder will receive from me all the information in my power to give,




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                161
and I will show him any drawing which is the property of the department, to facilitate his plans; I have lately made a report in which I
advise that course.
Question. Would you facilitate his plans by telling him what particular engines or plans would be most likely to be accepted?
Answer. No, sir; I have told them that to-day I may think, a plan
a very good one, and a few days afterwards I may think it not so good.
Question. Have you ever made drawings for applicants?
Answer. No, sir, only for parties having contracts with the government.  But while I have never done so, I think that if a party proposing to bid should ask me for a sketch or tracing of anything which
belonged to the government, and if I had time to make it I should
give it.
Question. Would you communicate information as to the kind of a
ship, engine, or boiler which would be most likely to succeed?
Answer. No, sir, nor how anything would succeed, because that I
could not know. I might like a plan to-day, and a few days afterwards
see a much better plan.
Question. Who drew the plans for the "Brooklyn?"
Answer. So far as I know, they were drawn at Murphy's establishment.
Question. Did not Mr. Martin furnish them?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Have you been informed?
Answer. He might have furnished the drawings of boilers.
Question. Were not the drawings of the' Brooklyn" and the drawings of Reaney, Neafie & Co. quite similar?
Answer. No, sir; they are quite different in many respects. They
are alike in both, being direct-acting engines, but are very unlike in
many of their details. We are building a great many vessels now of
that class with direct-acting engines.
Question. Did Reaney, Neafie & Co. obtain from any officer of the
government drawings of the "Brooklyn" ship?
Answer. They did not.  They could not have obtained them from
the engineer-in-chief's office, for they have only lately arrived there,
and all have not yet been received.
Question. Did you not furnish Mr. Witte, the agent of Reaney,
Neafie & Co., with tracings or drawings previous to the Lancaster
contract.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are you sure of that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you furnish them any information in regard to that?
Answer. No, sir; that is to say, not a general drawing of engine,
or boilers, or anything of that kind. I have furnished Merrick &
Sons with small tracings often.
Question. I ask whether you furnished Reaney, Neafie & Co. with
any tracings of machinery for the Lancaster vessel?
Answer. Nothing which they have adopted in this vessel, except
my own plan of coupling.
11 c




162             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. You made suggestions, however, and did draw some
plans?
Answer. I think not, sir; but it is my practice when any one at
work for the government sends for small tracings to let them have
them.
Question. I ask you if you have not advised Reaney, Neafie & Co.
with regard to price, plans, machinery, &c.?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you not advised Mr. Witte?
Answer. Mr. Witte is entirely unacquainted with machinery.  IHe
knows nothing about it.
Question. You have given no advice to Reaney, Neafie & Co., then?
Answer. No, sir, not with regard to prices or plans to be submitted
to the department.
Question. Can you state why Mr. Witte is employed as the agent
of Reaney, Neafie & Co., machinists, to obtain contracts?
Answer. I cannot.
Question. What knowledge of the business, or what fitness or
capacity for getting contracts has he?
Answer. I think very slight, indeed.
Question. He has no information upon the subject?
Answer. No, sir; nor does he know anything about the marine
steam engine, so far as I know.
Question. Do you know any reason why they should employ Mr.
Witte as their agent?
Answer. I do not.
Question. What is the frequency of your correspondence with
Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Not greater than it is with other contractors for government work.
Question. What is your intimacy with that firm?
Answer. Not greater than with other contracting firms.
Question. Are you acquainted with what is called the Parry thrustbearing?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. By whom is it owned?
Answer. By John Rice, William Rice, and Parry.
Question. What connexion have these parties with the' Pennsylvanian," or with the proprietors of that paper?
Answer. William  Rice is announced as the proprietor of the
"Pennsylvanian. "
Question. What price does the Navy Department pay for the use
of the Parry thrust-bearing?
Answer. it has paid about $1,300 for each of the sloops Richmond,
Hartford, and Pensacola, and for what they have used it on at $12
per cubic foot of cylinder.
Question. How much does that amount to for an ordinary sloop-ofwar; about $1,300?
Answer. I think for the larger sloops, such as the "Richmond'
or the "Pensacola," it amounts to about $1,300.
Question. Is that used in all the vessels?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 163
Answer. In all the late vessels, except one, that are building we
use it.
Question. Who fixed that price?
Answer. That price was fixed by me, sir, I think; that is, to the
best of any recollection, and was based upon a report of a Board of
Engineers.
Question. When was that price fixed?
Answer. Early last summer, I think, or last spring.
Question. Who receives that compensation?
Answer. There are three parties, three owners, so far as I know;
the two Rices and Parry. Parry is the patentee.
Question. Does any one, to your knowledge, share in that?
Answer. Not to my knowledge. I know that those are the parties
whom the government deal with.
Question. How came it to be referred to you to adjust?
Answer. It was only as to the price. It was reported upon favorably by the Board of Engineers, and we have experimented with it a
good deal upon many vessels.
Question. low came the question of price to be referred to you?
Answer. I suppose the Secretary thought it the proper place to
refer it to.
Question. Then the Secretary referred it?
Answer. Yes, sir; the Secretary referred it to me.
Question. Did you have a written contract in regard to it?
Answer. Yes, sir; we had a written contract for each ship we used
It in; not for the navy generally, but for each ship we chose to use
it in. Of course these contract ships we have nothing to do with. The
contractor has to pay all the patent fees, and procure a release from
the owner for any patented invention used in the machinery for the
government.
Question. Did you deduct this from the contract price, or was it
paid by the government?
Answer. It is always paid by the contractor; we have nothing to
do with it.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. This was stipulated in the contract, I presume?
Answer. Yes, sir, it was.
By the Chairman:
Question. You required the contractor to pay this money to these
parties?
Answer. He must procure a release before he gets his final payment.
Question. Was there anything in the specifications which would
indicate that Parry's thrust-bearing is prerequisite to the acceptance
of a proposal?
Answer. When the final specifications are made out, no matter who
gets the contract, the bidders all furnish their own specifications,
and I alter the specifications to omit what I think the interest of the
government requires. Sometimes I alter them  very materially; and
the parties are required to sign those specifications as changed by me.
Sometimes I make very extensive alterations in them.




164            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. I do not exactly understand you. You publish your advertisement containing certain specifications, and those do not contain
any allusion to this Parry thrust-bearing?
Answer. No, sir, those advertised specifications do not.
Question. And after thu advertisement is published, when the
specifications are submitted by bidders, you say you change them at
pleasure?
Answer. I change them in many respects, to suit what I think the
best interest of the public requires, when the contract is awarded.
Question. Do you give them notice of these changes?
Answer. They are shown to all the parties?
Question. What parties?
Answer. The successful bidders-the parties to whom the contract
is awarded.
Question. You do not show them to all the bidders, but only to the
successful bidders?
Answer. I have been in the habit of showing them a certain clause
when we wanted particular things-a clause saying that anything not
herein mentioned to make this machinery perfect in every respect as
a cruising vessel at sea, the parties shall furnish as the government
requires.
Question. Why did you not put it into the printed specifications
that you required the Parry thrust-bearing?
Answer. We might have done so; we might have put in a great
many other things, if it had been thought necessary. We might have
put in the composition piston, which is used in some of our vessels;
but to publish the necessary specifications for a marine engine and
appendages would occupy a whole side of a large paper.
Question. If these things are not specified how can any bidder bid
understandingly?
Answer. If we should publish all these various things in the government specifications it would occupy a great deal of space. You
can see, by those on file in my office, how extensive they are.
Question. Do the executed specifications require this Parry thrustbearing?
Answer. They require the best machinery, and that all the appendages should be of the best kind.
Question. Is there anything the bidder could receive that would
give him notice that he was bound to get a certain patented machine
or his bids could not be accepted?
Answer. No, sir.  I would not press upon the bidder to put in the
Parry thrust-bearing, provided he would put in one equally as good.
We are now making contracts-we have one made, but not executed
yet-where the Parry thrust is not embraced in the specifications.
A good many bidders put in that.
Question. How is it after the successful bidder is named; do you
take the liberty then of changing the specifications at pleasure?
Answer. I change the specifications he has furnished.
Question. Do you change the prices accordingly?
Answer, No, sir, we do not change the prices.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                165
Question. What authority have you to change the specifications?
Answer. I do that only to promote what I consider the public interest.
Question. You do not do it under the provisions of any special law?
Answer. No, sir; I only look to the public interest.
Question. You have therefore prescribed the Parry thrust-bearing
for that reason?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you not require it in all the successful sloops last
summer?
Answer. Yes, sir; a thrust of the most approved kind was embraced
in all the specifications furnished to the department. But there were
many other things besides that; for instance, composition pipes in
place of copper, and copper pipes in place of iron.
Question. Were they informed when they made their bids that it
would be necessary to pay certain parties for the use of this patent?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You allowed them to negotiate the matter for themselves?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is their business.
Question. Why did you fix the price?
Answer. I only fixed it for the government when it was used in the
vessels they constructed. I did not fix it for the contractor; for it is
nothing to us where they get this Parry box, or any other patented
invention. It is nothing to the government whether they pay anything at all for it or not.
Question. Is not the roller thrust-bearing on the San Jacinto equally
good?
Answer. I am not aware that there is a roller thrust bearing on the
San Jacinto.
Question. What kind is it?
Answer. The spherical thrust.
Question. That is what I mean. Is not that equally good?
Answer. It has been reported by the chief engineer of the ship to
the department as not as good. He had doubts whether it would be
as good under the increased power we are applying to the ship.
Question. I will ask your opinion about it.
Answer. I think it is not so good.
Question. Is its use public property?
Answer. I do not know how that is. I think there is a patent, but
I am not positive.
Question. Do you not know that is so?
Answer. I do not know it to be so.
Question. What price did the department pay for the use of Martin's boiler?
Answer. They have never paid anything to my knowledge.
Question. What amount are successful contractors compelled to
pay?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. Did you not learn from Mr. Martin what he received?




166            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY~ ETC.
Answer. He told me at one time what he charged, but I do not
exactly remember now.
Question. Do you know what it comes to on these vessels?
Answer. I believe it is from seven hundred to a thousand dollars
on these sloops.
Question. Do you know what the department pays, or what the
contractors pay, for Sickels' cut-off?
Answer. There are no bidders now that embrace Sickels' cut-offin
their specifications for high speed screw engines.
Question. What did the government pay for that on the Susquehanna?
Answer. I think it is to be five thousand dollars for drawings, patent
fees, and superintending the work.
Question. What did they pay on the Richmond?
Answer. Nothing.
Question. What did they pay for the Pensacola sloop?
Answer. The government have a contract with Dickinson & Sickels
for the Pensacola sloop. They are to furnish all the plans for the
engines and superintend their construction and direction for a certain
sum of money, the amount of which I forget. You have the contract
here.
Question. There was no special sum paid for this patent?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether any Board of Engineers advised
the use of Sickels' plans and cut-off in vessels?
Answer. I have myself advised the use of it in the Susquehanna,
a side-wheel steamer.
Question. Has any Board of Engineers advised it?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. I will ask you whether you, directly or indirectly, received
any portion of the patent fee in any of these cases?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know any person in government employ that
does, for any of these patents?
Answer. I do not know any one, unless it is Mr. Martin, for his
boiler.
Question. Either directly or indirectly?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What price does the department pay for the Pirsson
patent condenser?
Answer. The government have only used the Pirsson condenser in
one of their own vessels; that is, in the San Jacinto.  I do not know
what they paid; it was before I came here. That is another patent
invention which is used in these sloops that the contractors have to
pay for.  I do not know the price; I have nothing to do with it, nor
has the government.
Question. Were you a member of the first board of 1858 that decided
on the sloops? I believe you have said you were.
Answer. I was a member of the board that decided on the seven
sloops by general advertisement.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                167
Question. Were any plans presented to that board made directly
or indirectly by you, or did you advise any party as to either plan or
price?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Which of the plans were made by Mr. Martin, directly
or indirectly?
Answer. I do not know of any being made by him, directly or indirectly. I think it might be very likely that he furnished drawings of
some of the boilers.
Question. Were you not so informed by him?
Answer. I do not recollect that, although I might have been. If
I were to build a Martin's boiler I should certainly send to him for
the drawing of one, giving him the size of cylinders and the quantity
of steam.
Question. Has not the Secretary employed you to assist Woodruff
& Beach, of Hartford, in getting up plans?
Ansier. He has requested me, or ordered me, to give all bidders
for steam machinery all the information in my power, and show them
all the drawings, so that it does not interfere with government duty.
Question. Was there no special order in regard to them-no directions or correspondence?
Answer. No, sir; none at all.
Question. What were your reasons for approving the plans of
James Murphy & Co., Woodruff & Beach, and the Boston Locomotive
Works, over the plans of the Novelty Iron Works and the Allaire
Works, at a difference of price of from $7,000 to $33, 000?  Can you
state any other reasons than those given in your official report?
Answer. I can give no other reasons except those and what is
stated in the synopsis that was made by order of the Secretary, and
which was attached to mly report-the superiority of the drawings
and designs.
Question. You have no other reasons?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether experience in the construction of
marine steamers is not of advantage; and if so, how can it be possible
that Woodruff & Beach and the Boston Locomotive Works, who never
made a marine engine, can on their first attempt equal old established houses?
Answer. It depends entirely upon the engineer employed to get
up the drawings, superintend and execute the work.  One of the
oldest establishments in this country that I know of is the West
Point Foundry, Kendall & Co. They built the engines for one of our
frigates, the Merrimac, and those engines are the most troublesome
of any in our navy. Two sets of these engines were built by Anderson & Dulany, of Richmond,  They are of a very superior quality;
in fact, equal to any in our service or in any other service.
Question. Is not the West Point Foundry one that is chiefly used
by the government, and scarcely ever employed by individuals?
Answer. They have done a good amount of work for individuals
and a very large amount for the government.




168            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. I will ask you whether the West Point Works are not in
bad repute among people?
Answer. I do not know how it is among people; I know among
engineers it has been in the very highest repute.
Question. You think it has?
Answer. I know it has.
Question. Do you not know that most of their work has been done
for government and not for individuals?
Answer. That may have been the case.
Question. Do you know of any substantial work done at West
Point Foundry for the city of New York, or the mercantile interest?
Answer. I do not know as there has been lately.
Question. In answering the question in which I asked you to compare the works of Woodruff & Beach with the Novelty Works, did
you mean thereby to compare the West Point Works with the
Novelty Works or the Allaire Works?
Answer. I was only speaking of an old establishment that has had a
great name, and yet they could make a mistake in machinery. But
in making a comparison it ought to be between the e-igineers of these
establishments the brains of these establishments and not their
standing and their character generally among the public.
Question. I will repeat again the substance of the original question,
whether the experience and present reputation of existing establishments should not weigh something in making these awards?
Answer. The character of the work done at the Novelty Works
would not influence my decision at all in their favor, from what I have
seen. I will mention the engines of the Russian frigate; that is their
last job; and I would not like to have them duplicated for vessels in
our navy in all particulars, though Mr. Allen I like very well as a
gentleman.  In fact, the work done now on these screw marine
engines is entirely a new thing; it is different from our general
marine work altogether.
Question. Do you know that Woodruff & Beach have ever built
any marine work at all?
Answer. I believe they have; a very little.
Question. Have they ever undertaken to build engines for a vessel
of over 400 tons burden?
Answer. I do not believe they have.
Question. Do you think they have facilities to do it?
Answer. I think they have; I have examined that, sir. I know
the engineer of the establishment is a very competent man.
Question. Who is the engineer?
Answer. Mr. Wright.
Question. Did you go and see him?
Answer. I went to Hartford to examine a vessel for the Paraguay
expedition, before the contract was made. I stopped to see their
facilities for executing work.
Question. When the contract was made, you did not know anything
about Mr. Wright?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               169
Answer. I had met him both here and at Hartford, and had a talk
with him.
Question. You did not know anything about the facilities of their
shop?
Answer. Only from what I had seen and heard from others. Nor
do I know with respect to the Allaire Works what their facilities are.
I have not been there for eight or ten years. I have been so much
at sea that I have not had much opportunity.
Question. Was not each bidder required to guarantee the same
horse power and the same number of revolutions by the advertisement?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Such being the case, how is it possible for the machinery
of Murphy & Co. to be worth $33,000 more than that of the Novelty
Works and $15,000 more than that of the Allaire Works?
Answer. The Novelty and Allaire plans were to me very objectionable; I would not take them for the government or for myself at any
price.
Question. You are satisfied with your reasons, as they stand upon
the record, upon this point?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did not Murphy & Co. build the machinery for the
Niagara?
Answer. They did, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether the government did not expend
a large sum of money in altering her machinery after her trip to
Europe?
Answer. I believe they did spend some money when she came
home from her cruise in refitting her for sea again. Some repairs
were made to the valves and alterations in condensers.
Question. Did they not alter her machinery?
Answer. Not materially, to my knowledge.
Question. After her second trip to Europe, was not the department
again compelled to alter her machinery?
Answer. We are now altering her machinery; that is, to attach
a steam cylinder for reversing the engine, so as to assist in working
by hand, and make it perform more quickly.
Question. Were not these repairs chiefly to remedy original defects
in the machinery?
Answer. This putting in this new machine should have been done
at first; but I do not think it was generally known, when these vessels were contracted for, that this machine was in use. I had nothing
to do with giving the Niagara's contract out.
Question. Then this new machinery was to supply original defects
in the plan of the machinery?
Answer. It was thought important to apply this improvement,
which was not embraced in any of the specifications on the old contracts
for these frigates.
Question. I will ask you, in awarding contracts should not the price
govern, the parties being responsible?
Answer. Yes, sir; where their plans are equal.




170            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. I will ask you whether any slight deviations in form
would control the award?
Answer. No, sir; not slight deviations; they would have to be very
material.
Question. Are not these deviations chiefly upon matters in regard
to which engineers differ?
Answer. Well, sir, they may differ; I suppose they do differ very
materially.
Question. And in respect to these deviations, one engineer contends that his plan is right, and others contend that others are right?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. They are upon collateral and doubtful questions?
Answer. Where there is a set of boilers, with 80 revolutions per
minute, and with only capacity to hold five cylinders of steam above
the water line, that is something that I could not vote for as a member of a board, acting for the government, at any price whatever;
and there are some other prominent defects that I could point out on
plans that have been sent in.. I have always reported in favor of the
lowest bidder where I approved of the plans. I did report for one
offer, Mr. Reeder's; I think that bid was $97,000.
Question. Did he get the contract?
Answer. No, sir. There were two members of the board who reported in favor of his plans: one reported in favor of the engines
and against his boilers, and the other objected to his plans in toto.
Question. What was the result?
Answer. I believe he gave up his right to the contract, or something to that effect.
Question. Do you not know that he was deterred from presenting
his bid?
Answer. I did not deter him; I do not know who did.
Question. What was the final result of that matter?
Answer. There was a new board ordered and new bids were given.
Question. Who got the contract?
Answer. Murray & Hazlehurst, of Baltimore.
Question. For how much? was it not $120,000?
Answer. I think it was over that —131, 000 for 14 miles per hour.
They had a speed bid. Merrick & Sons was a low bid, $102,000. I
voted for them while I was a member of the board.
Question. I will ask you if some of the bidders were not allowed to
amend their plans and specifications to suit the suggestions of the
board before the contract was awarded?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who were they who did that?
Answer. I think Merrick & Sons did; I do not remember positively.
Question. They were the successful bidders at Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who else did?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question. Did not Murphy & Co. change their plans for the New
York vessels?




CONTRACI S FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               171
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. Did not Woodruff & Beach change their plans?
Answer. I think they did, slightly.
Question. At whose suggestion?
Answer. At the suggestion of members of the board, sir.
Question. Were such suggestions made to all?
Answer. I think so, sir; they were to the Allaire Works.
Question. When you had selected the plan that suited you best, did
you make any effort to ascertain whether any other firm would build
an engine of that particular plan at a lower price than the bid for
that plan?
Answer. No, sir; there was no effort of that kind.
Question. Why, then, did you do that in regard to the Griffith
ship?
Answer. Because none of the bidders, save one, Mr. Norris, knew
that the vessel was to be propelled by two screws; that was a change
made, and this naval constructor, Griffith, was appointed after the
advertisement of the department was made; that was all the reason.
Question. Did any of the bidders for the first seven sloops know
what plan of engines you wanted them to construct?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had they any means of knowing?
Answer. I do not know how they could know, for I did not know
myself at that time.
Question. Was there, then, any real competition as to price, the
plans of the engine being uncertain?
Answer. I should say there was competition, both as to price and
plans?
Question. If the plans, as adopted, had been advertised for new
proposals, would not then the competing bidders have had an opportunity to have competed for the price?
Answer. It would perhaps be as well for the government in building steamers to get up a set of plans by a Board of Engineers, and
then to decide upon the best plans, make these plans fully out and
lithograph them.  This would be a very heavy expense; but if it
were done, and they advertised for the lowest bidders upon those
plans, then prices would control the whole matter.  It would perhaps
be for the public interest to do so; there is only one objection, it
might be said that the talent of the country would not come forward
with plans.
Question. What difficulty would there be in advertising for plans
in the first instance from all the competing engineers in the country;
and then, having adopted a plan by such a board as you mention,
calling for bids as to price?
Answer. You would have to bring all the bidders to Washington
to show them the plan which had been decided upon.
Question. Could they not be lithographed and sent to bidders?
Answer. It would be very expensive to lithograph them.
Question. How much would it cost?
Answer. Perhaps ten thousand dollars for the plans and lithographs




1 72           CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
alone, especially if they reported upon two or three different kinds of
plans. The expense might not be so great if they took up one particular engine, which they would not be very likely to do, because
they do not agree in opinion about engines.
Question. But suppose we take the successful plan, the one which
was finally determined upon, would there be any difficulty in lithographing that plan and sending it out?
Answer. No, sir; it would only be a matter of expense and time.
Question. Would it cost ten thousand dollars?
Answer. Not for one plan.
Question. How much would it cost, lithographed, as I have seen
them?
Answer. The drawings, in the first place, for one set of these screw
engines-the whole detailed drawings-would cost, I suppose, about
one thousand dollars.
Question. Is not that done by officers of the government in your
bureau?
Answer. It is not done in the Navy Department; it is done by officers of the army and of the Light-house Board. That is a simple matter to what a marine engine is.
Question. What would be the expense of lithographing them?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Could you, by this method of merely advertising for
plans —giving it to be understood that you did not intend to give the
work to the best bidder-could you elicit the best talent?
Answer. You would have to pay a very high premium for it, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. I will ask you whether the leading parts of steam machinery for sloops-of-war have not, in the course of modern improvement,
assumed a definite shape, so that particular forms are recognized
everywhere as the best?
Answer. In my opinion they are not; they are very uncertain.
That is quite an open question. In fact, we are now introducing into
these vessels recent improvements and modifications.
Question. Was there any variation in the contract of Murphy &
Co. after the contract was awarded to them; I mean as to the specications?
Answer. I varied all the specifications for the Brooklyn' s machinery.
I think the contract was made out since I have been here.
Question. Changed them entirely?
Answer. Not entirely, sir.
Question. Did you not also change the price in the contract of
Murphy & Co.?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you require them to do work which they did not embrace in their specifications?
Answer. I require them to do everything deemed for the public
interest before their contract and specifications are sent to them to
sign. I point out to them that such and such things will be required;




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               173
that is according to the usages of the department. I do not suppose,
in connexion with that, that there are two engine establishments in
the United States that would send a set of specifications into the Navy
Department but what would want to be altered somewhat before
being sent back.
Question. I will ask you to whom invitations for bids for the Griffith
ship were sent after the meeting of the first board?
Answer. I think they were sent to the five other bidders, who did
not know of the change in the section of the vessel; that she was to
be propelled by two screws and to have increased power. These were
sent from the Navy Department, and not from the bureau.
Question. Was the same sent to each bidder?
Answer. Yes, sir, precisely the same. They were sent with the
original advertisement or circular from the department.
Question. Did you send any tracings to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. Yes, sir, the same that were sent to the other parties.
The Allaire Works were the highest bidders for the second.
Question. How many days intervened between the first board on
the seven sloops and the second on the Griffith ship?
Answer. It seems to me that it was thirty days; I cannot state
positively, but the circular will tell you.
Question. Were the plans of Mr. Norris still lying on your table
then?
Answer. They would be in my office, either in a box or on the
table. They were not out of the office, to my knowledge. They had
to be on the table, for I copied the sections of the vessel from those
drawings.  We had no other means of getting the sections of the
vessel, without sending to Mr. Griffith at Philadelphia.
Question. Did you copy that from the plans of Mr. Norris?
Answer. The sections of the vessel, not the machinery.
Question. To what person besides the engineers, Everett and
Whipple, did you show those plans?
Answer. I do not recollect, sir; but if I was working upon them it
is very probable that I should show them to any chief engineer who
was in there and should ask to see them. I do not recollect to whom
I showed them; I do not remember showing them to Mr. Whipple, even.
Question. Did any other person besides Mr. Witte call upon you
in behalf of Reaney, Neafie & Co. during this time?
Answer. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Witte would come in to know
when the decision would be made.
Question. Did you not disparage to several persons the plans of
Mr. Norris by remarks?
Answer. When I was on the board I gave the reasons for my opinion.
Question. Was you not very free in expressing your opinion when
the subject was raised?
Answer. I do not know when the subject was raised. I express my
opinions very freely on everything connected with my duties.
Question. Did you not know that these plans were still open for
the decision of the government?
Answer. I did not know anything about it, whether these plans




174            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC,
were going again before the board, or whether.they were to be recalled and modified.
Question. To whoever you conversed with you may have expressed
your opinion on these plans?
Answer. I think it very likely. I generally express my opinions
without hesitation when conversing on any subject.
Question. And you condemned these plans decidedly?
Answer. A part of them I did.
Question. Do you know when these plans were made out, Morf.
B. H. Bartol, of Philadelphia?
Answer. I think it was before the board adjourned.
Question. Did he not design the machinery of the Wabash?
Answer. I think Merrick & Sons designed her machinery.
Question. Was she a successful steamer?
Answer. In some respects; I think she has some faults about her
machinery.
Question. Do you know the profession or occupation of Mr. Bartol?
Answer. I do, sir; he is a mechanical engineer; he is the engineer
of Merrick & Son's establishment.
Question. Does he stand high in his profession?
Answer. He does with me; but, like all others, he is subject to
make mistakes.
Question. Did you ever design the machinery for a propeller warsteamer?
Answer. I have designed the engines for the Richmond, with the
exception of the valve motion, which is Sickles'.
Question. When was that vessel built?
Answer. It is now being built in the Norfolk navy yard.
Question. Have you ever designed the machinery of a steamer which
is now in successful operation?
Answer. No. sir, I never have.
Question. Do you consider that you are as good a judge of the
plans of these propellers and the machinery for these propellers as
such men as Mr. Bartol and Mr. Corryell, who are engaged in actual
construction?
Answer. I do, sir; I have had more experience in managing engines at sea than either of these gentlemen, and have been as long
connected with that business as either of them. There are some other
matters connected with engineering with which Mr. Bartol is perhaps
more acquainted than I am-light-houses, for instance.
Question. You think that as to propellers you are as good a judge
as he is?
Answer. Yes, sir; as good a judge-I do not say better.
Question. Did you not converse with some members of the second
board with regard to the plans submitted for the Griffith ship?
Answer. I recollect one of the members of that board coming in
to me while the board was in session and asking my advice as to
what he should do. He seemed to be very much annoyed. My
advice to him was to do his duty faithfully and conscientiously.  I
had no other advice to give him.  That member was Mr. Whipple.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                175
Question. Did you not advise or speak to members of that board,
or some of them, in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and advise them
to report in favor of them?
Answer. I did not, sir, to my knowledge.
Question. Did you not make disparaging remarks in regard to Mr.
Norris' plan in their presence?
Answer. One thing I did. After the board had adjourned and sent
in their report, they were in my office at my table, and they were
telling me what their report was. I recollect Mr. Whipple said he
had voted for Mr. Norris' drawings; and I said to him in a jocular
manner, "If you have voted for an air-pump with the delivery valves
one-fifth of the area of the pump bucket, you have got into a scrape,"
or words to that effect.
Question. Did you not urge some members of that board to report
in favor of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I did not, sir; nor did I care who they reported in
favor of.
Question. Why did the Secretary order the other board of engineers from civil life?
Answer. I believe his object was to see wherein they differed from
naval engineers; I do not know any other reason.
Question. Did you not speak to Smith, Corryell, or Jones, or either
of them, members of the civil board, in favor of Reaney, Neafie &
Co.'s plans?
Answer. I did not.  I recollect going in before the board upon one
particular subject, because I had an idea that Mr. Norris would get
the contract, to ask them  about the coal bunkers underneath the
boiler. I wanted to know whether, in their opinion, this was a proper
place to stow coals. I asked them whether they would recommend a
thing of that kind, as I wished to know.
Question. Did not your remarks, on that occasion, show that you
were opposed to the adoption of Mr. Norris' plans?
Answer. No, sir; they had nothing to do with the engines, but
were merely in reference to the coal bunker under the boilers.
Question. Did you not give them to understand which you favored?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had they not any information from the first board?
Answer. I do not know, sir; I did not communicate it to them, nor
did they ask me, to my knowledge.
Question. You say you expected the contract would be delivered
to Mr. Norris, did you not so state to the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I reported to the Secretary of the Navy, when these
reports were submitted to me, in favor of giving Mr. Norris the contract, on account of his being the lowest bidder, if he would modify his
condenser and delivery valves, and with regard to the screws revolving in the same direction, as it was expected that Mr. Griffith, who
was appointed to construct the ship, would be held responsible for
that, as he had endorsed it.  I recommended his giving Mr. Norris
the contract provided he would modify his plans.
Question. I will ask you if you did not suggest to the Secretary of




176           CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
the Navy the propriety of getting some further statement from Mr.
Norris in regard to the speed of his vessel?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with the Secretary
of the Navy upon that subject?
Answer. I think it very likely that the Secretary told me that he
was going to get bids for speed.
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Witte in regard
to that matter?
Answer. Mr. Witte told me that he had made a speed bid. I did
not know what his bid was; he came into the office and told me. I
did not know what his bid was until the Secretary handed me both
bids.
Question. Did you suppose then that the award would be in favor
of Mr. Norris?
Answer. I advised the Secretary to give it to Mr. Norris, provided
he modified his air-pump in the first instance.
Question. Was Mr. Norris requested to modify his air-pump?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did the Secretary of the Navy state to you any reason
for not giving the contract to Mr. Norris?
Answer. The first thing I knew was having a couple of speed bids
by Mr. Norris and by Reaney, Neafie & Co. handed to me.
Question. Do you know that the Secretary of the Navy drew up
the original of that statement which was signed by Mr. Norris?
Answer. I should think he did not.
Question. Up to that time had you supposed that, as a matter of
course, the award would go to Mr. Norris?
Answer. I had reported in favor of it provided he modified his
drawings.
Question. Was there any considerable strife between these competing bidders in regard to these bids?
Answer. There seemed to be outside; I do not know anything
about it.
Question. Did they not have gentlemen, members of Congress,
appear on the one side or the other, or on both sides?
Answer. Members of Congress did not come to me in regard to
either of them; I understood there were a good many of them
interested.
Question. Do you know that members of Congress on both sides
endeavored to influence the awards?
Answer. I heard that they did; I did not know that until I saw
their letters in the Navy Department when this committee called for
them.
Question. Do you know any occasion when Mr. Landy called there
upon the subject?
Answer. He called upon me and asked me when this thing would
be decided.
Question. For whom was he in favor?
Answer. He seemed to be interested for Reaney, Neafie & Co.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.              177
Question. What other member of Congress seemed to take an
interest upon either side?
Answer. I do not recollect any.
Question. Do you remember any member of Congress who seemed
to take an interest on Mr. Norris' side?
Answer. None came to me upon the subject.
Question. Did you hear of any going to the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I heard of them going or sending to the President and the
Secretary; but I do not know it of myself.
Question. Are you acquainted with any parties connected with the
Atlantic Works in Boston?
Answer. I know the engineer, Mr. Hibbard.
Question. Where were their plans made for the Norfolk sloop?
Answer. I suppose they were made by the engineer of the establishment.
Question. Were they not made in this city?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you know that they were drawn up here?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Did you, directly or indirectly, aid in getting up these
plans?
Answer. I did not; nor did I ever see them until they were brought
before the board.
Question. Did you say anything to the members of the board to
which these plans were presented in favor of them?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are you acquainted with J. Glancy Jones?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with him to the
effect that, if the machinery of the Lancaster was given to Reaney,
Neafie & Co., the forging should be done at any particular place?
Answer. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Jones has come to me several
times, asking me to send any forging work I could to the Reading
forge.
Question. What did he say upon that subject?
Answer. Nothing particular; he knew that I was aware that they
had a superior quality of iron called " Robison's iron," and he said
that he would like to have me send any work to that establishment
that I could.
Question. When was that?
Answer. Last summer, some time, I think.
Question. Did he request you to send any of the Lancaster work
there.
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Did he say to you that, in case the contract was given to
Reaney, Neafie & Co., the Reading forge would do the work?
Answer. Mr. Jones has come to me about getting work for that
forge, and about getting employment for men; and I have endeavored to get employment for one man, a molder, in a private estab12 c




178            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
lishment, and other members of Congress have come to me to get
employment for men.
Question. Did not the engines of Reaney, Neafie & Co. for the
Griffith ship contain cylinders of the same diameter and stroke as
those of Mr. Norris?
Answer. To the best of my recollection they are the same.
Question. Are not the screws of the same diameter?
Answer. I do not know about that positively. They have not the
same number of blades.
Question. Are not the propellers alike?
Answer. Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s propellers are different altogether.
Question. Are they of the same diameter?
Answer. As shown on the drawings Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s are five
inches greater in diameter.
Question. Are not the boilers of the same kind?
Answer. They are both multi-tubular, but they are differently arranged.
Question. In the previous bids of Reaney, Neafie & Co. did they
not have a different plan of boiler?
Answer. I believe they had, but I am not positive about that.
Question. In all their previous bids did not they have a different
plan of boiler to the one they now have?
Answer. To the best of my recollection they had. I think they
had a vertical tubular boiler previously.
Question. Who were the securities offered by Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. The securities offered guarantying them to accept the
contract, if awarded to them, were Peter C. Rambo and Samuel Rotan.
Question. Did you know that these men were employes of Reaney,
Neafie & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. Have not these men been their standing sureties upon
other contracts?
Answer. I think they have been upon the Lancaster.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your present official position?
Answer. Engineer-in-chief of the United States navy.
Question. How long have you been an engineer in the navy?
Answer. About fifteen years, I think.
Question. During that time how long have you been employed at
sea?
Answer. Something over ten years, I believe.
Question. How long have you been unemployed during that time?
Answer. According to the Navy Register but one year and eleven
months.
Question. Have you been employed more or less than the average
time, as compared with other engineers in the service?
Answer. More, I imagine.
Question. What is your duty at sea?
Answer. I am in charge of the machinery of the vessel and the




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                179
men connected therewith, and all the stores connected therewith,
tools, duplicate pieces, &c.
Question. Is it necessary that you should have an intimate knowledge of steam machinery in order to be able to discharge your
duties properly?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. While thus employed at sea were you always in charge
of the engines on the same ship, or did you serve on a variety of ships?
Answer. On many vessels.
Question. You have observed the working of engines and boilers
of different kinds?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is the nature of your duty now, as engineer-in-chief
of the navy?
Answer. I am at the head of the engineering corps of the navy,
and detail the corps of engineers for their different duties. I take
charge of all the drawings of machinery for the vessels of the navy,
and do anything else the Secretary of the Navy may order.
Question. Are you the chief adviser of the Secretary of the Navy,
now, in regard to steam machinery?
Answer. I suppose I am.
Question. By whom were you appointed to the position of engineerin-chief of the navy?
Answer. By the President of the United States.
Question. When drawings and other matters in regard to steam
machinery are sent to the Navy Department where do they go?
Answer. To the Secretary's office.
Question. And then to what office?
Answer. They are then opened by a board of engineers or by other
officers whom the Secretary orders to do so; generally Mr. Lenthall,
Mr. Welsh, and myself.
Question. In what office are they usually filed away?
Answer. In my office, until they are called for by the unsuccessful
bidders.
Question. Are you in any way related to, or do you have any connexion otherwise than official with, Secretary Toucey?
Answer. No, sir. I never saw him before I was appointed to the
office of engineer-in-chief.
Question. Are you in any way related to any of the successful
bidders?
Answer. I am not.
Question. Have you any relationship either by blood or by marriage, or in business, with Mr. Witte?
Answer. None at all.
Question. Did you ever receive any reward in the shape of a fee or
a gift from Mr. Witte?
Answer. No, sir; except it might be a cigar now and then, and I
suppose a little whiskey and water in his house in Philadelphia, when
I have been there.




180            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Now, in relation to giving out the contract of the Lan.
caster, which was the first vessel you spoke about, I think?
Answer. There were three given out then; the Lancaster was one.
Question. To what house was the contract given for the building
of the machinery for the Lancaster?
Answer. Reaney, Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia.
Question. Upon what ground?
Answer. Upon the ground of their being the lowest bidders, because
the weight of their machinery was inside the limit advertised for, and
they were nearest to the amount of coal required in the advertisement;
these three reasons.
Question. What house was their principal competitor?
Answer. Merrick & Sons, of Philadelphia.
Question. Did the bids of Merrick & Sons come up to the specifications?
Answer. No, sir; their weight exceeded the amount required under
the advertisement of the government; and the quantity of coal they
guarantied to carry-thirteen days' full steaming-was less than
Reaney, Neafie & Co. offered, and was below the advertisement.
Question. What difference was there in their propositions so far as
speed was concerned?
Answer. There was no speed proposition.
Question. Were the defects in which the bids of Merrick & Sons
fell short very material?
Answer. The matter of weight was not very important, but the
amount of coal carried was quite material, and then there was a
great difference in the price.
Question. Whose price was the lowest?
Answer. Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s.
Question. As the principal adviser of the Secretary of the Navy,
what did you recommend in that case?
Answer. Mr. Lenthall's and my report is already before you.  It
recommends that the award be given to Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. Has the machinery been yet finished?
Answer. It is very nearly finished now; I suppose they will have
steam on by the latter end of this month.
Question. Do you know anything in regard to that machinery?
Answer. I have seen it two or three times.
Question. What is your opinion of it?
Answer. My opinion is that it is equal to anything we have ever
had in the navy.
Question. What is your opinion now, upon reflection and in view
of all that you have seen, of the correctness of the decision letting
this machinery to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I am very glad that it was done.
Question. In what view is it that you say you are glad it was done?
Answer. Because I think it will promote the public interest.
Question. How many of the engines of the vessels built during the
last four or five years have been constructed in the government yards,
as far as you know?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                181
Answer. I do not recollect of any at this time.
Question. Was not one built at the Washington navy yard?
Answer. Oh, yes, sir; that of the Minnesota. I did not recall it to
mind when you first asked me; but I recollect it now.
Question. Has the Minnesota been launched and put in commission?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How does her steam machinery work?
Answer. I believe that there are some parts of the machinery of
the Minnesota which are rather defective.
Question. What parts?
Answer. I have heard complaints made of some of her composition
bolts.
Question. Whom were they made by?
Answer. They were made at the Washington navy yard.
Question. You have stated you were on the board before whom the
proposals for the seven vessels ordered last year were first submitted?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I want you to say how the board was divided in regard
to each ship.  How was the board divided in regard to the steam
machinery of the sloop-of-war to be built at Portsmouth, so far as
you remember? I want to know if in any case the board was unanimous, and if in any, in how many?
Answer. It would be hard for me to say now. I might make a
mistake. I think the board were unanimous in the case of Woodruff
& Beach, so far as I recollect.
Question. Then, according to the best of your recollection, all four
of the board were unanimously of opinion in regard to the bid of
Woodruff & Beach, that it was the most eligible bid for the steamer
at Portsmouth?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were they unanimous in regard to any other bid?
Answer. I think they were unanimous in regard to the Morgan
Works.
Question. For what vessel was that?
Answer. For the ten feet draught vessel building at Pensacola. It
would be difficult for me to answer this question without having the
record before me, so many boards having met.
Question. Did a majority of the board concur in all the cases in
which the contracts were awarded upon the first proposals received
for the seven sloops-of-war?
Answer. I think so.
Question. In other words I will ask you in regard to how many
ships was no proposal accepted upon the bids first received?
Answer. The Norfolk sloop, and the ten feet draught vessel at Philadelphia, called the Griffith ship.
Question. Then proposals were received for steam machinery of
five vessels, which were accepted at first?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know whether the bids accepted were such as
were approved by a majority of the board in all these five cases?




182             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I think they were. I recollect only one case that was
not, and that was either the Allaire or the Novelty Works; Mr.
Hunt voted for either the Allaire or the Novelty Works, I do not
recollect which. With that exception, I think they were.
Question. Explain more fully and definitely than you have yet
done what elements enter into your consideration in determining
which bid to accept when a number of bids are before you as an
engineer.  How do you come to your conclusions?  Do you look
solely to the excellence of the plans, or to the price, or to the two
combined, or to what do you look?
Answer. Solely to the excellence of the plan. When two plans
are of equal excellence we take the lowest bidder.
Question. You look first, then, to the excellence of the plans, and
then, when two are of equal excellence, you take that which is lowest.
Answer. Yes, sir, we recommend the lowest bid to the Secretary
of the Navy, as in the case of Merrick & Sons.
Question. If you were sitting upon a board of engineers, and there
was only one plan which you considered available, and that was
offered at an extravagant price, what would you do then?
Answer. We would not take it.
Question. What would you do then?
Answer. Recommend the issuing of an advertisement for new
proposals.
Question. I did not quite understand you upon the subject of altering plans.  In what particulars would you do that; in any of the particulars set out in the advertisement?
Answer. Each bidder has the privilege of coming before the board
and explaining his drawings. Some of the board will ask him questions in regard to those drawings; for instance, will ask him if he
thinks if such and such a part is the best that he can do. If he says
"yes," of course the board will take it for granted that he does not
desire to make any change.  But if he says that it would be better
so and so, then the board will allow him to set forth such changes.
This is done in regard to each one of the bidders, and the board
makes a long tabulated list of the dimensions of the different parts of
the machinery and appendages, and then they make a comparison
from that tabulated list.
Question. Are these alterations generally material alterations, or
minor ones?
Answer. They are very slight modifications.
Question. Has it ever happened in a case upon which you sat as
one of the board that the bid of one party was accepted, and then he
was allowed to make such an alteration as made his plan the same as
that of another party whose bid was rejected?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever ruled out a bid which adopted a particular plan and accepted the bid of another party, and then allowed the
accepted bidder to change his plan to that of the party who was
ruled out?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What is the practice of the government, the custom of




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                183
the department, in regard to new patents which may be offered to
them?
Answer. When a new invention is recommended to the department by a board of naval ingineers, and the department can use it at
a moderate and fair sum, they may do it. But very few new inventions are used.
Question. Suppose a man makes a new mechanical invention and
wishes to get it adopted in the navy, what course does he pursue?
Answer. He brings it before the Secretary of the Navy, who will
perhaps ask me if it is advisable to order a board to examine it. If
I advise him to do so he will do so.
Question. If that board reports favorably, what then?
Answer. Then the Secretary of the Navy refers the report to me
for my advice whether to adopt it in the navy or not, even after the
board may have reported favorably upon it.  Sometimes he may not
do so; but he generally does.
Question. Upon what grounds do they usually report in favor of
adopting any of these new inventions.
Answer. Upon the ground of the public interest; to save fuel, or
something of that kind.
Question. How many of these bidders, if you can remember, included in their plans what is known as the Martin boiler?
Answer. I do not recollect that.
Question. I mean for the same sloops of last year.
Answer. To the best of my recollection, all but two. I think the
Atlantic Works of Boston, the Allaire Works, and Mr. Norris, of Philadelphia, had horizontal tubular boilers; that is, to the best of my
recollection; I cannot say exactly.
Question. What is your opinion of the Martin boiler?
Answer. It is a very good boiler where sea water is used; but
where, as we are now doing, surface condensation is introduced and
fresh water is supplied to the boiler, thus avoiding the incrustation
consequent upon using sea water, I think the horizontal tubular boiler
equally efficient, and that will not involve any patent right, as it is
an old English boiler.  But when you use sea water, the vertical
tubular boiler has the advantage of being easily scaled when incrustations form in it; that is the only difference. I think I could use
the vertical tubular boiler without paying anything for the use of it,
as I do not think the patent is a valid one, it being for an old invention, in my opinion.
Question. When the government builds machinery for itself, if it
chooses to use Mr. Martin's boiler, would it pay anything for the
privilege of doing so?
Answer. It never has yet.
Question. Do you know whether there was ever filed among the
archives of the Navy Department a release of this boiler to the
government?
Answer. Yes, sir; there was; but I think that applied only to
vessels built while Mr. Martin was engineer-in-chief of the navy.
Question. Did you ever receive or reject a bid on the ground that




184            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
it did contain or did not contain the Parry's anti-friction thrust
bearing?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was any condition ever made, in your knowledge, apart
of the terms, either expressed or implied, with any bidders for the
steam machinery of a vessel that they should give their forging to
any particular works?
Answer. No, sir; we could not make any such condition as that.
Question. How about the Norfolk vessel? You have already stated
that there was a second board of engineers called upon the bids for
the Norfolk vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir, there was.
Question. Who was the successful bidder before the second board?
Answer. Well, sir, the board were divided in opinion. Mr. Hunt
and myself voted in favor of Mr. Reeder, of Baltimore.
Question. Was that the second board?
Answer. I am mistaken; that was the first board. I was not a member of the second board.
Question. Who received the contract for that Norfolk vessel?
Answer. Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst, of Baltimore.
Question. What was the report of the board?
Answer. There were four who preferred the plans of Murray &
Hazlehurst, with some modifications, to one who preferred the plans
of the Novelty Works.
Question. Was there any guaranty of speed in that case?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many miles per hour was guarantied?
Answer. The guaranty, I think, is for fifteen miles per hour, and
so much forfeit for each mile under that.
Question. What is the general speed of vessels now in the navy?
Answer. None of the new screw sloops have yet gone to sea, and
I can only speak of the screw frigates. The best speed that any of
our screw frigates have yet attained in a smooth sea is ten knots an
hour-except the Arragon-which is a very good speed for the power
employed.
Question. How is it about the frigate Niagara?
Answer. To the best of my recollection, the Niagara's greatest
speed under steam is about twelve knots an hour.
Question. What would you think of a proposition to guaranty
twenty miles an hour?
Answer. That would depend upon the kind of vessel?
Question. Say for the Griffith vessel?
Answer. I should think that the man who made it knew very little
-knew nothing in fact-about marine engineering or the resistance
of fluids.
Question. Then you think it impracticable?
Answer. I do, sir.
Question. Do not steam packets make twenty knots an hour?  I
mean those on our lines to Southampton, Havre, Liverpool, &c.
Answer. The fastest steam packet in the world, I imagine, of all




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 185
sea going steamers is the Persia, so far as we can judge. The Adriatic
has not yet been tried enough.
Question. How fast is the Persia?
Answer. I suppose the Persia's average passages are about twelve
and a half knots an hour, not over that; at least not over twelve and
a half or thirteen knots an hour; not statute miles.
Question. What is the difference between a statute mile and a knot?
Answer. A statute mile is 5,280 feet, a knot is 6,080 feet; the one
is 800 feet more than the other.  Twelve knots is about equal
to fourteen miles.  The fastest speed ever made by any steam vessel
in the world is made by our river steamers. I suppose the Empire
State and the New World, New York river boats, are the fastest in
the world.
Question. What is their rate of speed?
Answer. They have made, I believe, twenty-two miles an hour.
Question. Would a man who undertook to build a vessel having reference to speed have any advantage over one who was constructing
a government vessel?  Or would a government vessel have an advantage over one built for speed alone? Is there anything in the shape
of a passenger steamer that gives it an advantage or disadvantage as
regards speed, in comparison with a government war steamer?
Answer.  Yes, sir.
Question. What is that?
Answer. The fine lines of entrance and clearance that a mail or
packet steamer can have gives it a great advantage as regards speed
over a man-of-war, whose bow lines and stern lines, or entrance and
clearance lines, must be built differently in order to support her battery. Those North river or New York boats, to which I have referred,
have some of them their bows built so sharply that for twenty feet
abaft of their entrance into the water they are not more than four or
five feet across. While the government men-of-war must be built
sufficiently broad immediately on their bows as to support a heavy
piece of ordnance, and allow of its being discharged at that point.
Question. Then if the vessel building at Norfolk comes up to the
guaranty in regard to speed, how will it stand in comparison with
vessels now in the naval service of the United States?
Answer. My impression is that it will be superior to any vessel
now in commission.
Question. Has the Secretary of the Navy informed you that he had any
particular object that he wished to accomplish in the construction of
these new vessels?
Answer. He has; and has been very earnest and pressing in having
these vessels very fast, in order to beat anything afloat in any navy.
Question. Did he express that desire in reference to the Griffith
vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is there any peculiarity in the scheme of having that
vessel built —  do not mean in the mere planning of it, but in the
scheme of having it built? What difference is there in the plan of
building that vessel and the plan adopted in regard to the building




186            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
of the other vessels? Is it built regularly in a navy yard, under a
regularly appointed naval constructor?
Answer. No, sir; it is being built under the superintendence of a
civilian appointed temporarily naval constructor.
Question. And what is to be done with that vessel in regard to
speed?  Was any particular latitude allowed to him in regard to
fashioning and planning that vessel over that allowed in regard to the
other vessels?
Answer. I think the same latitude is allowed to the one as to the
other; though he is appointed a constructor from outside of the navy,
and the other constructors are all in the navy.
Question. Were the constructors of the vessels at New York, Norfolk, Pensacola, &c., allowed the liberty of constructing their vessels
with two propellers instead of one?
Answer. I do not think they were.
Question. Was not that allowed to Mr. Griffith, this civilian constructor?
Answer. Yes, sir; but in regard to the immersed sections which
they have, I do not think the department allowed two propellers to
be used.
Question. When the specifications were issued for proposals for
these seven vessels, was any particular reference made to this Griffith vessel?
Answer. No, sir; we did not know at that time that it would be
different; Mr. Griffith was not then appointed a naval constructor.
Question. When the bids came in and were submitted to the first
board of engineers, how many of them had reference to the peculiar
form and shape of the Griffith vessel?
Answer. Only one.
Question. Had the other bidders any opportunity to have made
their plans suitable to the Griffith vessel, if they had chosen to do so,
before that time?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Why?
Answer. Because they were not aware that the plans or design in
regard to that vessel varied from the others, requiring two propellers and an extra amount of power.
Question. Had that information been given to the department by
Mr. Griffith before the bids were opened?
Answer. I believe it was.
Question. Did you send any information in relation to it to the
bidders?
Answer. No, sir; nothing until after the bids were opened.
Question. When the bids were opened whose plan was the only
one adapted to the Griffith vessel?
Answer. The plan of Mr. Norris, of Philadelphia.
Question. What was your recommendation?
Answer. To issue proposals for new bids.
ue stion. Why did you make that recommendation?
s wer. Because it would have been unfair competition towards




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 187
the other bidders not to have informed them of the particular design
of the department to give two propellers to that vessel; there would
have been no competition whatever.
Question. How did Mr. Norris obtain his knowledge of that design?
Answer. He could only have obtained it from Mr. Griffith.  He
could not have obtained it from the department, because it was not
in its possession.
Question. Did you say that the necessary information for adapting
their plans to that vessel was given to the bidders on that vessel
after the session of the first board of engineers?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What information was there?
Answer. The sections of the vessel; the three midship sections;
plan and side elevation of the vessel; and the increased number of
horse-power —1,100 horse-power instead of the 1,000 horse powerwith the circular from the department showing wherein the vessel
was changed from the specifications in the first advertisement.
Question. Is this the drawing sent to the bidders?  (Showing
witness a copy of drawing from the department, purporting to be
that sent to the bidders for the machinery of the Griffith vessel.)
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was this sent to all the five bidders?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was any other tracing or drawing sent from your office
to Reaney, Neafie & Co. than these?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What does this drawing show?
Answer. It gives four cross-sections of the vessel. One is a cross
midship section; another is a second cross midship section, further
forward; and the other portions of the drawing show the peculiar
form of the vessel's bottom, the kind of keelson we wish to be used,
and how very sharp she was aft where the propellers came. This is
what was sent to all the five bidders.
Question. Does this give the side elevation of the vessel, or any
information in regard to the kind of propellers?
Answer. It does not give information in regard to the propellers.
I would say this, that I understand, though not officially, that
these keelsons are to be altered.  I certainly should recommend that
they be altered, if I were consulted about it.
Question. Mr. Griffith has said, in a statement which has been furnished this committee, that  "Mr. Reaney informed me that he had
received a tracing from Washington of a section of the vessel. On
questioning him, I found that the tracing he had received was one of
your (Mr. Norris) plans, showing side elevation, with shaft and propellers. As I had furnished no such drawing, and you had, I was
satisfied that the tracing was from your drawing and not mine."  Is
there any shaft shown in this drawing before you?
Answer. No, sir; but it shows that two shafts are to be used; that
is also stated in the circular, and that a hundred horse-power more is
required than set forth in the specifications.




188            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Do you say that, within your knowledge, this is the only
drawing or tracing sent from your office to Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. This is the only one.
Question. From whose plan in your office was this taken?
Answer. This was copied from Mr. Norris' plan.
Question. Why from his plan?
Answer. By direction of the Secretary of the Navy, and because we
had no other means of getting these tracings, and we considered them
to be correct, as they were certified to by Mr. Griffith, the engineer of
the vessel. They were not otherwise in the possession of the department.
Question. Did Mr. Griffith make any endorsement upon any of these
drawings?
Answer. Yes, sir, upon all of them.
Question. What endorsement?
Answer. I think it was "Approved, J. W. Griffith."
Question. Did you consider this endorsement of Mr. Griffith, so far
as these drawings related to the necessary plan of the vessel, as an
adoption of those plans by him as a part of the plans of the vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir, I considered it an adoption of the plans throughout.
Question. Is there anything in this tracing that would enable a man
to obtain a knowledge of the peculiarities of Mr. Norris' plans and
drawings?
Answer. No, sir; there is no great peculiarity about Mr. Norris'
engines. They are back-action engines, with lifting air-pumps single
acting. There is nothing new about them, nor is there about the
engines of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. After the first board declined to recommend the acceptance of any bid for the Griffith ship, you say that Mr. Norris' plans
and drawings were in your office on your table?
Answer. They were in the office somewhere, perhaps on the table;
it is very likely.
Question. Did Mr. Witte ever ask you to let him see those plans?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he ever go into your office and make observations
about those plans in your presence?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he ever examine these plans in your presence?
Answer. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
Question. Was there any difference in the manner in which you
kept this plan and the plans of other persons in your office?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was there any effort on your part, or any desire on your
part, to keep these plans in a public place?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Why were they lying upon your table?
Answer. We had put them on there in order to copy off these
sections, and I have very often taken them up, in connexion with
other plans, to, study their peculiarities when I had leisure to do so;




CONIRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC,                 189
and sometimes, when I have been called off in a hurry, I may have
left them with other plans lying upon the table.
Question. Was there any time, so far as you recollect now, when
these plans were left lying alone upon your table?
Answer. No, sir; not that I know of.
Question. Is it a part of your business, as chief engineer of the
navy, to judge of improvements, &c.?
Answer. It was my duty to consult with all engineers who came
here.
Question. Is it a common practice for you to consult engineers, if
they come into your office, in regard to drawings you may have there?
Answer. It is very common with me.  I always consult them, as
in the case of my own Richmond drawings, and drawings of other
government works.
Question. Did Reaney, Neafie & Co., or Mr. Witte, ever apply to
you by letter or by conversation in regard to these plans and drawings?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. After the action of the board of civilians, or outside
engineers, what did the Secretary of the Navy do?
Answer. He handed me the reports of those gentlemen, and asked
me to report to him what I would recommend to the department.
Question. What did you recommend the department at that time
to do?
Answer. As Mr. Norris was the lowest bidder, I recommended the
department to accept of his bids, provided he would modify his
drawings in some particulars.
Question. Do you know whether they asked him to agree to those
modifications?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Was Mr. Norris' bid accepted?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What was done?
Answer. I think that very shortly after that I had handed to me
two other bids, one from Mr. Norris and the other from Reaney, Neafie
& Co., in regard to speed, and I was requested to make another report,
which I did. In that report I recommended that the plans of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. be accepted, as they were the lowest bid at the speed
which, in my judgment, could be obtained from the vessel.
Question. Were you in the office of the Secretary of the Navy
when he stated to Mr. Norris his determination in regard to the acceptance of the bid of Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. I was.
Question. Did Mr. Norris then, and in your presence, make any
protest against the award being given to Reaney, Neafie & Co., and
charge that his plans had been pirated and shown to them?
Answer. On the contrary, he acknowledged to the Secretary that
there was no resemblance whatever between Reaney, Neafie & Co's
engines and his engines.
Question. Were the drawings of Mr. Norris brought into the room?
Answer. Yes, sir; and the drawings of Reaney, Neafie & Co. were




190            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
brought there and shown to him; and he was asked to point out any
resemblance between them, and he said there was none whatever,
or words to that effect, but that he had been mistaken in charging
me with furnishing copies of his machinery to Reaney, Neafie & Co.
Question. By whom was that statement of his heard?
Answer. I think it was heard by Mr. Witte; the Secretary, Mr.
Witte and myself were present; Mr. Witte was present as the agent
of Reaney, Neafie & Co.; we called both parties in.
Question. Had you any prejudice against Mr. Norris, personally
or officially?
Answer. None, whatever.
Question. Had you any acquaintance with him previously?
Answer. Very slight.
Question. Had anything occurred during your acquaintance with
him to prejudice you against him?
Answer. Nothing at all; I never knew Mr. Norris as a marine engineer, but that would have had no effect upon me at all; I acted solely
in regard to the plans presented in that case.
Question. Upon your responsibility as the chief engineer of the
navy, what is your opinion about the action of the Secretary of the
Navy in awarding this contract to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I think he acted properly, and for the public interest; I
think he acted judiciously.
Question. Have you known anything in the action of the department, since you have been engineer-in-chief, in which you considered
that the government interest was neglected in order to promote the
interests of friends of the Secretary of the Navy, or any other person?
Answer. I have not.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You speak of the Niagara having the greatest speed of
any vessel in the United States navy; what is the power of her battery
as compared with that of other war vessels of the first class in the
navy?
Answer. She has never had her regular battery upon her decks.
I think that the one allowed to her now is only about one-third that
of the other frigates of the same class.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Had you in the department any drawings of the Griffith
ship, at the time you sent out your circular or second advertisement,
other than those that accompanied Mr. Norris' plans, which had been
approved by Griffith?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You have stated that after a contract was awarded you
sometimes made changes?
Answer. Always, more or less.
Question. I understand you to say that you do not increase the price?
Answer. No, sir; but I increase the amount of work to be done.
Question. Suppose that you make material changes so as to reduce
the amount of work to be done, do you ever reduce the prices?
Answer. There is one case of that sort.  There was a reduction of




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                191
the charges under one contract, that of Mr. Merrick, of Philadelphia.
The Secretary, after the contract was made, gave them permission, in
order to obtain an increased speed, to use four-bladed propellers
instead of two-bladed propellers. That rendered unnecessary the
hoisting apparatus, and a deduction was made of $200. That is the
only case; and we allow no extras.
Question. I want to know whether, upon changing the plans as you
may think best, upon further examination and study, you change the
price if you reduce the amount of work?
Answer. Yes, sir, if we reduce the work; but we always have
increased the expenses upon the part of the government by the
changes we make, with the single exception of Mr. Merrick's case.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do I understand you to say that when the board opened
its session bidders, or their representatives, were present, and made
modifications of their plans, or were allowed to make such modifications of their plans as they saw fit?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were allowed to come before the board and
explain their plans, and if modifications suggested themselves they
were entered.
Question. Was it the practice for all the bidders to appear before
the board to make an explanation?
Answer. Generally so. Some bidders would apply and come before
the board and others would not. Then the government would conclude to invite all bidders, in order to make it equal. That is the
way I discovered that Mr. Norris' drawings were not made by himself, but by Mr. Bartol; for at that time Mr. Norris was in New York
sick, and we were written to by Mr. Bartol that he would make the
explanations.
Question. Please to state more distinctly with reference to the
surety, Mr. Rotan and another; was that a surety that if the bid be
accepted the party will enter into the contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is always required.
Question. When you make the contract do you have sureties for
its execution?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are the sureties that the contract will be made looked to
at all, or accepted as sureties that it will be executed?
Answer. They are in some cases.  They may be changed in the
contract.
Question. Do you take up that matter again, when you come to make
the contract, to determine who shall be the sureties for its execution?
Answer. Yes, sir; the navy agent is responsible for that according
to law.
SAM'L ARCHBOLD.




192            CONTRACTS FOR'MACHINERY, ETC.
No. 38.-JAMEs LANDY.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
JAMES LANDY was sworn and examined,
By the Chairman:
Question. Were you here at some time in October or November,
with regard to the trouble between Norris and Reaney, Neafie &
Co., in regard to a contract?
Answer. I cannot tell exactly the time I was here, but it was at
some time preceding the present session; it was late in the fall.
Question. For what purpose did you come?
Answer. I came here at that time for the purpose of representing
the firm of Reaney, Neafie & Co., who were proposing to construct
machinery for the government.
Question. Were they constituents of yours?
Answer. Yes, sir; their establishment was in my district.
Question. Who paid your expenses here?
Answer. I paid my own expenses.
Question. Did they not contribute towards paying them?
Answer. No, sir; but perhaps I would better say that those gentlemen proposed to pay my expenses here, which I, of course, very
indignantly declined accepting, as they were my constituents, and I
felt it my duty to represent them or see that they were properly represented here before the department.
Question. Who came with you; what other member of Congress?
Answer. No other member.
Question. Did you come on with Mr. Witte?
Answer. I think Mr. Witte came with me.
Question. Any member of the firm of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. No, sir; I think not.
Question. To whom did you go to represent the interests of Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. To the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. What representations did you make to him in regard to
the matter?
Answer. That they were a very experienced firm, highly honorable
and creditable men; that in all their undertakings, so far as marine
engines were concerned, their labors had been crowned with the
highest success; and I recommended them to the department in view
of the success of their establishment, and their ability to perform the
work in a manner advantageous to the government.
Question. Did you suggest to the Secretary any political considerations?
Answer. None at all; none.
Question. Did you state anything about the political standing of
this firm?
Answer. No, sir; nothing at all.
Question. When was this; before or after the election?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                      3
Answer. I think it was after the election; I would not be positive.
Question. Was it about the time they filed their application?
Answer. I think the Griffith ship was not named until after the
election.  I am not positive.  The date of the election would prove
the matter.
Question. Was it before the meeting of the board of engineers?
Answer. That I cannot say positively.
Question. Did you learn fiom them whether or not the board had
set upon these proposals at that time?
Answer. I think it was before the meeting of the board.
Question. How long before the meeting of the board?
Answer. I cannot state; it has completely passed my recollection,
and I should not wish to commit an error with regard to the time.
Question. What particular object did you seek to advance by getting the contract for Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I had two objects in view: the interests of the government and the interests of my constituents; the particular interest of
the government, and of course the interest of my constituents connected with that. I may say that I had another object; that apart
from benefiting the firm, the master workmen in their employ, and
a great number of very respectable mechanics that work in their
establishment, reside in my district; and bringing work to that firm
would operate to their advantage at the same time.
Question. In whose district does Mr. Norris reside?
Answer. I do not know. I have been informed that he resides in
the fourth district.
Question. In whose district is the Norris Works?
Answer. There is a locomotive establishment in the fourth district,
that represented by Mr. Phillips, but I do not know that any marine
engines are built there; nor do I know that the gentleman proposing
to do this work had anything to do with that firm at all.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Were you here before or after the October election?
Answer. I cannot answer that without some data to go upon, because my coming here had no connexion at all with election matters.
If you will leave this until to-morrow I may be able to ascertain from
some memorandum or otherwise the date.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know what the politics of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
are-whether they are democrats or not?
Answer. One of them was represented to me as an opposition man,
Question. Who is that?
Answer. I think it is the active man of the firm, Captain Levy.
Question. What are the rest of them?
Answer. I know very little about their politics.  One I believe to
be a democrat, and what the others are I do not know. The main
thing I do know is, that their establishment is in my district, and
that they are men of skill and a successful experience of something
like sixteen years in the construction of marine engines.
13 c




194            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did you make this application with the view of aiding
yourself in your re-election?
Answer. No, sir; no, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have you ever received from Reaney, Neafie & Co. ally
sum  of money for any service, either as agent or in any other
capacity?
Answer. No, sir; no, sir.  As they called upon me to represent
them at the department, (as I was attending to their business,) it was
very natural for them to offer to pay my expenses; but I refused
accepting anything from my constituents. I felt it my duty to represent them; that it would be conferring a benefit upon the government
as well as upon them. They are a firm not much in need of work;
for they are always full. They stand in our city, I believe, first upon
the list of engine builders, and I did think that if the contract was
awarded to them at a proper price, the government would receive
the kind of machinery they wanted.
Subsequently the witness reappeared and made the following
statement:
I find by reference to the books in which my name is recorded at
the hotel, that I arrived here upon the 7th of November, which was
after the election, that having taken place upon the second Tuesday
of October. Upon reflection I find a correction I would like to make.
I replied that I thought I came here in company with Mir. Witte.
I distinctly recollect now that at that time I came here alone.
JAMES LANDY.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 195
No. 53.-JOHN W. GRIFFITHS, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.
JOHN W. GRIFFITHS called and examined:
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your position officially?
Answer. Temporary naval constructor at the Philadelphia yard.
Question. Are you the engineer in charge of what is called the
Griffiths' ship?
Answer. I am the constructor.  That vessel was designed by me,
and is building under my direction.
Question. When was your attention first called to the building of
a ship for the government?
Answer. For a number of years I have contemplated doing so. I
made proposals a year ago last November.
Question. When did you and Mr. Norris first confer together with
regard to the building of a ship?
Answer. I think it was in November, 1857.
Question. Had you any conversation with him upon the subject?
Answer. I sent a communication to him.  I have conversed personally with him upon the subject.
Question. Had you any conversation with the Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What led to your appointment as naval constructor?
Answer. The proposal that I had made, in connexion with Mr.
Norris, to build ships of several descriptions, giving the department
the choice which to prefer. They were to be of a light draught of
water, heavily armed, and of different rates of speed.
Question. When were you employed?
Answer. My appointment is dated July 24, 1858.
Question. What drawings, if any, did you furnish to the department before the bids were opened?
Answer. The side elevation, half breadth plan, body plan, with an
explanation of the exponential solid of displacement of the immersed
sections, with calculations of the displacement, weight, &c. I sent,
also, a spar draft.
Question. Did you furnish the department with any cross sections?
Answer. Yes, sir.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
Question. What portion of the drawings now shown you were furnished by you, and what portion by Mr. Norris?
Answer. I furnished the longitudinal plane at the centre of the
shaft No. 4; the cross section No. 1; these drawings have been enlarged from my own drafts; also the cross section No. 2, and a part of
cross section No. 3.  I furnished a part of side elevation No. 5.  I
furnished none of the machinery upon the side elevations No. 3 and
No. 5.




8 6           GTCONTRACTS FOR MACHItNERY, ETC.
Question. Did you furnish the lines of shafts for propellers marked
upon the drawings in red ink?
Answer. No, sir; none of the red lines were furnished by me.
Question. State, if you know, who furnished those lines?
Answer. Mr. Norris, I believe, furnished them.
Question. Did those lines form a part of his plans for machinery?
Answer. They did, sir.
Question. Did you approve the plans of Mr. Norris?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. State how you expressed your approval?
Answer. I wrote "approved" upon the tracings which he sent to
Washington, and signed my name, inasmuch as the original drawings
of my own had come back to me for my name to be attached, when
I had neglected to do it. Having sent the correspondence, I supposed it would be sufficient; but the drawings came back from the
department, with the statement that it was necessary for me to put
my name upon them.
Question. State whether Reaney, Neafie & Co. received any information of the plans of Mr. Norris before the second proposals were
handed in, or in any way?
Answer. I do not know definitely whether they did or not. Mr.
Reaney told me they had.  When I asked him what plans he had, he
told me had a side elevation, with the shafting and the propeller.
Question. When was that?
Answer. That was after the first bids were closed, and prior to the
opening of the bids under the second advertisement.
Question. Did he state whence he received that information?
Answer. I asked him, and I think he told me from the department.
Question. Do you know in what capacity Mr. Witte acted for
Reany, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What is his employment in the city of Philadelphia?
Answer. Indeed I cannot tell you, sir.
Question. Is he a machinist, or is he connected with machinery in
any way?
Answer. No, sir; I never understood that he was.
Question. Is there any fact which you desire to state in regard to
this matter?
Answer. Perhaps it is proper for me to remark that I furnished the
plans as fast as I could make them. The department upbraided me
for not furnishing plans at an earlier date.  The delay arose from the
fact that my appointment was directed to Philadelphia instead of to
New York, so that I could not report for duty until August 7. Along
during the month of August I furnished about all the plans, quite as
many, and indeed more, than it is usual for the naval constructors to
furnish. My memory of dates is very poor, and I have therefore taken
the dates from my correspondence, and they are these:




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 197
liemoranda of dates as copiedfrom correspondence.
Final proposal, which gave rise to appointment. bears date of
June 18.
Date of appointment, July 24, 1858.
Reported for duty, August 7, 1858.
Building instructions and cross section called for in letter fiom department of July 30 were furnished August 13.
Draught of hull and spars were furnished on the 20th of August,
together with the space required for machinery.
The calculations of displacement, weights and propulsory power
required, were furnished on the 24th of August.
The deck plans and hold arrangement, for equipment, stores and
armament, were furnished on the 7th of September, 1858.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. In what way were you connected with this vessel?
Answer. Only as temporary naval constructor, at a salary of $2, 000
a year.  I had made proposals upon the 18th of June, and the Secretary concluded to accept and construct one of the type of vessels
described.
Question. Did you apply to the department for the privilege of superintending the construction of one of those vessels?
Answer. I applied to the department with proposals to construct a
vessel.
Question. When you received that commission as constructor did
you or did you not thereupon become a government officer?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In drawing up the plans for the construction of your vessel did you consult with any gentleman whom you knew would be a
bidder for the machinery of that vessel?  Did you take into consultation, in arranging and methodizing your plans, any gentleman who
you knew would be a bidder to contract to furnish the machinery for
the vessel?
Answer. Two or three.  Mr. Norris was one; Mr. Bartol was another; Mr. Merrick was another; and I think there were perhaps
others whom I cannot distinctly recollect.
Question. Who rendered you the most assistance in drawing up
your plans?
Answer. In the plans for the hull and the spars, and the calculations, I had no assistance.
Question. On what part of your plans and arrangements did you
have assistance?
Answer. In determining about the weights of machinery.
Question. Who rendered you assistance in that?
Answer. Mr. Bartol assisted me, having had experience in this
kind of machinery.
Question. In what particular thing were you and Norris in consultation?
Answer. The proposals for building the vessel by contract were
between us.




198            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. Did Mr. Norris have any connexion with you as naval
constructor?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. The original proposals were made by Norris and yourself
jointly.  Was there any connexion between you after you received
your appointment as naval constructor?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. None in drawing up your plans?
Answer. Oh, yes, sir; in mutual assistance and advice, as to the
size of the propeller and machinery, I took consultation with him, as
I did with Mr. Merrick and Mr. Bartol.
Question. What assistance did you give Norris in drawing up his
plans for steam machinery.
Answer. I gave him the space required, or the space allowed.
Question. Did you state the number of propellers there was to be?
Answer. Yes, sir; there were to be two.
Question. Was that the usual number?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you give this information to anybody else besides
Mr. Norris?
Answer. I gave it to the department.
Question. Did you give it to any other person?
Answer. Yes, sir; to a gentleman from Boston who called after the
first bids were closed.  Mr. Merrick wrote to me in New York, after
my appointment, before I knew that I was appointed.
Question. Did you seek to conceal your plan from Reany, Neafie &
Co.?
Answer. No, sir; they never called upon me for it.
Question. Did not you intend to give this steam machinery to Mr.
Norris, because he was your partner in the original proposal for the
vessel?
Answer. Not beyond what I have stated.
Question. To whom did you send those plans when you communicated them to the department?
Answer. To the commandant of the Philadelphia navy yard.
Question. Do you know when they were sent to the department?
Answer. No, sir; I know that they were received from the letters
that came from the department.
Question. Did you inform the department that there were to be
two propellers?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you draw lines for those propellers?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What information did you give the department relating
to the two propellers?
Answer. I gave the diameter of the propellers.
Question. Was there any particular arrangement which it was
necessary that those propellers or propeller shafts should have in
order to be adapted to the plan of your vessel?
Answer. Nothing beyond that of gearing.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                199
uestion. Without having the information of this gearing was it
possible that any man could arrange the steam machinery for this
vessel so as to adapt it to the vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Without knowing about the propellers?
Answer. Not without knowing there were to be two.
Question. When you sent up your drawings to the department
were any of the drawings of Mr. Norris connected with yours?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had he any drawings upon the same paper with yours?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you see any drawings in the office of Reaney, Neafie
& Co.?
Answer. I have never been in their office.
Question. Is there anything upon that paper [the drawings shown]
that would give what you would consider to be important information
in relation to the peculiar plan of Mr. Norris for this vessel which it
was not necessary to have in order to adapt machinery to the vessel?
Answer. The line of shafting was not necessary, the point where
the shafting was to pass through the vessel. That determined the
spaces between them, which it was not necessary to have, and that
determined the length of the shafts.
Question. Did you in consultation with Mr. Norris fix upon the
point in the vessel at which the shaft-was to pass through?
Answer. No, sir; no more than with other gentlemen with whom I
had consulted.
Question. Had not you already fixed upon that particular line of
shafting to pass out at a particular point when you received your
appointment?
Answer. No, sir; not until I had arranged it.  In fact, there was
an amendment made in the Secretary's office with reference to the
bearings. I thought it would be better to put the bearings forward
of the propeller instead of aft.  This was a suggestion of my own,
approved, I think, by Mr. Archbold at the time the change in the
arrangement was made.
Question. Was it a change from this plan?
Answer. It was; that the bearings should be forward instead of aft
the propeller.
Question. I ask you as an intelligent naval constructor to what
extent are the peculiarities of Mr. Norris' plan, further than was
necessary to adapt the machinery to the vessel, shown upon that
plan?
Answer. The propellers are not there. Mr. Reaney told me he
had a side elevation of shaft and propellers, but the propellers are
not there.
Question. So far as that drawing is concerned, then, there is nothing very material?
Answer. No, sir; beyond the line of shafting, the length of it, &c.
The length of shafting is an important feature, for the reason that the
greater the length the more liability to spring, and for that reason it




200            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
was suggested in the Secretary's office to put the bearing forward of it
to shorten it.
Question. Do you not think it was proper that that should be communicated to bidders in order to enable them  to adjust their plans
to the peculiarities of the vessel you intended to build?
Answer. It was a plan arranged in the Navy Department.
Question. But ought not all the arrangements of the vessel, so far
as they could be conveniently communicated, to be sent to the
bidders?
Answer. The department was furnished with even more than they
asked for; they were furnished with the exponential solid displacement, which gave the diameter of circles of equal area with the
immersed sections, so that at any point in the entire length of
the vessel ft.cy might be able to determine the immersed cross sectional area.  It reduced the immersed solid to a form  resembling a
cigar. I gave them also the area of the body of the vessel, of the
machinery and the boiler, and the diameter and number of the propellers.  The vessel was to be ten feet draught.
Question. Was there anything peculiar in Mr. Norris' plan of
propeller?
Answer. No, sir; his plan of engine was very compact.
Question. Suppose the propeller had been given there, would that
have afforded any particular information as to the peculiarity of Mr.
Norris' plans?
Answer. Only by the bearings or the length of the shafting.
Vessels have been known to spring a leak and to be sunk in consequence of misadjustment there.  It is an important feature that these
should be constructed properly.
Question. Does the form of the vessel determine in any degree the
location of the bearings or the manner in which the propeller shaft
will pass through the vessel?
Answer. It will determine the length of the bearings and the
length of the shafting.
Question. What were the peculiarities of Mr. Norris' plan?
Answer. Economy of space; a good arrangement of boiler in proportioning the fire and grate surface and steam rooms; the centre ot
gravity of the boilers, machinery, and coal coincided with the centre
of gravity of the vessel, which would enable her to be kept in trim
at all times, whether loaded or light-that is, whether the coal
bunkers were empty or full. The limit of draught of water being so
very small-being necessarily confined to ten feet-it is very important that these points should be so adjusted around the centre of
gravity of the vessel; for, if not, although the machinery might not
weigh any more, yet the vessel might draw more water than intended
at the stern, and thus the vessel would draw more than ten feet while
the mean draft did not exceed that.  Besides this, the strength of
the vessel depended upon the longitudinal section, and almost entirely
-upon the line of bulkheads.  The space required by Mr. Norris'
machinery was small, which enabled me to arrange the bulkheads so
as to support the deck, and at the same time the heavy armament.




CONT ACTS FOR MACIHINERY, ETC.                 201
There were to be two 11-inch guns on deck.  To carry that armanent in ten feet draught of water made the vessel necessarily shoal;
and the longitudinal bulkheads could be very properly arranged with
the machinery built by Norris. It enabled me so to distribute the
support to the deck as to allow a passage under the deck, so that
you could pass from the cabin to the forecastle without going upon
deck.  In these particulars I was very emplhatic.  In reference to
the strapping, which was important to add to the strength of the
vessel, the arrangement of' Mr. Norris was satisfactory.  Mr. Norris'
plan put the coal where I desired it-forward of the machinery instead
of alongside of it-so as to allow the passage below the deck, and to
distribute the centre of gravity properly.
Question. Were you consulted, by Mr. Norris, with reference to
the adaptation of his machinery to your plans?
Answer. Yes, sir.  Mr. Norris made his plans after learning the
peculiarity of my wants with reference to strength and space.
Question. Could anybody else have arranged suitable plans without
knowing your wants and requirements?
Answer. Not without coming to me and asking.
Question. Tell me whether this drawing gives any idea of the space
allowed?
Answer. The drawing that I furnished the department contains the
bulkheads, which are not in this drawing, although the outline of the
kelsons seem to be here.
Question. Does this plan give any information of the peculiarity of
Mr. Norris' arrangement in regard to economy of space?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Does this plan give any idea of Mr. Norris' peculiar
arrangement in reference to proportioning the fire and grate surface
and the steam-room?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Does this plan give any idea of the peculiarity of Mr,
Norris' arrangement in the adjustment of the weights of the machinery
and coal, so as to coincide with the centre of gravity of the vessel?
Answer. Yes, sir; by showing the length of the shafting, and where
the line of shafting will come.
Question. You say that Mr. Norris' plan enabled you to arrange
your strapping outside?
Answer. No, sir; I was speaking of the questions of the Secretary,
who had some doubt as to the longitudinal strength.  It was in connexion with the longitudinal bulkheads.
Question. Do you know anything of the plan of Reaney, Neafie &
Co.?
Answer. Only what they have told me about it.
Question. Do you think the plan, as ultimately decided upon by
the department, is adapted to your vessel, or not?
Answer. I do not.  My reasons are: they tell me that their contract gives them the entire breadth of the vessel, so as to shut up
that passage, and prevent me from distributing the bulkheads as I
wished.  I wrote to the commodore, and stated that, without these




202            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
longitudinal bulkheads, the vessel would be a failure.  There would
not be strength enough in the vessel.
Question. Have you ever examined the contracts?
Answer. No, sir; I only know that they say it gives them permission to occupy the entire width of the vessel.  I will do Mr. Reaney
the justice to say that they stated that they were willing, provided
Mr. Archbold would agree to it, to adjust the machinery to my wants.
That was stated in an interview I had with him a few weeks ago.
Question. Is that the only objection to the plan of Reaney, Neafie
& Co.?
Answer. They have given no centre of gravity, without which I
cannot locate the transverse bulkheads, which enclose the machinery
in the length of the vessel.  Mr. Reaney called upon me for the information, but it was subsequent to the plans all going to the department. My reply was that if he would send to the department for
authority I would give him the whole.  I was a government officer,
and if the department ordered me to give the information I would
do it.
Question. Where were your plans?
Answer. Everything was in the department; all my plans were
there. Mr. Reaney asked me for the bulkheads, and I told him it
would be impossible to give them without knowing the centre of
gravity.  Mr. Norris gave me the centre of gravity and the approximate weight of the machinery and the proportion of coal required.
There was no necessity for referring Mr. Norris to the department.
He was familiar with the plans while I was making them, while they
were in a crude state. He called upon me for that purpose.
Question. When was it that you referred Reaney, Neafie & Co. to
the department?
Answer. After the plans had all been submitted to the department.
I referred this whole matter to the Secretary of the Navy when I was
in Washington, and he said he could readily conceive that I should
have refused to give the plans, under the circumstances, when I explained the matter as I have now. I said that Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
or any other gentleman, could have had the plans, if they had applied
at the time that Mr. Norris did.  But now that Mr. Norris' plan was
before the department, it was the province of applicants to send
there. I had no instructions from the department with regard to it.
Question. Did not Mr. Norris have an advantage over the other
bidders?
Answer. At first he did, because he had corresponded with me,
and Mr. Reaney had never called upon me.  I never knew them
until Mr. Witte came to introduce them, and they subsequently called
upon me for that purpose.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. I will ask whether, under all the circumstances, at the
second bidding, Reaney, Neafie & Co. had as much information in
regard to the character of your ship and its peculiarities, and the
kind of engine you wanted for it, as to put them  upon terms of
equality with Mr. Norris?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                203
Answer. I should think so, sir.
Question. Mr. Norris has said that his ship and your engine were a
unit?
Answer. I think they were well adapted to each other.
Question. He said his ship and your engine were calculated together?
Answer. Yes, sir; inasmuch as he gave me the centres of gravity,
and from that I arranged the bulkheads, &c. In that respect they
were.
Question. Did you not confer with him throughout, upon the calculation that he was to have the building of the engine?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had you no such expectation?
Answer. No, sir.  Our connexions were severed when our proposals were rejected by the department.
Question. Prior to that time, when Norris was preparing his first
bid, were not your calculations that he was to have the building of
that engine; and did not you confer with him, with regard to the
plan, upon that supposition?
Answer. Nothing beyond the proposals of the 18th of June, to
build the ship jointly. When that was rejected by the department,
and when I received my appointment as naval constructor it severed
all connexions between us beyond acquaintance.
Question. Was Mr. Norris instrumental in procuring you that
place?
Answer. I had testimonials, and a reputation from the books I had
published, and my works upon the subject.
Question. He has said that you were appointed at his suggestion?
Answer. That might have been, sir. Mr. Norris always expressed
himself very favorably towards me.  I began a vessel for him years
ago, which came up in part to our expectations, but which I have
never yet been able to finish. Mr. Norris expected to derive some
credit, in his connexion with me. in building a fast vessel.  He desired to carry out that project; and when the government took hold
of it, he wanted to be known, in some manner, in connexion with it?
Question. Is it the fact that your plan of vessel and his plan of engine were put up concurrently?
Answer. So far as relates to my statement of what I should require
in the vessel, and his conformity with these requirements, they were.
When he asked me what I wanted, I would make the model or the
calculations in relation to the vessel.  I told him I wanted the engine
to fit the vessel, not the vessel the engine; the tea-kettle to fit the
stove, not the stove to fit the tea-kettle. I told him my views at
that time, when he called upon me.  Had anybody else asked me
for them I should have given them. As I told Mr. Reaney and others:
had you come before, gentlemen, I would have given my views
frankly; but now the thing is in the hands of the department.  If it
is proper that you should have this information, the department will
give it.  Or if they instruct me to do it, I will do it with pleasure.
I said the same thing to the gentlemen from Boston.




204            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. When these plans were sent to the department, had they
any of Mr. Norris' plans connected with them? Did you send to the
department any plans entirely stripped of Mr. Norris' engines?
Answer. All my plans were entirely stripped of him.  None of my
plans have any of these machinery marks upon them.  I allude to
these red lines and bearings.  The vessel was one department and
the machinery another. Although they were adapted to each other,
they were separate and distinct.
Question. Were they not the same drawings that you approved
for him?
Answer. No, sir; mine were upon muslin cloth, hull, spars, cro0s
sections, longitudinal plans, side elevation, &c. They were all sent
on tracing muslin. Those he desired me to approve were upon tracing
paper like this.
Question. Did his drawings go with yours?
Answer. No, sir; mine went first; I sent mine as fast as they were
completed. At least I gave them to the commodore; when they went
to Washington I cannot say.  I received my orders from the department through Commodore Stewart.
Question. About what time was it that you put your endorsement
upon the plans of Mr. Norris?
Answer. Some time in September; I cannot give the date.
Question. Before the first bids were opened?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. WI.en you and Mr. Norris made your proposals in June
last to build a vessel by contract did you draw up together a plan of
the vessel and machinery?
Answer. I drew up something which he approved; I drew up proposals that the vessel should be so long, of such a breadth, and such
a depth; that it should carry such an armament; that it should make
such a speed.
Question. Was your proposal to build the vessel entire; to furnish
the machinery and all?
Answer. Yes, sir.  This was to be ten feet draught.  Larger vessels might have a higher speed. We proposed different sizes.
Question. Did you set forth your plan and machinery for each size
of vessel?  Were your plans adapted to each?
Answer. Only the general outline. To have given the equipment,
&c., would have required a very heavy amount of labor.
Question. Afterwards, when Mr. Norris called upon you, you gave
him your requirements and wants; and if Reaney, Neafie & Co. had
called, you would have given them your requirements and wants also?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You would have communicated what is on this drawing,
and even more than that, would you?
Answer. I would have given them the expression, as I did Norris.
I told Norris what I wanted, what length of space he could take,
where I wanted the bulkheads, &c. I gave him no plan, but information which rendered a particular plan unnecessary.
Question. Then you would not have considered it improper to give
Reaney, Neafie & Co. such plans as these, or more?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, E F.                205
Answer. In one sense it might have been improper to have furnished them without authority from the department, because the
department were hurrying me all the time to furnish them with the
sections.  One of the first things I sent was the draft of the cross
sections.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Are you acquainted with the resources for ship building
and for discharging and fitting vessels of war for sea at Philadelphia
and New York?
Answer. Not so much in Philadelphia as in New York.
Question. From  your knowledge upon this subject, are you of
opinion that the United States, in the building of their vessels, in
receiving, discharging, and fitting them  out, could advantageously
dispense with the use of navy yards, and depend upon the private
resources of those cities?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you believe that there are ample resources outside of
the navy yard to fit out an expedition when it is required to be done
speedily, as was the Paraguay expedition?
Answer. It might be fitted out in New York or Boston.
Question. Outside of the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.  Not at all the places where the government
has navy yards, for some of the navy yards are at small towns.
Question. Do you believe that an expedition could be fitted out as
quickly outside of the yards?
Answer. Yes, sir; more expeditiously.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is it not necessary, in order to be able to fit out an expedition speedily, to keep a good deal of material on hand?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Would private establishments who rely upon contracts
alone, and who would not know in advance that they could get contracts, be likely to have the materials on hand in sufficient quantities
and of the right quality?
Answer. They would not, unless they had some reason to believe
that they would get the contracts, as they do now.
Question. But if it depended upon contracts would it be well
known?
Answer. It is known.  There are large quantities of live-oak cut
and brought to New York. They know what the demand is.
Question. Do you know anything about the mode of doing work
under contracts with the government, whether it is done faithfully
or not?
Answer. I have never contracted with the government.
Question. What has been your observation?
Answer. There has been a great deal of deception.
Question. In making a shaft or machinery, would not there be
great opportunty for cheating the government in imperfect work and
unsound material?




206            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. There would.
By the Chairman:
Question. Is not a great portion of the work upon the machinery
of vessels now done by private individuals upon contract?
Answer. Pretty much all of it is so done.  The work done in the
navy yard is of one character. The hull, sails, and rigging, are constructed in the yard; but the machinery is built outside.
Question. Is the fraud upon the government in the building of the
ship or in the building of the machinery of the ship?
Answer. In both.
Question. In which would there be the most liability to fraud?
Answer. In one quite as much as in the other; it is much more
fatal in the machinery than in the hull, because you may repair the
hull of a vessel at sea, but the machinery you can seldom repair; if a
vessel springs a leak, it may be stopped. In regard to contracts, if
proper precaution was taken, there would be very little danger of
deception. The Russian government, for instance. have an admirable
vessel being finished by private contract in this country. So with
other governments. The Colombian government have had frigates of a
large size, as large as our own frigates, constructing in the same way.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Is not work done by the day, as it is in the navy yards,
ordinarily better and more reliable than that which would be done
outside by contract?
Answer. Under ordinary circumstances it is; but there is even
better work done outside under contract, now; upon particular occasions the work is better than that done by the day; in the navy yards,
unless special pains are taken, they may be as neglectful as outside;
it depends upon the person in charge of the work.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Will you please to state to us what experience you have
had in naval affairs?
Answer. I cannot do that better than by stating a brief outline of
my personal history.  In 1823 I went as an apprentice to a ship
builder, and served seven and a half years, during which time I was
connected with the construction of four frigates; then I worked at
the Gosport yard some twelve years, with Mr. Grice as constructor;
then I cut timber for the Russian frigate Kamschatka, and cut part
of the frame; I then contracted for building the Sea-Witch, and
assisted in building Liverpool and other packets, and then the ocean
steamer Georgia; I made the original calculations and plans of the
Collins line of steamers.  I have published two works on ship building: a Treatise on Ship Building and the Ship Builder's Manual.
Since then I have been engaged in modelling vessels-war vessels
and all kinds of vessels for all parts of the world. My last order came
from the king of Siam.  In France, England, and the United States
I have designed a great many clipper ships, with models, and designs,
and plans. I published the Nautical Magazine just before my appointment, and in that way became conversant with war vessels. I am
now in my fiftieth year, having commenced before I was fourteen




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                207
years old, have since that time been working with tools, writing,
modelling, designing, and directing the construction of vessels.
Question. What is your connexion with engines and engineering?
Answer. In designing steamers, it was necessary for me to become
familiarized with steam in its connexion with the success of vessels.
I have studied the general principles of steam machinery. I do not
profess to be an engineer, I do not call myself an engineer, but the
general principles of the connexion of steam with the hull I do profess to know something about; and when examining it my judgment
is considered worth something, of course not much to an engineer.
Question. You have necessarily made yourself acquainted to some
extent with steam machinery, in consequence of your occupation as
a ship builder?
Answer. Yes, sir, in planning and designing steam vessels among
others.
J. W. GRIFFITHS.
CONTRACTS FOR SLOOPS-OF-WAR.
No. 64.-W. W. W. WooD, PHILADELPHIA, U. S. N.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
W. W. W. WooD called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. Chief engineer of the navy.
Question. How long?
Answer. 12 or 14 years, or something like that.
Question. How much experience have you had in the management
of engines?
Answer. I have been employed in the management of engines, in
designing steam machinery, erecting it, and having charge of it, for
25 years probably.
Question. Where are you employed now?
Answer. I now have under my supervision and direction the machinery of the sloop-of-war Lancaster, at Philadelphia.
Question. By whom is that being constructed?
Answer. The contractors are Reaney, Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia.
Question. Were you upon the board that awarded them  that
contract?
Answer. No, sir; not that contract.
Question. What is your opinion of the plan of the Lancaster?
Answer. My opinion is, thatit is a very creditable design, and well
executed.
Question. Is it your opinion that it will be successful?
Answer. Yes, sir; highly successful.
Question. Do you know what price they get for making that engine?
Answer. $137,500.




208            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. What is your opinion of the reasonableness of that price?
Answer. My opinion is, that the price is not exorbitant at all.
Question. What is your opinion of the manner in which the work
has been executed?
Answer. It is in every respect creditable to themselves.
Question. Do you think their price a fair and reasonable one?
Answer. I think they will not make much money on the work; in
fact, I should rather be disposed to think they would lose money
rather than make a great deal out of it.
Question. Were you upon the board which sat in September last
upon various proposals for building the seven sloops?
Answer. I was, sir.
Question. In whose favor did you give your opinion upon the New
York ship?
Answer. I think I gave my report in favor of James Murphy & Co.
Question. Were you required, as a member of that board, to give
your reasons in writing?
Answer. I was.
Question. Have you anything to say in addition to the reasons you
gave then?
Answer. I stated in my report that the merit incident to the plans,
that it was accompanied with very full specifications, the character of
their work generally, their responsibility, &c., influenced me in the
opinion that it was the most beneficial for the government to give
them the contract for their plan, in preference to other plans at muclh
lower prices for parties whose drawings and proposals contained features, in my opinion, that were highly objectionable in many respects.
Question. Do you remember the plan of the Allaire Works?
Answer. I do very well.
Question. What is your opinion of the plan of the Allaire Works?
Answer. Were I building a ship for myself, if I had my own personal interest at stake, I could not have accepted their plan under any
circumstances, even at one-half the price they offered; one principal
objection was, that their boilers were constructed so as to carry a pressure of 50 pounds to the square inch at sea in order to develop their
power; that was very objectionable; I have had some experience in
carrying high steam  at sea; they offered no specifications such as
were required in detail of the manner in which the contract was expected to be carried out and fulfilled; there was also faulty design
in other respects.
Question. Do you remember whether they stated within what time
they would finish their work?
Answer. Yes, sir; the time was longer than that proposed by James
Murphy, from the best of my recollection; I am not certain of that
now; I did not charge my memory with all the details of the propositions.
Question. Do you remember the different plans for building a large
vessel at Philadelphia? I am not speaking of the Griffith ship, but of
the other.
Answer. That was awarded to Mr. Merrick, sir.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 209
Question. Do you remember the competing plans for the vessel at
Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you remember whether there was any difference of
opinion with regard to that vessel?
Answer. I gave my vote in favor of Merrick & Sons.
Question. Do you remember whether there was any difference of
opinion upon the part of the board in relation to it?
Answer. It occurs to be that there was not; that it was a united
board.
Question. What have you to say in reference to the competing plans
for that work?
Answer. My opinion was, that, in relation to the plan of Merrick
& Sons, it was probably as good a plan, if not better, than any that
were offered, and the price was very much lower for plans having the
same merit.
Question. Were there any considerations brought before the board,
political or otherwise, to influence the decision of the board in favor
of Merrick & Sons?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. Were any letters, of any character, laid before that
board, or was anything brought before the board, saving bids and
plans?
Answer. Nothing at all; I am positive about that.  Everything
was put upon file, and if there had been they would have been placed
on file.
Question. I will ask you relative to the merits of the plans of Norris and Reaney, Neafie & Co. for the Griffith ship.  Give us a history
of your connexion with the boards upon that question.
Answer. At the first board there were many bidders and many
plans proposed, including the machinery for the Griffith ship. There
were none, however, adapted to the requirements of that vessel, with
the exception of the plan proposed by Mr. Norris, and consequently
there were no competitors. That was so stated to the Secretary of
the Navy in my report, and I believe in that of the other gentlemen.
Question. What recommendation did you make upon that basis?
Answer. That the drawings of the mid-ship section and other sections of the vessel, together with the side elevation in section, should
be furnished to other bidders, in order that they might propose for
the machinery that should be adapted for the especial requirements of
the ship. The Secretary then deferred further action in awarding
the contract for the machinery for the Griffith ship, until machinists
n different portions of the country should have time to offer proposals
n conformance with these requirements.  Another board was then
convened by the Secretary at the termination of the time specified.  I
was a member of that board.  It was convened about the 1st of November. The plans were opened and found to be from the Allaire
Works, of New York, from Mr. Norris, of Philadelphia, whose plans,
I believe, were the same as before, and from Reaney, Neafie & Co., of
Philadelphia.  The plans proposed by the Allaire Works were considered objectionable by me, and, I believe, by the other members of
14 c




210             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC
the board, inasmuch as he estimated that, to develop the power desired,
his engines were required to make one hundred revolutions per minute,
which involved two hundred changes of the reciprocating parts of the
machinery, which feature was inadmissible with me. Consequently
that plan was objected to (by me) upon these grounds principally.  I
have had experience enough at sea with direct-acting propelling
engines to know that these high velocities with large engines may do
very well in theory but not in practice.  The plans of Reaney, Neafie
& Co. differed from those proposed by Mr. Norris in one very essential feature: that was the revolving propellers, in the one case, in the
same direction; and in the other case, that of Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
in directions opposite to each other.  In looking back to the history
of the introduction of the screw propeller, I could find in no one
instance any successful plans, or any plans, in fact, in which the
propellers revolved in directions similar to each. other. The whole
engineering practice had been to cause them to revolve in directions
opposite to each other.  Any change, therefore, in that practice
would be an experiment, and I think the navy has already been sufficiently saddled with experiments.  I opposed the plan upon this
ground. I considered it better to try no further experiments, and
reported that we should follow the beaten track of engineers heretofore, in this respect, rather than to deviate in so essential a particular.
Question. Were any efforts made to influence the decision of the
board one way or the other?
Answer. No efforts.
Question. Were any approaches made to you by Reaney, Neafie &
Co,, or by Norris?
Answer. By no person, sir.
Question. Do you know anything of the history of this matter after
the action of that board?
Answer. No, sir; nothing.
Question. Do you know anything of the plans of Mr. Norris being
communicated to Reaney, Neafie & Co.?
Answer. I know nothing in respect to that matter whatever, of my
own knowledge, other than that all the information imparted to  eaney,
NTeafie & Co. was simply that information recommended by the board
to be given to different persons, the mid-ship sections of the vessel, side
elevations in section, and all the information required, in order to adapt
the proposed machinery to the special requirements of that ship.  I
saw none of these plans at all, although I was at the office of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. The plans of these ships were not made in their office
at all at the works. They were made at their private residences, as
I was informed.
Question. Did you have anything to do with drawing up the plans
of Reaney, Neafie & Co?
Answer. No, sir; I never saw them till they were presented to the
board.
Question. Have you ever aided any bidders in drawing up their,plans?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Will you look at this drawing and state what it is?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                   211
Answer. [Examining the drawing.] I recognize that as comprising
sectional plans of the vessel proposed to be built by Mr. G-rifliths.
Question. What are these red lines?
Answer. They represent the two lines of shafting and the centre of
the keel.  No. 5 is a side elevation, the red line showing the line of
shafting.
Question. Is there anything upon that drawing which would indicate the peculiarity of Norris' plan?
Answer. Nothing whatever.  There is no machinery upon that
drawing at all.
Question. State whether the information there imparted is anything
more than is necessary to enable bidders to understand whiat is required of them?
Answer. It is just what is required.
Question. Suppose that the screw propeller had been attached to
this, would it impart any information of the peculiarity of Norris'
plans? Is there anything peculiar in Norris' plan for the propellers?
Answer. No, sir.  There was a peculiarity in the plan of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. They have a propeller said to be superior to any others.
Question. Does their plan of propeller conform  to that of Mr.
Norris'?
Answer. No, sir; it is very different.  Mr. Norris' was an expanding or a true screw, very different from the features which give
character particularly to the propeller adopted and used by Reaney,
Neafie & Co.
Question. You say, upon your reputation as an engineer, that this
information is such as it was proper to give?
Answer. Yes, sir,
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is that line of shafting necessary in order to enable the
bidder to submit proposals?
Answer. Yes, sir; that has reference to the centre of the engines,
which governs the relative positions of the other parts of the machinery from which the centre of gravity is calculated.
Question. Is that furnished in all cases to bidders?
Answer. It is generally furnished, I believe.  The Bureau of Construction, I believe, gives to the bidder the distance from the centre of
the keel, or more properly a base line, to the centre of the shaft.  In
some cases, however, the peculiar kind of machinery (of the engine)
renders it necessary to elevate the engines; and in that case an inclination of the shaft is necessary.
Question. Have you ever known any other case in which the line
of shafting has been furnished to bidders?
Answer. The distance of the shaft-hole from the stern is sometimes
given, and then it is optional with the engineer whether or not to
raise the shaft in order to adapt his machinery to that particular distance.
Question. I understand you to say that the drawing of the line of
shafting is not communicated.
Answer. Only the point where it passes through the stern, which




212             CONTRACTS FOR MACIINERY, ET'C.
determines the diameter of the propeller with respect to the vessel's
draught.
Question. The line of shafting there given is not furnished?
Answer. No, sir.  I do not consider it material at all.  It is the
only point shown upon the drawing to govern the diameter of the
propellers.
Question. Then state what part of that drawing you consider
essential.
Answer. I consider everything here essential. The simple line of
shafting is probably immaterial generally; but it is material here,
because this is different from other propellers. In this ship, having
two propellers, the shaft projects from the body of the vessel at a point
further from the stern of the ship than in the ordinary screw propeller, where the shafts are projected at the stern-post at the extremity
of the ship.
Question. Was that drawing of the line of shafting furnished by
Norris?
Answer. To the best of my recollection the red lines were upon
that drawing.
Question. It was not, then, furnished by the department to Norris,
but sent by Norris to the department.
Answer. No, sir; because Mr. Griffiths regulated that, I suppose;
he was constructing the ship.
Question. You spoke of the plan of the boilers of the Allaire Works
as being made with reference to a higher pressure of steam than you
thought proper.  Was there anything peculiar in the construction of
the engine and boiler with reference to carrying a higher pressure
of steam with safety than could be allowed in boilers constructed in
the ordinary way?
Answer. I do not recollect that there was, particularly. I think
his cylinders may have been smaller, which rendered a higher pressure
per square inch necessary to be carried in order to develop the desired power.
Question. I allude to the greater power of endurance, to enable the
boiler to carry a higher pressure of steam.
Answer. I do not recollect anything of that sort.  Mr. Reeder's
plan of boiler was also cylindrical in form.
Question. There was, then, no specific difference which would enable
their boiler to carry a higher pressure of steam than the others?
Answer. I remember no specific difference of that description.
Question. Were they all upon an equality in that respect?
Answer. No, sir; not upon an equality, so far as plans of machinery
is concerned, because there are so many parts and details in the arrangements which would be unlike, as was the case in the engine
proposed by the Novelty Works.
Question. I wished to ascertain whether you think the engine of the
Allaire Works could safely carry a higher pressure of steam than the
others?
Answer. Not much higher, I think. His boilers were arranged so
as to have very little steam room. The cubic contents of the cylinders
divided into the steam room of the boiler was far short, I believe, of




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                   213
what any practical engineer would ever adopt.  But that is a mere
matter of opinion, as it seems in this case the plan is that of a praccal engineer,
Question. What do you say to the strength of the vessel being
greater with the Norris engine?
Answer. Had the Norris engines been adopted, they would have
occupied a less distance in the athwartship length of the vessel; but
probably there would have been less than a foot's difference, fore and
aft. The strength, so far as that is concerned, I should consider about
equal.  In no case do engines impart strength to vessels, as a general
thing.
Question. What effect upon the strength of the vessel would the
adoption of this plan have?  Could the vessel be constructed equally
strong with Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s engine?
Answer. I think so.  I think the fore and aft bulkheads, as they
are proposed to be arranged, will impart no strength to the vessel.
Sheet iron bulkheads never impart strength to vessels. There is a
great deal of humbug about sheet iron bulkheads.
Question. What effect would the distribution of weight have upon
the vessel and its consequent strength?
Answer. The draught would be merely a question of weight and
displacement.
Question. Would it not be also a question of the distribution of
weight?
Answer. The forms of engines vary so slightly, if they vary at all
in that respect, that I should suppose there could be no difference.
Question. How is it with regard to carrying fuel; is there any
difference between the two plans with respect to weight, and I
include all the time from the time when the bunkers are nearly full
until they are nearly empty?
Answer. That is a question of the centre of gravity of the weight
of both machinery and coal; and from looking over the plans submitted by each, I think that there could have been but very little
difference in the centre of gravity in the two arrangements.
Question. No matter whether the bunkers are full or empty?
Answer. It depends upon what part of the bunkers are full or
empty; of course, if the forward part of the bunkers was empty, the
weight being further towards the stern, there would be a greater
depression of the stern of the vessel, and vice versa.
Question. Was there any difference in the arrangement of the
bunkers to counteract this?
Answer. I think there was some little difference in that respect,
but not enough to alter very materially the immersion in the practical working of the vessel.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You are acquainted with the plan of Reaney, Neafie &
Co., which was adopted, and also with the plan of Mr. Norris; is there
any such resemblance between them  that you would come to the conclusion that one was in any degree patterned after the other?
Answer. They were very dissimilar; quite dissimilar in every
respect.  In order to be more clearly understood, I will state in what




214             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETCo
respect they are dissimilar. In the plan submitted by MIr. Norris
the engines are arranged after the manner of what we denominate
back-acting engines.  The cross-heads, in order to give sufficient
length to the connecting rod, work through holes or openings in the
condensers; on the contrary, in the plan of Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
which is a plain direct-acting engine, the connecting rod is attached
and works directly from the cross-head to the cranks.  In the plan
submitted by Norris the air-pumps are vertical and single acting,
and connected from the forward end of the crank shaft through the
intervention of a lever and arm  connexion; in contradistinction to
which, in the plans proposed by Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. the
pumps are plain direct double-acting pumps, placed in the condensers, which are about as dissimilar as any two arrangements can be
to effect one and the same object.
By the Chairman:
Question. How long have you been acquainted with Mr. Miartin?
Answer. I think that I became acquainted with Mr. Martin in the
year 1844; about thirteen or fourteen years.
Question. How intimately were you acquainted with Mr. Martin
before you sat upon the board with him?
Answer. I think the first interview was when Mr. Bancroft, then
Secretary of the Navy, established boards of examination, in order to
ascertain the qualifications and relative standing of engineers in the
navy.  I was then ordered upon Mr. Martin's board.
Question. Have you not been intimate with him since?
Answer. Yes, sir; very friendly.
Question. Are you not a favorite of his?
Answer. I do not know that I am.
Question. Have you not received favors from him?
Answer. Never, to my knowledge, beyond what I had a right to
expect.
Question. Have you ever received from him, or do you expect to receive, anything in the form of gratuity or otherwise, as connected with
his patent fees?
Answer. No, sir; no, sir.
Question. Did you and Mr. Martin agree in your opinions upon the
board of September, 1858?
Answer. No, sir; we did not agree in all our opinions.
Question. In what respect did you not agree?
Answer. As well as I recollect, I do not think we agreed with
reference to some plans proposed by Mr. Reeder.
Question. Did you disagree in any other respect?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question. Can you state that you did disagree in any other?
Answer. We might have disagreed on some minor points in relation
to the details of the engines?
Question. Are not your reports concurrent with regard to every
vessel?
Answer. I have never seen Mr. Martin's reports.
Question. Did you not know what his reports were; what bidders
lie reported in favor of?




iONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 215
Answer. Yes, sir; I think I did.
Question. Did you not agree with him in every report he made?
Answer. I think it is possible that all the reports were the same.
Question. Did that concurrence exist with any other members of
that board?
Answer. As a general thing I think the board were unanimous upon
those points.
Question. Please refresh your recollection and state whether they
were unanimous with respect to any vessel besides that of Merrick &
Sons.
Answer. It is possible; I never charged my memory in relation to
those things; I never considered it a matter of any very great importance.
Question. Can you state that the board were unanimous with regard
to any other vessel than that awarded to Merrick & Sons?
Answer. I think the board were not unanimous upon that.
Question. Can you state that the board were unanimous in any other
report than that in favor of Merrick & Sons?
Answer. I think so.
Question. Are you sure of it?
Answer. I should prefer referring to the documents.
Question. State from the table reported by the engineer-in-chief
[see papers submitted with this report] whether they were unanimous.
Answer, [after examining the table.] Well, sir, it merely happened
so; our opinions were alike, as reported here, but it was without regard
to any influence, because I did not know Mr. Martin upon the board
more than anybody else.
Question. I do not refer to that now; was there, with regard to any
vessel except that awarded to Merrick & Sons, any unanimity of
opinion upon the board?
Answer. It appears not from this table.
Question. Were you and Mr. Martin agreed in favor of all the
awards that were made?
Answer. Yes, sir, by this statement, and the statement is correct.
It may appear a singular thing that Mr. Martin and myself should
have had pretty much the same ideas of engineering in this case; but
we were both hard-fisted mechanics, brought up in a rough way, accustomed to hammer and tongs, so to speak, which might have had
probably an influence in the unanimity of our views.  When the new
frigates were introduced I was the first member of the board that
favored the trunk engines. Mr. Martin coincided with me then; and
at that time I did not know Mr. Martin's views, he having just returned
from Europe, where he had seen the finest specimens of propeller
ships-of-war.
Question. What is your opinion of Martin's boiler?
Answer. I think it is a very good boiler. I have been to sea with
them. He has certainly overcome in this peculiar arrangement a very
great objection which has been heretofore incident to the adoption of
the vertical tubular boiler-by increased facility of access for repairs,
and for cleaning the tubes, and by preserving them from destruction
by placing them at a considerable distance from the hottest part of the




216            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETCo
fire. In the history of boilers we find that the vertical tubular boilers
have been invariable failures.  When Mr. Collins introduced them it
was a great innovation. I think it is a very good boiler indeed. It
has given very great satisfaction.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you have any reference to the opinion of Mr. Martin
in making up your opinion upon these questions?  State the manner
in which the board acted.
Answer. The board of four assembled and each member examined the
plans for himself. We then freely discussed the merits of the plans
relatively.  Each man made up his own opinion and wrote his own
report without regard to the opinions of others.
Question. Did you take a vote in the board?  Were the names of
the members called and each required to give his vote upon the
propositions of Merrick & Sons, the Morgan Iron Works, &c.?
Answer. No, sir; we separately made out our reports.  There
were some reports which I did not see at all.
Question. Did you, when you made out your report, know in each
case what particular bid and plan Mr. Martin would recommend?
Answer. No, sir, I did not, nor how any other member of the board
would report.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Why were you required each to make your own report?
Answer. I do not know, indeed, sir. I was away from the United
States during the session of some previous boards, I think. It appears
to me that I have heard the reason stated, but I cannot now remember it.
Question. Was that plan calculated to elicit the individual opinion
of members of the board?
Answer. Yes, sir, it is calculated to do that, and the reasons also
which influence them in making the decisions. The Secretary required
not only the opinion but the reasons for the opinion. In my report I
gave the reasons which influenced me.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is that a new precaution of the present Secretary?
Answer. Yes, sir; I never have been required before to give the
reasons for the opinion that I might express.
Question. I think you stated that Mr. Martin and yourself differed
in opinion upon the plan of Reeder, of Baltimore?
Answer. 1 think so.
Question. Whom did you favor in that case? Were you for Reeder
or against him?
Answer. I was against him.
Question. Did you and Mr. Martin concur in your opinion originally
with regard to Mr. Norris' plans?
Answer. No, sir, I do not think we did concur. I could not object
to it to the same extent that le did, I think.
Question. You merely recommended a new bidding?
Answer. I remember that that is so. I felt a great deal of interest,
I can assure you, in relation to the selection and recommendation of
the best machinery, irrespective of persons or parties, or even price;




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 217
for the first thing that influenced me was the best plan proposed to
secure success, and after that the price.
Question. Suppose that you had been under the control of Mr. Martin's opinion, would you not have remembered that universal concurrence?
Answer. I think it very likely, sir.
Question. You recommended the plan of ReaDey, Neafie & Co. for
the Norfolk ship, instead of Reeder's?
Answer. Yes, sir, upon its own merits; but the price was very high.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did Mr. Archbold speak to you personally in favor of the
plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia?
Answer. No, sir; Mr. Archbold never spoke to me in favor —
In what respect do you mean that he spoke to me personally?
Question. Did he speak to you personally in favor of their plans?
Answer. After the reports of the board were all rendered he asked
me what my report was, and I told him. He said he thought I was
perfectly right; that he did not consider the other plan a good one;
and he found some other serious objections to it.
Question. Did he promise you, or hold out to you any idea, that
you should have the superintendence of the construction of this machinery in case Reaney, Neafie & Co. got the contract?
Answer. On the contrary, I understood that another officer was to
have had it, and I was under that impression until yesterday. Probably he would have had it if he had been in the United States.
Question. You have now the superintendence of it?
Answer. I received orders yesterday to superintend it, very much
against my own inclinations.  There is nothing I have ever regretted
more.  I would much prefer going to sea to having anything to do
with it in any shape whatever.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. This remark of Mr. Archbold to you: was it before or
after you had given in your opinion upon the plans submitted to you?
Answer. It was after the reports had all gone in.
Question. Is it customary for you engineers who have been upon a
board to talk about these things after you have given in your reports;
to talk about these things with each other?
Answer. Yes, sir  as a general thing it is.
WM. W. W. WOOD,
Chief EEngineer, United, States NaSvy.




218            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
CONTRACTS WITH READING FORGE.
No. 6.-TESTIMONY OF W. W. KEIM, M. C.
JANUARY 27.
W. W. KEIM called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are you a member of the present House of Representatives?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. From what district and State?
Answer. From Berks district, in Pennsylvania.
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Reading, Pennsylvania.
Question. Were you at any time secretary of the Reading Forge
Company?
Answer. Yes, sir; in 1854.
Question. For how long a time?
Answer. I left the company in the spring of 1855.
Question. Had you any interest in the company afterwards?
Answer. I was a stockholder for a small amount.
Question. Was there any agreement, arrangement, or contract
made between the company and J. Glancy Jones in regard to getting
contracts for the company?
Answer. As secretary and treasurer of the company I made an
agreement with Mr. Jones, to the effect that if he would obtain work
for us to do, we would allow him five per cent. on the amount he
obtained.
Question. What kind of work was contemplated in this agreement?
Answer. Shafting for steam vessels of the United States navy. We
furnished shafting for the steamer Wabash.
Question. The work upon how many ships did Mr. Jones, under
this arrangement, furnish for your forge company?
Answer. I think the Wabash was the only one while I was secretary of the company.
Question. What was the amount of that job?
Answer. I think it was between $10,000 and $11,000.
Question. Did he obtain five per cent. on that amount?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was it paid to him by the company?
Answer. I cannot say about that. The matter was not settled when
I ceased to be the secretary of the company.
Question. Did that arrangement continue on after you ceased to be
secretary?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Did he act in behalf of the company afterwards in the
same way?
Answer. So I heard; but I do not know.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               219
Question. How many vessels of the United States did the Reading
Works do forging for in 1856 and 1857, along after you left?
Answer. I think there were two others assigned to them, but I do
not know exactly. I was not a stockholder in the company then. I
had sold out my stock, and did not take much interest in the company
afterwards.
Question. What was the date of the transaction in relation to the
Wabash?
Answer. I think it was in 1854, while I was secretary.
Question. Do you know whether the Reading Forge has ever received any contracts for forging directly from the government?
Answer. I know that the engineer-in-chief was down there once
looking at the establishment's works; with a view of giving us a contract.
Question. What was his name?
Answer. Mr. Martin, I believe.
Question. Was Mr. Jones a member of Congress at the time this
arrangement was made with him?
Answer. Yes, sir. We were anxious to get this large work to sustain the establishment. That was the inducement for offering this five
per cent. to Mr. Jones. There was no written contract made with
him, but it was made verbally with him upon my suggestion to the
board. We would have made the same arrangement with any other
person who could have got us this work.
Question. Do you know what Mr. Jones did in pursuance of this
contract? Did he go on to Washington about it?
Answer. This contract was made previous to his going to Washington.
Question. When did he make the arrangements for having this work
done for the Wabash? Did he make the arrangement with the government?
Answer. That I cannot tell. He said he would call upon the Secretary of the Navy about it.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What work did this contract with Mr. Jones have
reference to? Did you have in view some specific work that he was
to get, or was he to get general work?
Answer. We had in view specific work; this of the Wabash we had
reference to at that time. There were also two vessels being built at
Richmond at the time, the work for which we desired to have, but we
did not get it.
Question. He was not then employed to obtain general work for you?
Answer. No, sir.  We had facilities for doing government work,
and that was what we desired.  The Forge Works were suffering for
want of employment, and we wanted to get work. We supposed that
from his being a member of Congress he would have facilities for
getting us work that others would not have; if we could have made
the same arrangement with others we would have done so.




220            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. From  whom  did you receive your compensation for
making the shaft for the Wabash?
Answer. It was paid by the government.
Question. Was it paid immediately by the government to the company?
Answer. It was not settled when I left.
Question. Was your contract made immediately by the government?
Answer. It was not. When I made this answer I had in mind some
work ordered at Washington, which was paid by government. I believe Merrick paid the work of the Wabash. I think the price
and everything was arranged by Mr. Merrick. Mr. Jones did not
arrange about the price at all. He merely recommended the Reading
Forge to the government; and we supposed that his recommendations
were the means of our getting the contract.
Question. Who was the contractor with the government for the
whole steam machinery of the Wabash?
Answer. It was Mr. Merrick, of Philadelphia.
Question. Was not the shafting a part of that steam machinery and
included in his contract with the government?
Answer. I am at a loss to say exactly how that was; when I first
answered your question, I was under the impression that we made our
contract directly with the government; but I am now somewhat in
doubt about that; I am rather inclined now to think that the contract
was taken by Mr. Merrick, to furnish all the machinery to the government, including the shafting, and we made the contract with Mr.
Merrick.
Question. From whom did you receive your money?
Answer. I think that Mr. Merrick paid it; same remark applies to
this as other point.
Question. Did the contract with Mr. Jones specify where he was to
apply to obtain work for your forge?
Answer. We merely requested him to use his influence to get this
kind of work for us, without designating any point where he was to
get it.
(Correct with exception of pencil explanations.)
W. W. KEIM.
No. 18.-MAYBURY A. BERTOLET, READING, PENNSYLVANIA.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
MAYBURY A. BERTOLET called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What connexion have you had with the Reading steam
forge?
Answer. I was a stockholder there, and at one time held the office
of secretary and treasurer of the company.
Question. Who was your immediate predecessor in the office of
secretary?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                221
Answer. General Keim.
Question. Was J. Glancy Jones your agent for any purpose?
Answer. I always understood that he was.  I understood that the
company had either agreed with him or proposed within themselves
to give him a certain percentage for such work as should be procured through his agency and instrumentality.
Question. Do you know whether he did get any work for your
forge?
Answer. I could not say that he did directly; perhaps through
indirect influences on his part we got work.
Question. From whom?
Answer. From the government here.
Question. In what cases?
Answer. In the case of the Minnesota, which I think was built here
in Washington.
Question. When was that?
Answer. The entry upon the ledger is June 20, 1855.  "For
forgings, $3,109 48."  The day-book was in the safe when I made
examination, and the gentleman who had the keys of the safe was out
of town, and I could not reach the original entries.
Question. Did you do forging for any one else through Mr. Jones'
agency or influence?
Answer. I cannot say that it was through his agency; but I obtained
forgings for Anderson, Dulaney & Co., of Richmond, Virginia.
Question. I will call your attention to the question whether you did
any forging for the government vessel built in 1857, the engines of
which were built by Murphy, Pease & Co. of New York?
Answer. I know nothing about that; that was subsequent to my time.
Question. Do you know whether the Reading Works did any forging for that company or not?
Answer. I could not say positively whether they did or not?
Question. Who was the secretary and treasurer of the Reading
company in 1857?
Answer. Charles McClinagan.
Question. Where is he now?
Answer. In South America, I suppose.  He left sometime since to
take a place in connexion with a railroad in Brazil.
Question. Do you know what money, if any, was paid to Mr. Jones
for his agency?
Answer. I cannot say, from my own knowledge, that any was paid him.
Question. Who has possession of the Reading Forge books now?
Answer. Mr. McLaughlin.
Question. Where is his residence?
Answer. It is at Reading.
Question. Are you acquainted with the coal agent for the navy department, Mr. Hunter?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is his occupation?
Answer. He is a physician.
Question What is he engaged at now?




222            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I can hardly tell you; he does more or less in the medical way.
Question. Does he take any active part or supervision of the coal
business?
Answer. Not to my knowledge?
Question. Has he ever been engaged in the business of coal dealing?
Answer. He has not; I am certain of that.  I have known him for
many years.  The fact is, he is a relation of mine, and I do not know
that he ever did much of anything.
Question. Do you know, either from conversation with him or from
conversation with the other parties in interest, what division, if any,
is made of his percentage as coal agent?
Answer. I know nothing definitely at all about that matter.
Question. Who acts in the purchase of the coal for the government?
Answer. That I do not know.
Question. Does Dr. Hunter make any purchases himself?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you know whether he has a deputy or not?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you seen Mr. Beach in Reading; Mr. Beach of the
firm of Tyler, Stone & Co., coal dealers of Philadelphia?
Answer. I do not know the gentleman. As far as relates to that
matter I know nothing at all about it further than from hearsay.
Question. Do you know upon whose recommendation Dr. Hunter
was appointed coal agent?
Answer. I do not?
Question. Are you a coal dealer?
Answer. I have been an extensive coal consumer until quite recently.
Question. What can 50,000 tons a year of anthracite coal be delivered at the Reading docks in Philadelphia for, such coal as is used
in making steam in sea-going vessels?
Answer. About $3 30 a ton, I think.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you know the price of that kind of coal during the
last year?
Answer. I do not, I make my estimate upon the value of the coal
in the coal mining region, adding the cost of transportation.
By the Chairman:
Question. In what business have you been engaged?
Answer. In the manufacture of iron.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. In stating the price of coal, do you have reference to
the price at this time, or the price it has ranged at for the last two
years?
Answer. I think this would be about an aveage; coal has been
sold for a less price than that, and it has been sold somewhat higher.
Question. What have you been giving for good anthracite coal at
Reading?
Answer. We have bought it as low as $1 65 per ton, and I have
put it in my calculation here at $1 80 per ton.
Question. When did you purchase coal at $1 65 per ton?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY~ ETC,                223
Answer. I could not give you the date exactly, but this summer
you could have bought any quantity for $1 80, and even at a less
price for the money.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What is the market price of good anthracite coal at the
Reading docks, in Philadelphia?
Answer. Reading is 58 miles from Philadelphia.
Question. What is the selling price of this coal in Philadelphia?
Answer. I know nothing about the selling price in Philadelphia,
but the selling price in Pottsville, where the coal is mined, I have
put at $1 80 per ton, then I have put the freight down at 65 cents per
ton, which is the highest price that has been paid this summer for
transportation, and then I put down 85 cents for toll on the canal,
which I think is about the ruling rates.
Question. What would be a reasonable profit on the quarrying,
freighting, and delivering of this coal in Philadelphia for sale there?
In other words, I am trying to get at the market price of this coal in
Philadelphia.
Answer. This is just the thing, the market price is just what you
can get; and whether it affords a renumerative profit or not is a matter that the man who quarries must run his risk of. I have put down
$1 80 per ton as the selling price of this coal at Pottsville, in the mining region, and to that I have added the cost of transportation.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you take into your estimate the cost of transportation
from Pottsville to Philadelphia?
Answer. Yes sir, I have put down 65 cants as the transportation
price, it was that this summer, and in some cases even less than that;
and I have put down 85 cents for the tolls upon the canal to Philadelphia.
Question. Do you know of any contract with Mr. J. Glancy Jones
with the Reading Steam Forge to procure work for them?
Answer. I can say so far as this; I do not know as I was present
in the board when the arrangement was made with him; I only know
this from my own certain knowledge; that it was a matter talked of
frequently in the board, when we spake of the justness of paying that
which was agreed upon, and I know that during my term as secretary
and treasurer I spoke to him on two or three occasions when I met him
on the street, and said that I was very sorry that the concern was in
such a condition pecuniarily that I did not see how I could pay him
any money then.
By the Chairman:
Question. What did he say to what you told him?
Answer. He never demanded any thing from me; but from the understanding that was had I thought it was my duty to tell him. The
fact is it was talked of in our discussions in our board, that it was
altogether proper that he should be paid, particularly after we had
received the money from the government.




224            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did the company ever receive any money from the government directly for work done?
Answer. I received myself $3,109 48, or rather I gave the bank a
draft upon the government for that amount.
Question. For what work was that money received?
Answer. As far as I was concerned there it was for the first shaft
put into the Minnesota.
Question. With whom did you contract for that?
Answer. I contracted with Daniel B. Martin, who was the engineerin-chief here at that time.  That matter I settled, and got for it
$3,109 48.
Question. Do you know who built the steam machinery for the
Minnesota?
Answer. I do not. I was always under the impression that it was
built by the government here, inasmuch as the vessel was built here,
and they had amuachine shop here.  I know nothing of my own personal knowledge about it. I was here to see Mr. Martin and had
volumes of correspondence with him about it, and he was on there at
Reading several times also.
Question, Are you distinct in your recollection that you got the
contract from Mr. Martin?
Answer. Yes, sir; I furnished Mr. Martin with this shaft.
Question. Did you contract with Mr. Martin to do that work for
the government at a certain price?
Answer. I did; but I could not tell you positively within one cent;
but it was either 22 or 23 cents a pound for the work, and I have
given you what it amounted to. Mr. Mullin and myself went on to
see about it; I was the financial man and Mr. Mullin was the manufacturer.
By the Chairman:
Question. What part did Mr. Jones take in procuring this work
for you?
Answer. I cannot tell you anything more than this: that I always
understood from conversations that we had in the board that he was
delegated to use his best efforts to procure work for the concern; inasmuch as he belonged to our city, and was our representative here, we
wanted him to use his best efforts to procure such work either from
government or from those parties from whom government took contracts for work; and he was to have a percentage on the amount he
furnished, 5 per cent., I think.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know whether he had any thing to do with procuring this contract upon the Minnesota or not?
Answer. I do not, further than we have letters in which he states
that he would do all he could towards influencing the government in
our favor. That is about all.
Question. Have you any letters from him promising to use his
influence in relation to this particular work or about this particular
time?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.               225
Answer. I think we have.
Question. Have you those letters with you?
Answer. I have not. I should have brought all these documents
along if I could have got the key to the safe. But Mr. McLaughlin
not being there I could not get it.
Question. Did Mr. Jones within your presence or within your
knowledge speak to Mr. Martin or any particular officer of the government in relation to this work?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did the Navy Department advertise for proposals for this
work?  Or was a contract made with you without consulting any
other manufacturers?
Answer. I do not know that proposals were advertised for, but I
came on here myself and went to the Navy Department. I do not
recollect who was the officer there at the time, but he told me that
an offer had been made to them of 22 cents per pound.
By the Chairman:
Question. Who told you that?
Answer. The officer of the department.
Question. Do you know him?
Answer. I do not. I know that we got a cent a pound more than,
the other party had offered.
Question. Did you learn the reason why they gave the work to you?'
Answer. They came on to look at our works, and I suppose considered them so much more efficient and consequently calculated to
make a better job.
Question. Who came on?
Answer. Mr. Martin.
Question. Who did he go on with?
Answer. I do not recollect whether any one came on with him or
not.
Question. Was Mr. Jones there with him at the time?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Where was Mr. Jones then?
Answer. I suppose he was on here then.  I looked upon the minute
book and I see that Mr. Keim made the record the first of January,
in relation to this matter.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you know whether there were bidders or not?
Answer. I do not know; but it is natural to infer that there were
bidders when they said they had received an offer at 22 cents per
pound.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you see any proposals that had been made for this
work?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What first induced you to bid? How did you first learn,
that there was any shaft to be built?
Answer. I do not know; I cannot tell.
15 c




226            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Question. In looking over the correspondence of Mr. Jones with
your company, please send us any letters which bear upon the subject
of furnishing a shaft for the Minnesota and obtaining contracts from
the government?
Answer. I think Mr. McLaughlin, who has been placed in charge
of all these papers, would be the proper one to bring them on here.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What other work did you do for the government while
you were connected with this company?
Answer. I did not do anything more that was ordered strictly by
the government. We made some work for some vessels, the machinery
of which was built by the Richmond contractors; also, some for the
Wabash, built by Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia.
Question. With whom were the contracts made for this work?
Answer. I made the contract with Anderson, Dulaney & Co.
myself.
Question. Did Mr. Jones have anything to do with getting the
work from the Richmond contractors?
Answer. No, sir, not that I know of.
Question. Who made the contract with Merrick & Sons?
Answer. That contract was made before I got the position of secretary to this company. I suppose General Keim must have made
it, as he immediately preceded me in that office. I see, by reference
to the books of the company, that there were charges against the
government for work done, but I do not know the particulars. The
amounts about which I do not know the particulars, reach $6,481 15.
Question. Do the books show that these accounts have been paid?
Answer. Yes, sir, the accounts have been closed.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do the books show at what time these accounts were
paid?
Answer. I simply took them from the ledger, which was the only
book I have had access to. One charge on the ledger was October
30, 1856, for $3,555 50; the other was December 5, 1856, for.$2,925 65.
Question. Did Mr. Jones ever apply to you or to the company,
within your knowledge, for any compensation for his services in their
behalf?
Answer. Not that I can recollect.
M. A. BERTOLET.
No. 43.-PETER MCLAUGHLIN.
FEBRUARY 5, 1859.
PETER McLAUGHLIN was called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Reading, Bucks county, Pa.,Question. What is your employment?
Answer. Secretary and treasurer of the Steam Forge Company.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 227
Question. How long have you been in that position?
Answer. Four months and fifteen days.
Question, Are you in possession of the books and papers of that
Company?
Answer. I was not at the time I left home.
Question. Are you now?
Answer. I believe I have got the greater part of the documents,
with the exception of the check book.
Question. Where was your check book?
Answer. It was in the safe of the company at the time I left. I
telegraphed from here for the books and papers as fully as I was in,
structed by the sergeant-at-arms,
Question. Did you telegraph for the check book?
Answer. For the books of the company.  The check book was not
sent. The journals, legers, and correspondence of the company are
here.
Question. Have you examined at any time the books, or have you
seen in the books or papers of the company any account, formal or
informal with J. Glancy Jones?
Answer, Not upon the books, sir.
Question. Who was your predecessor?
Answer. Charles McLanagan.
Question. Where is he now?
Answer. In Rio Janeiro, South America.
Question. Where were you in 1857 and 1858.
Answer. For three months and ten days of 1858 I was with the
Steam  Forge Company.  In 1857 I was residing in Reading, not
doing anything.
Question. Have you seen any correspondence among the papers between Mr. Jones and the department, or Mr. Jones and the forge?
Answer. Here is a letter which I have seen since I have been here,
but not previously. —(See appendix a attached to this deposition.)
Question. Is there any other letter?
Answer. There is no other that I can find.
Question. Have you here all the letters of that company?
Answer. I wrote for all the correspondence between Mr. Jones and
any officer or member of the board of directors of the Steam Forge
Company.
Question. You do not know whether there are any other letters?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you any knowledge of any sums of money being
paid to Mr. Jones for services?
Answer. No; sir; I have not.
Question. At the time you went there and became secretary was
the Reading Forge an existing institution?
Answer. It was.
Question. When did it fail?
Answer. About two months after my going in.
Question. Was Mr. Jones a stockholder of that forge?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you know whether he acted as agent for the forge?




228            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Answer. I do not; not, at least, under my administration~
Question. Before you went in?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Do you know any other fact in regard to Mr. Jones and
in connexion with the Reading Forge?
Answer. There is no other fact I know of in connexion with the
steam forge and Mr. Jones.
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Jones in
regard to it?
Answer. No, sir, never.
Question. Had you any opportunities?
Answer. I have seen Mr. Jones at Reading, and have spoken to
the gentleman; but never on the steam forge business.
Question. Is there any account upon the books of your company
of the amount of work done by the forge for the United States?
Answer. There is, I think; but I do not think it is in the aggregate.  That is to say, it does not follow in regular order.  I do not
think there is an account in the leger with the United States government.
Question. Can you turn to the items?
Answer. I think it probable that I can.  There were two shafts
being manufactured by the Reading Steam Forge Company, one for
the United States frigate Colorado and the other for the United States
frigate Riclhmond, both of which were purchased by the Farmers'
Bank of Reading, at public sale, as the first lien creditor of the Steam
Forge Company.  Those were the only two shafts finished during my
administration. The other shafts were under Mr. McLanagan. It
will be difficult to find these amounts, because these transactions took
place in a peculiar way. There is no direct account opened with the
government, I think. The company was in an embarassed condition,
and to facilitate the operations drafts were drawn upon the government; and the entry was " Cash Dr. to bills payable," because these
drafts were discounted at the Farmers' Bank of Reading. It was
simply an entry of cash and bills payable, and therefore there was
no account opened directly with the government.
Question. Can you state how many shafts were made for the government?
Answer. There is a letter here from the department which, I think,
will illustrate it. It is from  Mr. Lenthall.  Here are also other
letters, being correspondence between the Navy Department and the
Reading Forge.
[The letters having been produced, the further examination of the
witness was postponed that they might be read by the committee.]
FEBRUARY 7, 1859.
Question. Please look at the following letters:
Letter dated June 27, 1855, from J. C. Dobbin to Hon. J. Glancy
Jones;
Letter dated July 12, 1855, from John Lenthall to M. A. Bertolet;




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 229
Letter dated November 10, 1855, from Anderson, Delano & Co. to
MI. A. Bertolet;
Letter dated June 23, 1858, from Samuel Archbold to Charles
M cLanagan;
Letter dated July 14, 1858, from Samuel Archbold to Charles
3IcLanagan;
Letter dated July 19, 1858, from Bartol to the Steam Forge Company;
Letter dated July 24, 1858, from B. to W. M. D., esq.;
Letter dated November 7, 1858, from Samuel Archbold to William
M. Leigh, esq.;
and state where these letters were found by you?
[See appendix to this deposition.]
Answer. These letters have been found by Mr. McKnight, who is
the President of the Steam Forge (ompany, and Joseph, who is a
kind of procurator or day watchman for the Steam  Forge Company.
I did not find these letters; they were found by these two gentlemen,
I presume.
Question. Do you recognize these as being letters of that company?
Answer. I recognize them as having been sent here as Steam Forge
Company letters; that is all.
Question. Please state who W. M. Leigh is.
Answer. Formerly he was superintendent of the Steam  Forge
Company.
Question. Please state who B. H. Bartol is.
Answer. I do not know who he is.  Merrick & Sons are a firm of
Philadelphia.  I do not know whether he is their agent or clerk or
not; he appears from the letters to be.
Question. Is the letter signed "B," dated July 24, 1858, in the
same handwriting as the letter signed July 19, 1858?
Answer. There appears to be a similarity in the handwriting; but
I could not swear to the identity.
Question. What is your judgment, from  a comparison of handwriting? who, in your judgment, wrote the letter subscribed " B"?
Answer. There appears to be a striking similarity in the way the
two B's are made. I really cannot say that they are the same. One
appears to be a more heavy handwriting than the other.
Question. Please look at page 675 of your letter book, and read
from it the reply of your company to the letter of Mr. Bartol dated
July 24, 1858.
Answer.  This is the letter:
"OFFICE OF THE READING STEAM FORGE CO.
Reading, August 6, 1858.
"DEAR SIR: In answer to yours of the 24th ultimo to Mr. Leigh, I
would say that at a meeting of our board held last evening the matter
was presented to their notice, and they desire me to say that they
decline acceding to your proposition for the bidding of one of the




230            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
sloops, as it was entirely out of our line of business. Mr. Jones is
also of the opinion that it might seriously affect the interests of the
Forge Company.
I am, very truly, yours,
"C. McLENAGEN, Treasurer.
"B. H. BARTOL, Esq."
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you a book-keeper yourself?
Answer. I am.
Question. Why does not the account with the government appear
upon the ledger?
Answer. That is owing to the peculiar character of the transactions. In a case involving a contingent entry I should not open an
account with the firm. For instance: if a man owes us for making a
shaft, or doing any other kind of work, we draw upon him, through
the Farmers' Bank of Reading, for four or six months. If he is a
responsible party this may be discounted at the Bank of Reading,
and the entry will be " Cash, &c., to bills payable." We may, perhaps, pay this draft ourselves, and the entry would be still " Cash,
Cr., by bills payable." There might be money paid out in this way,
and the books would show it on reference. Any individual or firm
that we had a direct account with, we should open in his name.
Question. When you executed or drew a draft, did not your books
show for what amount and for what purpose it was drawn?
Answer. Certainly. For instance, if we drew upon the government
at six months and were desirous of having it discounted, it would be
drawn for work being done or being constructed, and would be
deposited and discounted by the Farmers' Bank of Reading.  Every
draft would upon the books appear upon what account it had been
drawn.
Question. You have stated that your books show no entry in connexion with the name of J. Glancy Jones?
Answer. None that I know of.
Question. Would it have been practicable, consistently with your
style of book-keeping to pay out money to him, which your books
would not show.
Answer. An entry might occur in this way. It might be set down
as an office expense. We have an office expense account, embracing
all travelling expenses, as well as contingent expenses of the office,
for paper, pens, ink, stamps, envelopes, &c. The office expense
might be charged in this way: "Office expenses, Dr. to cash," for
the general entry. This might be explained upon the books as cash
paid to any person who might go anywhere upon the business of the
company. If there was no direct account opened with the individual
there would be no other entry of the transaction.
Question. Although no direct account with the individual had been
opened, yet in keeping the account of the expenses of the office, this
would appear in connexion with the name of the person to whom
the money was paid?




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                231
Answer. Yes, sir; always, provided the entry was made in full.
Question. Have you ever examined the account of the expenses of
the office to see whether any amount of money has been paid to
J. Glancy Jones?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Please to make that examination?
Answer. It may involve a day's labor or more; I will do so.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have you seen in the letter book any correspondence
between Mr. Jones and the company?
Answer. No, sir.
[Subsequently, the witness reappeared.]
Question. What have you found from  your examination of the
books?
Answer. I have found money paid to Mr. Jones at various periods,
and I will refer to the items.  The entries are these:
" October 2, 1854; office expenses debtor to the Farmers' Bank for
check No. 523, drawn to pay J. Glancy Jones' expenses to Washington City, W30."
t November 26, 1856; office expenses debtor to the Farmers' Bank
for this amount, check No. 858, sent J. Glancy Jones for expenses in
procuring work for the Reading steam forge, $250."'September 28, 1857; office expenses for this amount, borrowed
money of J. A. Nichols, to pay J. Glancy Jones' esq., expenses to
Washington, on business for the company, and returned the same in
check No. 1038, $100.'
I have examined the books since 1851, and this is all that I have
found; this examination has been facilitated by finding opposite a
great many items, the name of the individual to whom  the money
was paid; there were also a great many small items of a dollar or two
which I did not examine at all.
Question. Are you certain that these are all the items?
Answer. There may be others.
Question. But you could not ascertain them readily?
Answer. No, sir; it would involve a very extensive examination.
Question. Is it likely that there is any other considerable item?
Answer. I think not, sir.
Question. In whose handwriting is this paper?
[See Appendix B, attached to this deposition.]
Answer. In that of Mr. McLenagan, if I mistake not.
Question. Who is E. J. Etting & Brother?  Are they creditors of
the concern, mortgagees?
Answer. I presume they are, sir.  I am not able to say who they
are.  I know that there was some trouble between the Steam Forge
Company and this firm of Etting and Brother.  It was a somewhat
complicated business. I ask permission here to correct two chronological mistakes I made, viz: I went to the Steam Forge on September
20, 1858, so that I was there but three months and ten days in 1858.
P. McLAUGHLIN,
Secretary and Treasurer Steam Forge Company.




232             CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
OFFICE READING STEAM FORGE COMPANY,
Reading, November 25, 1857.
GENTLEMEN: I am under the necessity of writing to you again relative to the notes of the Reading Steam  Forge Company, held by
yourselves.  I requested Mr. Lee, some days since, to call upon you,
when in your city, and make some arrangement regarding the notes
of the 23d and 26th, which I regret he was unable to do.  I wish,
gentlemen, at this time, to lay the plain facts of our case before you.
We are at present, and have been for the last three months, idle,
comparatively speaking, at our works, and, with little or no income,
been obliged to scrape and manage along as best we could.  We have
extended assistance wherever it has been asked, and, on the other
hand, have been refused favor in no one instance.  Our prospects for
the future are very flattering, as we have, at this time, positively secured the forgings for three of the new United States sloops, and a
very fair chance of the forgings for the remaining two; also, other
government work, which we are at present looking after. We feel
confident, when we get fully under way with this work, that our
troubles will be at an end.  We were assured one month ago that the
drawings for some of the above forgings were ready for us to get
to work upon, and consequently felt confident of being able to keep
all promises made.  We were disappointed, however, in this, but
will positively get to work within a week from  this time.  I now
have to ask, after giving plainly our situation, again for your favor,
by giving us an extension on the notes of the 23d and 26th November, and of the one due December 4, with the same endorsements.
Every effort will be made to meet that maturing the early part of
January.
I trust, gentlemen, you will take this matter fully into consideration before a decision is made, and grant us the last favor of this kind
which shall be solicited.
Awaiting your answer, I remain, very respectfully, yours,
C. McLENEGA.N, Jn.
Messrs. E.. J ETTING & BROTHER.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 18, 1854.
DEAR GENERAL: I received your letter this morning, and have just
had an interview with the Secretary of the Navy. He informs me
that all the machinery will be given out on contract, except, perhaps,
what is made in Washington.  The Secretary will advertise for bids,
but will not give it to the lowest bidder; he will contract with the
offer which he thinks is best for the government. Now, I think I
can serve my town and constituents by securing a fair portion from
those who want these contracts; with this the Secretary has nothing
to do; but we can do a great deal ourselves by being ready to meet
these contractors.  I will write you again soon, and send you the
notice when the Secretary advertises.
Truly yours,                       J. GLANCY JONES.
General W. H. KEIM.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                233
NAVY DEPARTMENT, June 27, 1855.
SIR: In reply to your letter of the 26th instant, you are informed
that the bills of the Reading Forge Company should be sent to the
Bureau of Construction, Equipment, &c., when, if found correct,
they will be approved by the chief of that bureau, payable by the
navy agent at Philadelphia, Baltimore, or New York, as the company may prefer.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. C. DOBBIN.
Hon. J. GLANCY JONES,
Reading, Pennsylvania.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF CONSTRUCTION, &C.,
July 12, 1855.
Sin: I enclose herewith your bills. amounting to $3,109 48, for
the crank shaft for the Minnesota, payable by the navy agent at
Philadelphia, as requested in your letter of the 29th ultimo.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the Bureau.
MAYBURY A. BERTOLET, Esq.,
Treasurer Reading Steam Forge Co., Reading, Pa.
TREDEGAR FOUNDRY,
Richmond, November 10, 1855.
DEAR Sin: We enclose statement of account and interest showing
balance due you, at six months, October 25, $9,281 88, for which, if
found correct, please accept the accompanying notes, at six months,
November 10 and 25, for $4,651 60 and $4,665 08 in settlement of
the same. We have made a few days' difference in the maturity of
the notes, to which you assented when here, all of which we hope
will be satisfactory.
Yours truly,
ANDERSON, DELANEY & CO.
M. A. BERTOLET, Esq.,
Secretary Reading Steam Forge Co., Reading, Pa.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, D. C., June 23, 1858.
DEAR Sin: I wrote yesterday to Mr. Nicholas Jones, who had formerly been treasurer of your company, in relation to the forging of a
crank shaft for the United States sloop-of-war Richmond; and as I




234            CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
have received a note this morning from the Hon. J. Glancy Jones,
giving me your address, and fearing that my note of yesterday may
not come to hand, I now write, asking that you will send your manager
or foreman here without delay, to see the drawing of the shaft, and
with authority to contract for forging it.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD.
Mr. LENEGAN,
Secretary of the Reading Forge Company.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, July 14, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 12th instant, inviting me to be present at
a meeting of the iron masters of your district to-day, has been received, and I regret exceedingly that it is out of my power to be
with you on the present occasion, but hope at some future time to
have the pleasure of visiting your establishment and the interesting
country around you.  And you will be pleased to say to our friends
that I take a strong interest in anything connected with the great
iron trade of Pennsylvania.
In the department we are quite busy preparing to advertise for the
machinery for the new vessels authorized to be built by Congress,
and I think they will be published next week.
I regret to inform you that the frigate Colorado has broken her main
crank shaft, which I think was forged at your establishment for
Messrs. Anderson &  Co., of Richmond.  The Colorado will come
home, under sail, to Boston, and the Roanoke will take her place.
I have prepared a drawing of a new shaft for her of increased dimensions, but as the honorable Secretary of the Navy is confined to
his room by sickness, I have no orders yet to have one made. Until
the broken shaft is removed, and I inspect it, I am not prepared to
say whether the break occurred from bad workmanship, or materials,
or too little section.
Very respectfully, yours,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD.
P. S. Will you be pleased to inform me, by return mail, at what
price per pound you will forge, turn, and finish, and deliver at the
Boston navy yard, one double throw main crank shaft, whole length
twenty-two feet three and one-eighth inches; diameter of largest
journal fourteen and one-half inches, smallest thirteen and one-half
inches, weighing about 15,000 pounds, guaranteeing its performance
at sea under steam for three months, and to be true in every respect
when suspended on centres, and the time of delivery.
ARCHBOLD.
C. McLENEGAN, Esq.




CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.                 235
SOUTHWARK FOUNDRY,
Philcadelphia, July 19, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: Please give us your lowest six months price for these
shafts of best iron. If the price suits we will send the order.
Respectfully, yours,
MERRICK & SONS,
By B. H. BARTOL.
STEAM FORGE Co.
[Confidential ]
PHILADELPHIA, July 24, 1858.
SIR: Colonel Florence, who is just from Washington, says it is a
settled fact that two of the new sloops are to be built here; one is
already commenced, and her machinery will soon be given out, and
we are told that our chance is good for that one. The second one
will no doubt be advertised for later. Will your company feel disposed to make a bid, I furnishing you all necessary drawings, prices,
&c., we to pay you five per cent. on the contract if awarded to you,
and we to do the work.  The advantage to Reading will be, that in
addition to the second set of shafting, we would order all the boiler
and pig iron for both vessels; these total $20,000. Will Mr. Jones
support your proposition, so as to get the job? Please advise me.
Yours truly,
B.
W. M. LEE, Esq.
[Duplicate.]
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, November 2, 1858.
SIR: Your firm having on the 20th of August contracted with the
Bureau of Construction, &c., for a crank shaft for the steam frigate
Colorado, to be forged, finished, and delivered at the Boston navy
yard in six weeks from the date of contract, and, as this time has
long since expired, I desire to be informed, by return mail, the reason
of the delay, and when it will be ready to ship, so that it can be inspected at your establishment.
I also desire to know when the Richmond's shaft will be ready for
shipping.  (Original of this letter was directed to Bristol, Pennsylvania.)
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD.
WILLIAM M. LEE, Esq.,
Superintendent Reading Steam Forge Co.,
Reading, Penn.




236                         APPENDIX.
APPENDIX.
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.
Papers relating to stean machinery of the "Lancaster," at Philadelphia;
advertisement dated November 19, 1857.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, October 22, 1857.
GENTLEMEN: The department desires your views upon the subject
of constructing the four steam propeller sloops-of-war that yet remain
to be built, as authorized by the act of Congress approved March 3,
1857.
You will give, in general terms, the armament you may think most
suitable, and the proposed draught of water; but if, in your opinion, it
be not desirable that they all be of the same force, you will state the
different classes that you would recommend for the consideration of
the department.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Corn. JOSEPH SMITH, JOHN LENTHALL, Esq., Capt. D. N. INGRAHAI.
and SAMUEL ARCHBOLD, Esq.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, October 27, 1857.
SIR: Enclosed with this you will find a copy of the report of a board
of officers in relation to four of the five steam sloops-of-war recently
authorized to be built by Congress. The department adopts the
recommendation of the board as to the first and second mentioned
classes of vessels; the largest vessel to be built at the Philadelphia
navy yard, and two others at Norfolk and Pensacola, respectively.
The place of construction for the fourth will be decided in a few days.
I am, very respectfully, &c., &c.,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
JOHN LENTHALL, Esq.,
Chief of Bureau of Construction, &c.
OCTOBER 26, 1857.
SIR: In compliance with your directions of the 23d instant, we
respectfully recommend that one of the four ships be built with
a covered deck, to mount eighteen heavy guns on the gun deck, and
two pivot guns on the spar deck, weighing, with their tackle and
ammunition, about 168 tons, and to have a draught of water of about




APPENDIX.                         237
18} feet when ready for sea.  We favor the construction of one ship
of this class to enable us to cope with new ships of the same class in
foreign navies.  Though there are five live-oak frames prepared for
ships of this class, the trial of one may lead to improvements hereafter.
Knowing the necessity for ships of lighter draught, we recommend
the other three sloops to have flush decks, to mount fourteen heavy
guns weighing about 132 tons, and to have a draught of about 16 feet.
Should the department permit another of the five live-oak frames
named to be used, a single-deck ship can be built instead of one of
the three last named, to mount, in addition to the fourteen heavy
guns, two pivot guns —one on the quarter deck, and one on the forecastle, with a draught of about 17 feet.
The precise calibre and position of the armament should be deferred
for further consideration.
These ships will be efficient, and are proposed with reference to
the live-oak frames on hand.  They should carry as much steam
power as can be accommodated, the machinery of which should be
designed after the precise forms and dimensions of the ships shall
be known.
We have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servants,
JOSEPH SMITH,
Chief Bureau of Yards and Docks.
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief Bureau of Construction, Equipment, &c.
D. N. INGRAHAM,
Chief Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-C iief, United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
December 22, 1857.
SIR: Transmitted herewith are the sealed specifications and plans
received at this department under its advertisement of November 19,
1857, for the construction of the steam machinery and appendages,
and placing it on board the screw propeller sloop-of-war building at
Philadelphia.  Yourself and Chief Engineers Hunt and Everett are
appointed a board to open them and determine upon their merits.
The board, after making a list of the names of the bidders, of the
cost and the time in which each proposes to execute the work, and a
detailed comparison of the several plans and offers, will express their
opinion as to which of them is the best adapted to the proposed purpose.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Engineer-in-Chief SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
United States Navy, Washington, D. C.




238                            APPENDIX.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
December 22, 1857.
STI: Report to Engineer-in-Chief Archbold for duty as a member
of a board to examine and report upon the merits of the plans and
specifications received at the department under its advertisement of
November 19, 1857, for the construction of the steam machinery, &c.,
for the screw-propeller sloop-of-war building at Philadelphie.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Chief Engineer HENRY HUNT,
United States Navy, Wash.ilgton, D. C.
Chief Engineer WILLIAM E. EVERETT,
United States Navy, Washington, D. C.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
December 31, 1857.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 22d instant, to examine
the accompanying specifications and plans received by the department under its advertisement of November 19 for the construction
of steam  machinery and appendages, and placing it on board the
screw-propeller sloop-of-war building at Philadelphia, we have the
honor to report:
That the following table shows the names of the several bidders,
kind of engine, size of engine, cost, and time required for construction.. d
Names.                                          Time of completion.
e. 0
Inches. Inches.
Woodruff & Beach.... Trunk —. —-  60   36   $126,000 No time given.
Murray & Hazlehurst - Direct acting
double piston rod..  62   35   138,000 6 mos. after launching.
Reaney & Neafie-....-..- do-.....  61   33   137, 500 3 mos. after lannclting.
Merrick & Sons. —. -—..do. —. —  68   33   145,000 8 months from date of
contract, or 4 months
after launching.
The trunk engine proposed by Woodruff & Beach we consider objectionable; and though they presented drawings of steam and exhaust
valves which, so far as our opinion can be formed from  them, would
seem to possess advantages over the ordinary form, yet, in the absence
of a working model, we cannot express a decidedly favorable opinion.




APPENDIX.                        239
But if the valves had even great merit, we could not recommend the
adoption of trunk engines for this ship.
The engine proposed by Murray & Hazlehurst has a framing of
peculiar construction, which we consider unfitted to the purpose.
The general form of engine proposed by Merrick & Sons and iReaney
& Neafie are similar. The details of arrangements in the plans of the
former are all very perfectly shown, whilst the drawings of the latter
are not so full; but there would be, evidently, considerable difference
in the details. The steam cylinders of Merrick & Sons' engine have
a greater capacity of 8' cubic feet; the boilers have 200 square feet
more heating surface, with a proportional amount of grate; the journal surface is greater by 22 per cent.; and a large amount of journal
surface is one of the most important considerations in propeller
engines.
The increased size of Merrick & Sons' engines and boilers reduce
the coal stowage from  eight to ten tons below Reaney & Neafie's
plan, and their estimated weight of engines, boilers, &c., is 348 tons,
or eight tons greater than that specified as admissible in the advertisement of the department; whilst the estimated weight by Reaney
& Neafie is 324 tons, or sixteen tons less than the department allowed.
Comparing capacity of cylinders and price of Merrick &  Sons'
engines with capacity of cylinders and price of Reaney & Neafie's
engines, the former is the lowest bidder; and comparing boiler surface, they are nearly equal.
We are of the opinion that the engines, &c., proposed by Merrick
& Sons are best adapted to the requirements of the department and
will give the most satisfaction on account of the increased journal
surface and larger engines and boilers, the increased size of which
will be decidedly advantageous in obtaining a higher rate of speed
when desired, and will be no less economical in fuel at lower rates.
Each of the bidders made supplementary proposals for furnishing
a surface condenser for an additional compensation; but if we were
much inclined to the adoption of this instrument, we could not recommend it, as the form of engine we deem best adapted to this ship
would render its application exceedingly difficult on account of its
requiring an additional large pump, and would add complication of
the already complex machinery, from being crowded into so small a
space.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants,
H. HUNT,
W. E. EVERETT,
Cief' Engineers.
Not concurring with Messrs. Hunt and Everett in some of the views
taken by them, it becomes necessary to make a separate report, particularly with regard to the propositions of Messrs. Merrick & Sons
and Messrs. Ieaney, Neafie & Co., both of Philadelphia. It is urged
against the latter that their plans and drawings are not so full as
those of Messrs. Merrick & Sons, but there can be no objection to




240                         APPENDIX.
their being allowed to make them more perfect, so that, in essential
points, they do not vary from their first proposition.
There can be no doubt whatever but that with larger engines and
boilers increased speed can be obtained, which is certainly very desirable; but this vessel being intended for a cruiser, it is presumed
will have a large proportion of sail, so that the steam power will be
an auxiliary and not the prime mover. There must also be space left
for the numerous objects that we all know such a ship-of-war will be
fitted with.
A careful examination of the plans proposed by Merrick & Sons
shows that there can be but some 270 tons of coal stowed in the space
allowed to the machinery, boilers, and coal; and from the dimensions
of the engines and boilers, it is deduced that the consumption of coal,
when full steaming, will be at the rate of 28 tons per diem, so that
the stowage will be 9. days, whilst, by the advertisement, fuel for 13
days' full steaming is required.  With regard to the plans proposed
by Reaney & Neafie, calculated in the same manner, the quantity of
coal stowed will be 278 tons, and the consumption being 26 tons per
diem, there will be coal for 10` days' steaming. Although the weight
of Messrs. Merrick & Sons' machinery and boilers is but eight tons
greater than was required, which is but an insignificant quantity, yet
it is 24 tons greater than that proposed by Reaney, Neafie & Co., and
with equal quantities of coal on board it will be somewhat detrimental
to the velocity.
The objections to Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s plan, on the one hand, is
the small quantity of crank journal surface which is, in some degree,
a matter of detail that can be partially remedied; and to Merrick &
Sons' plan it may be objected to the manner of communicating motion
to the piston of the air-pump, which might also be remedied. The
engines and boilers proposed by the two parties are in most respects
similar, and the selection of the most advantageous turns upon the
small increase of speed on the one side against the greater number of
days' coal that can be carried on the other.
With regard to the cost, comparing the powers in the proportion
of grate surface in each case, they would be as 100 to 97; and if
Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s were equal to Merrick & Sons', their price
would be increased to $140, 650, which would be $4,350 less than the
latter; and assuming the speeds to be as the square roots of the
powers, they would be as 10 miles is to 9-i4o- miles per hour.
From the above it will appear that the only difference in the two
propositions is $4,350 in cost, and the department could not err in
selecting either the one or the other.
I would respectfully suggest that in drawing up the contract it should
be made a condition that the weight of the machinery shall not be
more, and that the amount of coal to be stored in the space allotted to
the machinery, boilers, and coal, shall not be less than the amount to




APPENDIX.                        241
be named in the contract, under penalty to be deducted from the final
payment.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAM'L ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-Chief, U. S. Navy.
Hon. IsAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
February 1, 1858.
SIR: The department desires you to examine the proposals, models,
drawings, specifications, &c., for the steam machinery for the sloopof-war to be built at Philadelphia, and to give it your opinion, in
writing, which is the best adapted to the purpose intended, and your
reasons for such opinion. The department also desires a similar opinion
in relation to the proposals, &c., for the steam machinery for the sloopof-war to be built at Boston.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Engineer-in-Chief SAM'L ARCHBOLD,
United States Navy, Washington, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 1, 1858.
SIRS: The department desires you to examine the proposals, models,
drawings, specifications, &c., for the steam machinery for the sloopof-war to be built at Philadelphia, and to give it your opinion, in
writing, which is the best adapted to the purposes intended, and your
reason for such opinion.  The department also desires a similar
opinion in relation to the proposals for the steam machinery for the
sloop-of-war to be built at Boston.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Chief Engineers JESSE GAY, HENRY HUNT, ELDRIDGE LAWTON,
United States Navy, Washington, D. C.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
February 16, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your order of the 1st instant to examine the
proposals, models, drawings, specifications, &c., for the steam machinery for the sloop-of-war to be built at Philadelphia, and to give
my opinion, in writing, which is the best adapted to the purposes'
intended, and my reasons for such opinion, I have the honor to state
hat tthere are four bidders for machinery for the Philadelphia ship,
16 c




242                         APPENDIX.
and the plans and specifications which I consider best adapted to
the purposes intended are those submitted by Reaney, Neafie & Co.
of Philadelphia.
The engines are of the kind known as direct acting double piston
rod; diameter of cylinders, 61 inches; length of stroke, 33 inches,
with vertical tubular boilers, containing 294 feet of grate surface and
9,080 square feet of fire surface, the whole occupying a space of
1,199 square feet, and, by their estimate, weighing 324 tons.
I have selected these plans in preference to others of the same
description on account of an advantage in the following important
details:
In their designs, the air-pump pistons are actuated by a direct
attachment to one of the main piston rods, and in the same line; but
in the other design, which might be considered next in the order of
merit, they are actuated by an arm projecting twenty-four inches from
the centre of the cross-head, which would, in my opinion, throw an
unequal, unbalanced, and injurious strain on the cross-head.
The connecting rods in their designs are ten inches longer than in
the others, which will occasion less friction on the guides and crank
pins.
These engines and boilers occupy 400 cubic feet less space, and
weigh, by their estimate, twenty-four tons less than the others, and
consequently will give greater capacity to carry fuel.
My impression being that the proper application of the screw as a
propeller in an efficient cruising ship-of-war, is as an auxiliary to the
sails and not as the prime mover, I consider the plans proposed by
Reaney, Neafie & Co.. as of ample power for the purposes intended,
and conform more nearly than any other to the advertisements of the
department.
I would respectfully suggest that, in drawing up the contract, it
should be made a condition that the weight of the machinery shall
not be more, and the amount of coal to be stowed in the space
allotted to the machinery, boilers, and coal, shall not be less than the
amount to be named in the contract, under penalty to be deducted
from the final payments.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-Chief, United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, February 15, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your order of February 1, I have examined all
the drawings and specifications submitted by the several competitors
for steam machinery to be constructed for the steam sloop-of-war to
be built at Philadelphia, and have the honor to report my opinion
thereon in their order of efficiency. The first being the most objectionable, the last embracing the greater efficiency to comply with the




APPENDIX.                          243
requirements of the department, as advertised for November 19,
1857.
First. Messrs. Murray c  Hazlelurst, Vulcan Works, Baltimore, propose direct acting engines, steam cylinders, sixty inches diameter, and
thirty-five inches stroke. To this plan of engines there is no objection.  It is simple and accessible in all parts, and occupies in the ship
a small amount of space; but in the design the diameter of cylinder
is too small and the stroke too long.  In the application of the power
of a screw engine a proportionately large diameter of cylinder and
short stroke is requisite, for the reason that the power is in the area
of cylinder, and a great speed is required on the crank shaft, which
cannot be attained with a long stroke, however large the cylinder;
therefore two engines could be constructed of equal power, each
having the same capacity of cylinder; one of proportionately large
diameter and short stroke, the other of smaller diameter and long
stroke; and it will be found that the former will propel the ship at
the greater speed.  The condensers in this case, two kinds are specified: the common jet and " Pirrson' s surface."  The former is entirely
too small, and in it a good vacuum cannot be maintained. The latter' surface condenser" I am not prepared to recommend, for the following reasons:
1. A sufficient amount of surface cannot be put into a reasonable
space to condense all the steam generated by the boilers. The surface of the boiler which transmits the heat in this case is 9,000 square
feet, (which is 1,400 square feet too large,) and the condenser's surface is specified at 4,400 square feet, which is far too small to condense all the steam, and hence considerable salt water would have to
be used.
2. The condensed water is returned to the boilers at about 1100,
and considerable power is required to work the fresh water pump.
3. Great liability to derangement, leakage of tubes, and a vitiated
vacuum.  The gain of using fresh water in practice will be far outweighed by the loss of vacuum and power in the pump, and loss of
heat in the water returned to the boilers. The loss in using salt
water is, in my opinion, less than with fresh obtained by the present
"surface condenser."  The framing is very objectionable for quickworking engines.  The crank-shaft pillow-blocks are designed to be
secured to the cylinder and condenser with diagonal wrought iron
braces.  The connexions cannot be kept firm, and must soon give
trouble. Also, the thrust-bearing, being three bevel wheels, occupies
too much space, and would not answer the purpose.
The next design in order is submitted by Messrs. Woodruff &
Beach, of Hartford, Connecticut, and are two trunk engines, cylinders
equal to 60 inches diameter, 36 inches stroke. The same objections
of a proportionate diameter to stroke presents itself as in the former
case, but to a greater degree, and also the same objections to the
"surface condenser."  The trunk engine has, in my opinion, some insuperable objections. 1st. A great surface of trunk which in its vibrations into and out of the cylinder acts as a cooling surface to the
steam in the cylinder, and hence a loss of power, or fuel, and for a




244                         APPENDIX.
ship-of-war which must necessarily be employed in the warm climates,
is very objectionable on account of its keeping the engine room at an
almost insupportable high temperature.  2d. The trunk pin (that
which corresponds with the cross head in other engines) is limited to
so small a length and diameter that it cannot work well.
The next in order of efficiency was presented by Messrs. Reaney
& Neafie of Philadelphia, which are two direct acting engines, cylinders 61 inches diameter, and 33 inches stroke.  This plan of engines
is well designed for economy of space and strength of its parts and
approaches nearer the requirements for speed and economy of fuel,
is well proportioned for condensers. Heating and grate surface to
the capacity of the cylinder. The crank shaft is designed to run in
side brasses in the pillow blocks, which is in my opinion exceedingly
objectionable, it being difficult to set the brasses up properly, is more
liable to heat, requiring more care and even close watching, and uses
more oil. The pitch of the propeller is not specified, which is an
important omission. The feed pipes are copper, which are objectionable, and not admissible for a ship-of-war for the reason that
galvanic action operates to destroy the parts in connexion with
them, and experience has abundantly proved that they are not
to be relied upon. The combined heating surface of main and auxiliary boilers is too large, main boiler 8,640 square feet, which of
itself is large, and 1,440 square feet in auxiliary boilers, total 10,080
square feet. This shows that the weight of boiler is unnecessarily
large, and is an objection rather than an advantage for any contingency.
The next and last plan was proposed by Messrs. Merrick & Son, of
Philadelphia, and are two direct acting engines of same plan as those
proposed by Messrs. Reaney & Neafie. Cylinder 68 inches diameter,
and 33 inches stroke. These engines have the advantage of greater
area of cylinder to proportion of stroke, are well proportioned for
strength in all parts, and a good proportion of heating, grates, condensers, and air pump to capacity of cylinder. The condensers are
much higher, which is important to condensation and vacuum; the
journal surface is larger; and the crank pins are longer than any screw
engine yet built, to my knowledge, this being a very important acquisition. The reversing apparatus, as shown in the drawings and specifications, has great advantages over any other competitor; it
is arranged to assist the reversing with steam, in such a manIer that the  engines can  be  changed  from  forward to back
motion in much less time  than could otherwise be done, and
with one man, which I consider very important, and in which the
safety of the ship may at some time depend; the feed pipes are
specified to be made of composition, which experience proves to be
best and reliable. -Heaters are also specified which are necessary to
economy of fuel, having an adjustable cut-off valve directly on the
back of the steam valve that may be regulated when the engines are
in motion; having monkey-tail valves at each end of the cylinder
to warm up before starting and avoid danger from water in the cylinder. Large passage ways around the engines, which could be somewhat reduced and increase the space for coal. The greater area of




APPENDIX.                          245
steam cylinder, which will be decidedly an advantage in obtaining a
higher speed when required and moderate speed with a less consumption of fuel, and it will be found that, with the same number
of tons of coal, these engines will drive the ship over more miles
than any other offered, and the same distances with a less amount of
coal, and this fact will be the result of an increased area of cylinder,
or using steam with increased expansion. The advertisement of the
department calls for a storage of coal within the fifty six feet allotted
to the machinery for thirteen days full steaming.  This is impossible
to be done with any of the engines presented. The space has been
carefully measured, and also the space occupied by the engines and
boilers in each case, and it is found that with Messrs. Murray &
Hazlehurst's engine, 218 tons, Messrs. Woodruff &  Beach, 277
tons, Messrs. Reaney &  Neafie 270 tons, and  Messrs. Merrick
& Son 261 tons of coal can be stored, which, in each case, is less
than thirteen days full steaming for each plan presented. With the
quantity stored by Messrs. Merrick & Son, which is nine tons less
than the next best design, it will be found that the ship will travel
over a greater distance than with Messrs. Reaney & Neafie's engines,
and therefore the design of Messrs. Merrick & Son comes nearer the
stipulations of the department. The specified weights are not to be
relied upon in either case.
Messrs. Reaney & Neafie give......................  324 tons.
Messrs. Merrick & Son give.~ * v   ~ ~.                  348 tons,
which includes the water in the boilers. The latter is eight tons
over the weight called for by the department. The weights given
by Messrs. Reaney & Neafie are considerable under, while Messrs.
Merrick & Son are about correct, according to my estimates, and
Messrs. Reaney & Neafie's will be more increased by the extra and
unnecessary weight in the auxiliary boilers.   The prices given in
the specifications must be considered upon the ratio of the capacity
of the cylinder, the boiler power being sufficient, in each case, for
each pair of engines, and will be as follows:
Price of Messrs. Reaney & Neafie's engines...........  $137,500
Price of Messrs. Merrick & Son's engines..............  140,000
Cubic capacity of Messrs. Reaney & Neafie's cylinders......................................  111.5   cubic  feet.
Cubic capacity of Messrs. Merrick & Son's cylinders 138.6 cubic feet.
Price per cubic foot of Messrs. Reaney & Neafie' s engines  $1,233 18
Price per cubic foot of Messrs. Merrick & Son's engines.-   1,010 10
Excess of price of Messrs. Reaney & Neafie's engines per cubic
foot $223 08 more than that of Messrs. Merrick & Son.
With the foregoing considerations of advantages for speed, stowage
for coal, and efficiency, I am of the opinion that the designs presented
by Messrs. Merrick & Son are the best adapted for the sloop-of-war
to be built at Philadelphia.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
JESSE GAY, Chief Engineer.
Hon. IsAAc TOUcEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




246                         APPENDIX.
Report of Chief Engineer Hurst on the engines for the Philadelphia ships.
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 15, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 1st instant, I have examined the proposals, drawings, specifications, &c., for the machinery
for the sloop-of-war to be built at Philadelphia, and would respectfully report as follows:
There are four bidders for the machinery, viz: Woodruff & Beach,
Hartford, Murray & Hazlehurst, Baltimore, Merrick &  Son, and
Reaney & Neafie, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia.
Each bidder proposes machinery differing either in size or form.
The plans, drawings, and specifications of each bidder were carefully
examined, and all the essential parts of each engine tabulated, that
their good and bad qualities could be more readily seen and compared.
From a careful examination, I am of opinion that the plans, drawings, and specifications, presented by Merrick & Sons are the best
adapted for the purposes intended.
My reasons for the above conclusion are as follows:
Messrs. Woodruff & Beach present trunk engines, a kind, I think,
objectionable, and would not recommend them where other kind of
engines can be used.
The engines proposed by Murray & Hazlehurst have a peculiar
kind of framing, which I think, somewhat experimental, and would
not recommend their adoption, as it might hazard the success of the
ship.
The engines proposed by Reaney, Neafie & Co., and Merrick
& Son, are nearly similar in form, but the drawings of the latter
are more full and perfect, showing a better arrangement of details.
Merrick & Son's gives a capacity of twenty-seven cubic feet the
most steam cylinder, which is an important point, and which enables
them to comply more nearly with one of the conditions of the advertisement, viz: "to obtain the greatest speed and power with the
most economical consumption of fuel."  That can be done only by
using large steam cylinders and working the steam expansively.
The boilers proposed by Merrick & Son have two hundred square
feet the most heating surface, whereby a greater speed can be maintained when desired.
Their engines have 22 per cent. more journal surface than those
proposed by Reaney, Neafie & Co., which is a desirable condition in
all direct acting propeller engines.
By the arrangement of the engines proposed by Merrick & Son,
there is more room and greater facilities for the engineers to get near
and around them for examination and adjustment, when they are in
operation, which in my opinion is an important point, and one of the
terms of the advertisement.
Persons unacquainted with the theory of the steam engine, might
suppose that the larger engines must necessarily consume more fuel
than the smaller ones: but that is not the case at equal speeds of
vessel; suppose the vessel driven at a certain velocity with a certain




APPENDIX.                         247
amount of fuel per day by the smaller engines of Reaney, Neafie &
Co., the same speed could be maintained as long a time and with less
fuel, by the larger engines proposed by Merrick & Son.
There is one condition, however, where larger engines will consume the most fuel, that is when "full steaming," or when driven up
to their maximum power, then as the larger engine will propel the
vessel at a greater speed, and develop more power, they will require
the most fuel.
The term "full steaming," as applied in the advertisement, I presume means, when all the fuel is consumed that can be burnt on the
grates, and all the steam used that can be generated.  Now that is a
condition wherein neither of the parties can comply with the terms
of the advertisement, for neither can stow fuel for thirteen days "full
steaming. "
Reany, Neafie & Co., by having smaller machinery can stow about
278 tons, which will last "full steaming" about 101 or 11 days; by
Merrick & Son's arrangement they can stow about 270 tons, which
will last them "full steaming" about 91 or 10 days.
It is a rare occurrence that a man-of-war steamer is ever under
"full steaming;" they generally cruise with a regard to economy of
fuel, and then the advantage of using the steam expansively will
enable the larger engines propelled by Merrick & Son to propel the
vessel a greater distance in the same time with 270 tons of coal, than
those propelled by Reaney, Neafie & Co. could with 278 tons.
The advertisement confines the bidders to a given space in the ship,
and a certain weight of machinery; they all keep within the limited
space, but the estimated weight of Merrick & Son' s machinery is eight
tons greater than admitted by the advertisement. Although in my
opinion that small excess of weight is too trifling to be any detriment
to the ship, particularly when taken in consideration with the other
advantages those engines possess. Yet if the department decides to
confine the bidders strictly within the terms of the advertisement,
it is enough to throw out their bid; and in case the department
decides to do so, I would then recommend the proposals of Reany,
Neafie & Co. as being the next best.
I would here state that I place no confidence in the estimated
weight of machinery unless the parties making the estimates have
either built similar engines, or have all the drawings in detail.
Hon. IsAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.
Report of Chief Engineer Lawton on the proposals for the engines of the
ship to be built in Philadelphia.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, February 15, 1858.
SIR: Agreeably to your order of the 1st instant I have examined
the drawings, specifications, &c., for the steam  machinery for the
sloop-of-war to be built in Philadelphia, and respectfully beg leave
to report: The plans submitted are four in number, three "double




248                         APPENDIX.
piston rod direct acting," and one " trunk."  I would not recommend
the adoption of the "trunk," for these reasons, viz: the cylinders
have to be of larger diameter to obtain like capacity, great friction
on trunks, and radiation of heat from the same into the engine room,
which detracts from the boiler power; also the difficulty of giving
sufficient diameter to the trunk-pin, and of non-access to it.  Besides
this, it heats badly, and is not convenient to lubricate.
The plan of Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst is objectionable, inasmuch as they introduce a peculiar kind of engine framing, which, in
my opinion, will not well serve the purpose intended.  There are no
objections to be offered to the principles involved in the plan of
Messrs. Reaney & Neafie; and in choosing between their plan and
that of Messrs. Merrick & Son, I accord the preference to the latter,
as having more capacity of cylinder, air-pump, and condenser. The
air-pump drains the condenser better, thereby tending to improve
the vacuum.  The crank-shaft has more bearing surface, which will
lessen the difficulty caused by the heating of the journals. The
boilers proposed by the parties are all of the same design, but those
of Merrick & Son have more heating surface, and greater distance is
given between mainmast and smoke pipe.
In conclusion I deem it but proper to state that the total weight of
machinery and water in boilers, according to the estimate of Messrs.
M. & Son, will slightly exceed three hundred and forty tons, and the
amount of coal that can be stowed will be about eight tons more than
could be carried by the adoption of Messrs. Reaney & Neafie's plan.
I will also state that, in my opinion, none of the plans will admit the
carrying of thirteen days' fuel for full steaming.
I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,
ELBRIDGE LAWTON,
Chief Engineer United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Construction, Equipment, &c., Mlarch 2, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your verbal instructions, we have carefully read the reports made by the four chief engineers appointed to
examine the plans of steam machinery proposed for the propeller
sloops-of-war building at the Boston and at the Philadelphia navy
yards.
With regard to the offers for the ship at Boston, we find two plans
are brought particularly to the notice of the department; one by
Messrs. Farren, of New  York, and the other by Mr. Loring, of
Boston.
One of the engineers reports in favor of Messrs. Farren, without
mentioning any other plan.  Another engineer is also in favor of
Messrs. Farren's plan, but considers that of Mr. Loring as the next
best.
The other two engineers consider the merits of the two plans are




APPENDIX.                        249
so nearly equal, that they think the price (which was not made known
to any of them) should be allowed to decide the question.
We find the difference in price to be $15,500 in favor of Mr. Loring,
of Boston, it being in fact the lowest bid; and as the weight which
he stipulates for the machinery is within the limit fixed, we think the
contract should be awarded to him.
With respect to the plans submitted for the ship building in the
Philadelphia navy yard, that proposed by the lowest bidder was for a
description of engine which none of the engineers would recommend
for adoption, and they only submitted to the consideration of the
department that of Merrick & Son, and that of Reaney & Neafie,
both of Philadelphia.
One of the engineers recommends the adoption of the plan proposed by Reaney & Neafie. Another states that he has no objections
to make to Reaney & Neafie's plan, but prefers that of Merrick & Son
mainly from the cylinder and condenser being of a greater capacity,
and greater surface of crank-shaft journals.
A third engineer states that the two plans are nearly similar, but
prefers Merrick & Son's as having greater capacity of cylinder, more
room about the engine, greater journal surface, and greater heating
surface, concluding with the remark that he considers their excess
of weight as unimportant when compared with the advantages of their
plan. But if it is decided to confine bidders strictly within the terms
of the advertisement, their excess of weight is enough to throw them
out, and he recommends the plan of Reaney & Neafie as the next best.
The remaining engineer states that Merrick & Son's plan is similar
to that of Raney & Neafie; that the latter is well designed for economy of space and strength, but he prefers the former as having a
better proportion of area of cylinder to stroke, a more advantageous
arrangement of condenser, larger journal surface, improved reversing
apparatus, that it is provided with heaters, and that the feed pipes
are of composition.
Agaiust Reaney & Neafie's plan he objects to the side brasses in the
pillow blocks; that a very important omission has been made by them
in not giving the pitch of the propeller; that they have too much
heating surface, and that they propose copper feed pipes, which he
thinks inadmissible in a ship-of-war.
Upon examining the specifications it is found that Reaney & Neafie
have given the pitch of the propeller, that they propose composition
feed pipes and not copper, and that heaters which are approved in
one plan are likewise named in the other. One of the engineers seems
to object to the excess of heating surface in Reaney & Neafie's plan,
and another approves of Merrick & Son's because it has the most.
The opinion of the engineers appears to be that none of the plans
proposed will carry fuel for thirteen days' full steaming within the
space allotted for that purpose, but that Reaney & Neafie' s plan will
permit of carrying the largest quantity.  An examination of the specifications shows that Merrick & Son's stipulate to furnish a machinery
exceeding by eight tons, and that Reaney & Neafie' s proposition is for
one of sixteen tons less than the limit fixed, and also that the offer of




250                            APPENDIX.
Messrs. Reaney & Neafie is $7,500 less than that of Messrs. Merrick
& Son.
The merits of the two plans seem to be so nearly equal, that, as in
the case of the machinery for the Boston ship, we think the contract
should be awarded to the lowest bidder whose limit of weight is within
that fixed by the advertisement.
A list of the offers is herewith enclosed.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
JOHN LENTHALL,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD.
Scale of offers for steam machinery for screw propeller ship-of-war building in the Philadelphia navy yard, under advertisement of November
19, 1857.
Merrick & Son.....................................  $145,000
Murray & Hazlehurst...............................    138,000
Reaney & Neafie...................................    137,500
Woodruff & Beach.................................    126,000
Scale of offers for steam machinery for screw propeller ship-of-war building in the Boston navy yard, under advertisement of July 16, 1857.
Charles T. James, $160,000; $10, 000 to be added for Pierson's condenser.
Dickerson & Sickles, $155,000; $10,000 to be added for Pierson's
condenser.
Boardman, Holbrook & Co., Neptune Iron Works, $145,000.
James M. Cross, Allaire Works, $145,000.
J. S. Underhill, Dry Dock Iron Works, $144,000.
R. P. Parrott, West Point Foundry, $138,000.
Quintard &Whitney, Morgan Iron Works, $136,900; $6,100 to be
added for silver governor, Parry's thrust, Allyn & Noyes' packing,
Griffith's propeller.
James Murphy & Co., Fulton Iron Works, $136,000.
F. H. & E. Farren, $136,000.
Woodruff & Beach, $130,000; $6,000 to be added for Pierson's condenser.
Edwards & Curtis, Atlantic Works, $125,000.
O. W. Bailey, Loco Works, Boston, $118,000.
Loring & Coney, $114,400.
NAVY  DEPARTMENT
Bureau of Construction, &c., April 13, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: A contract and specifications for the machinery of the
steamer';Lancaster,"' in accordance with your proposition to the de



APPENDIX.                         251
partment, has this day been forwarded to the navy agent at Philadelphia for execution, which you will please have promptly done, with
good and sufficient sureties, equal in amount to the face of the contract, that it may be returned with as little delay as practicable. The
specifications must be signed by you.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN LENTHALL,
Chief of the.Bureau.
Messrs. REANEY, NEAFIE & Co.,
Pen. Iron Works, Kensingtona, Philadelphia.




252                         APPENDIX,
Papers relating to the contracts for the steam machinery for the screw
propeller sloops-of-war building at the navy yards at Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Pensacola,
under advertisement of the department, dated July 26, 1858.
Steam machinery for screw propeller sloops-of-war at the United States navy
yards at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Gosport, and Pensacola.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 26, 1858.
Sealed proposals, endorsed "Proposals for steam machinery for
screw propeller sloops-of-war," will be received at this department
until 3 o'clock, p. m. of the 8th of September next, for the complete
construction of the steam machinery and appendages, and placing the
same on board, for each of the screw sloops-of-war building at the
United States navy yards at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, New York,
Philadelphia, and Gosport, in accordance with the following conditions:
The offers must be for a specific sum for putting the whole in successful operation, must include all patent fees, and the department
will require a release from the proprietors of any patented article or
arrangements used in or about the machinery, and must state the
time in which the work will be completed, and must be accompanied
by the usual guarantee required by law.
The name of the establishment in which the work is to be executed
must he stated. The details of the design and arrangement of the
machinery will be left with the party whose proposition may be
accepted as combining the greatest number of advantages, keeping in
view cost, simplicity of construction, readiness of access for adjustment when in operation, and not being subject to derangement in the
working parts; it being the object of the department to procure
machinery which can develop great power when required so as to
insure high speed for as many days as possible, while, at the same
time, they will be able to propel the vessel at a moderate speed with
great economy of fuel, so that long voyages may be performed with
one supply of coal.
With this view, the department will expect the bidders to guaranty
the results proposed to be accomplished by their plans, and to specify
those results under the following heads:
1. The amount of horse-power which the engines and boilers will
be able to develop for five days consecutively when driven up to their
highest capacity, to be measured on board the vessel by the indicator,
at the rate of 33,000 pounds lifted one foot high in a minute, and to




APPENDIX.                         253
be not less than 1,000 horse-power, and at least 80 revolutions per
minute.
The consumption of coals per horse-power per hour must be stated.
The pressure, in pounds, per square inch on the piston necessary to
work the engines at the above velocity, the screw being disconnected
and the engines without a load, except the line of shafting, must not
exceed 21 pounds per square inch of piston by indicator diagram.
2. The quantity of coal which can be stowed in the ship without
exceeding the total weight of 406 tons for machinery, appendages,
boilers and water in them, bunkers, tools, square pieces, and coal
within the length occupied by the engines and boilers. The boilers
to be of iron of the multitubular kind, with brass tubes and with
telescopic smoke pipe, and, as it is intended to use fresh water in the
boilers, a surface condenser of the most approved kind will be
required.
The propeller, with the connexions for hoisting it, will be of composition, to be properly proportioned for at least eighty revolutions
per minute, and for the immersed amidship section of the vessel.
The pumps, apparatus for ventilating, and appurtenances of all
kinds necessary for the perfect working of the whole to be of the most
approved kinds.
The coal bunkers, shaft passage, two athwartship iron bulk heads,
a distilling apparatus for fresh water, from which can be made not less
than 500 gallons per day, and the tools and duplicate pieces necessary
and satisfactory for an efficient cruising steam sloop-of-war, must be
included in the proposition, and a list of them must be furnished.
The wood and carpenter work, except the boring out the dead work
for the shaft, necessary to adapt the vessel for the reception of the
machinery, boilers, and appendages, will be provided at the expense
of the Navy Department, and it will permit the use of such facilities
as it may have for hoisting the heavy machinery on board.
For the accommodation of the entire steam machinery and the fuel
there will be allowed in the body of the ship the entire space under
the spar deck, commencing at 15 feet abaft the mainmast, andthence
extending forward a distance of fifty feet. Within this space it is
expected to carry coal for five days' steaming, at the maximum speed.
In the specifications the daily consumption of fuel will be stated;
also the weight of the machinery, coal, boilers, water in them, shaft,
propeller and appendages, with tools and spare work, all of which
must not exceed 406 tons of 2,240 pounds.
The distance from the after side of the mainmast to the after side
of the forward stern post will be about eighty feet, and the distance
between the forward and the after stern posts will be seven feet.
The depth from the load water line to the top of the keel, under the
propeller, will be 12 feet I inch.
The proposal must be accompanied by full specifications and general
drawings, having the position of the centre of gravity of the machinery,
boilers, &c., marked on them, giving also the capacity of the steam
cylinders, pressure of steam, area of foot and delivery valves, and of
air pump and outboard delivery valves, space for steam above the




254                        APPENDIX.
water line of the boilers, the fire and grate surface, also the diameter,
pitch, surface, and kind of propeller and other principal points, that
comparisons can readily be made.
The terms of payment will be that, when one-half of the materials
and labor provided for in the contract shall have been completed to
the satisfaction of the department, there will be made a payment of
one-third part of the whole amount of the contract. When the whole
shall have been completed and ready for erection in the ship, a further
payment of one-sixth will be made; and when a satisfactory trial of
seven consecutive days shall have been made, then a further payment
of one-sixth; and when the ship shall have performed satisfactorily
at sea for a period of three months, the remaining sum shall be paid.
The repairs necessary during this period from defective workmanship or materials will be at the expense of the contractor.
It is to be understood that if the weight and other conditions specified in the contract be not complied with, the department is to be
at liberty to reject the whole machinery, the contractor to be at the
expense of taking it out of the ship and to refund whatever amount of
the contract price may have been paid.
Proposals will also be received at the same time and place for the
steam machinery and appendages, and placing the same on board
each of the screw sloops-of-war building at the navy yards at Boston,
Philadelphia, and Pensacola, under the specifications and conditions
above stated, with variations in the following particulars, viz:
1. Horse power 750, at, at least 80 revolutions per minute.
2. The total weight for machinery, appendages, boilers and water
in them, bunkers, tools, spare pieces, and coal must not exceed 310
tons of 2,240 pounds each.  The length occupied by the engines and
boilers will commence 14 feet abaft the mainmast, and thence extend
forward a distance of 46 feet.
The distance from the after-side of the mainmast to the after-side
of the forward stern post will be about 75 feet. The depth from the
load water line to the top of the keel under the propeller will be nine
feet two inches.
Steam engine manufacturers who desire to bid can obtain a copy of
the section of any one of the vessels upon making application to the
department.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
SOUTHWARK FOUNDRY, PHILADELPHIA,
September 7, 1858.
SIR: In accordance with the terms of your advertisement dated
July 26, respecting the "machinery for sloops-of-war," we offer to
construct at our establishment and put on board the sloop-of-war of
13 feet draft, building at the Philadelphia navy yard, the machinery
described in the following specifications, for the sum of one hundred




APPENDIX.                        255
and two thousand dollars, ($102,000.) To be completed in three
months after the launch of the vessel.
Respectfully,
MERRICK & SONS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Such parts as are required to be put on the vessel before launching
to be duly completed so as to cause no delay.
SIR: The undersigned, guaranty that if the contract for steam
machinery for screw propeller sloop-of-war building at the port of
Philadelphia, be awarded to Messrs. Merrick & Sons, those gentlemen will execute when desired, a contract for the same with the security required.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
JOHN C. CRESSON,
F. FRALEY.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
UNITED STATES'ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
Philadelphia, September 5, 1858.
I certify that John C. Cresson and Frederick Fraley, are sufficient
sureties in the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars.
JAMES C. VAN DYKE.
Attorney for United States, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT,
September 6, 1858.
The undersigned hereby agree to build all the steam  machinery
and appendages according to the drawings and specifications herewith, and to have it completed and ready to be placed on board a
screw propeller sloop-of-war, now building at the United States navy
yard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in six months from the date of
contract, and the whole to be entirely satisfactory to the department,
for the sum of ($125,000) one hundred and twenty-five thousand
dollars.
This proposition is intended to cover everything complete; to make
the engines, boilers, and their appendages perfect of themselves,
and the price to cover all patent fees. The usual facilities to be
allowed by the government in fitting all the wood work, and in the
hoisting on board the heavy pieces.
WOODRUFF & BEACH.




256                         APPENDIX.
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT,
September 8, 1858.
SIR: The drawings, specifications, and proposals, which we as bidders for the steam machinery of the new sloops-of-war, forwarded to
the department, were made with special reference to the ships to be
built at the Boston and Portsmouth yards; but with slight alterations
they can readily be adapted to those to be built' at the other yards,
and if consistent with the rules of the department, we would like to
have our propositions considered as applying to any of the ships about
to be built.
In the hope of a favorable consideration of our request, we are,
with much respect, your most obedient servants,
WOODRUFF & BEACH.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary United States Navy, Washington.
BOSTON, September 7, 1858.
SIR: We have the honor to submit for your consideration the proposal, plans, and specifications of the entire steam machinery for the
United States steam sloops-of-war now building at Boston and Pensacola, agreeably to the advertisement issued by the department; the
whole to be put in successful operation within six months from the
date of contract, providing the ship is ready to receive the machinery,
for the sum of (for the Boston ship) one hundred and four thousand
dollars, ($104,000;) for the Pensacola ship, one hundred and fifteen
thousand dollars, ($115,000.)
All the materials used in the construction of the machinery to be
of the very best quality, and the workmanship not to be surpassed.
Sureties as required by law: Jonathan Ellis, Francis Alger, William
E. Coffin & Co., all of Boston.
Respectfully yours,
O. W. BAYLY,
Principal Mechanical Department,
Boston Locomotive Works, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
ALLAIRE WORKS,
New  York, September 7, 1858.
SIR: The Allaire works will agree to build and set up on board a
sloop-of-war, in the port at New York, a pair of horizontal, four piston
rod steeple engines, with propeller, boilers, fresh water condenser and
all other appendages, and set the whole in successful operation in accordance with the specifications submitted by the United States Navy




APPENDIX.                         257
Department, and bearing date of July 26, 1858, for the sum of one
hundred and five thousand dollars, ($105,000.) Also, agree to build
the same size and description of engines and place the same on board
of either sloop-of-war, now building at the United States navy yards
at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, or Philadelphia, all to be in accordance with the requirements of the above named specifications
for the sum of one hundred and ten thousand dollars, ($110,000.)
Also, agree to build the same style of engines capable of developing
750 horses power, and place the same, and put in successful operation on board of either sloop-of-war, being built at the United States
navy yards, at Boston or Philadelphia, and in all respects fulfilling
the requirements of the specifications submitted, for the sum of ninetyseven thousand dollars, ($97, 000.)
JAMES M. CROSS, President.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
NEW YORK, September 7, 1858.
I know the "Allaire works,' and believe they will execute either
or all of the contracts which they herein propose to enter into with
the United States government, and that their ability to perform the
same is unquestionable.
JOHN J. CISCO,
Assistant Treasurer United States at New York.
NEW YORK, September 7, 1858.
The undersigned hereby propose to construct and place on board,
and put in successful operation, the engines, boilers, and their appurtenances, for the steam sloops-of-war now or about to be placed under
construction at the navy yards at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Pensacola, agreeably to
the advertisement of the Navy Department of July 26th, 1858, and
in conformity with the drawings and specifications herewith attached:
Large sloop at New York for the sum of one hundred thirty-seven
thousand five hundred dollars, ($137,500,) completed in six (6) months
from date of contract; large sloop at Philadelphia, one hundred fortyone thousand dollars, ($141,000,) completed in seven (7) months; large
sloop at Gosport, one hundred forty-two thousand dollars, ($142,000,)
completed in seven (7) months; large sloop at Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, one hundred forty-three thousand dollars, ($143,000,)
completed in seven (7) months; small sloop at Boston, one hundred
ten thousand dollars, ($110,000,) completed in seven (7) months; small
sloop at Philadelphia, one hundred ten thousand dollars, ($110,000,)
completed in six months; and small sloop at Pensacola, one hundred
twenty thousand dollars, ($120,000,) and will make a deduction on
the last named bid of ten thousand dollars, ($10,000,) if brought to
17 




258                        APPENDIX.
New York, and five thousand dollars, ($5,000,) if at Gosport, for the
machinery, completed in ten, (10,) six, (6,) and seven (7) months,
respectively.
Yours, respectfully,
QUINTARD & WHITNEY,
Per MIERS CORYELL.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary United States Navy.
We, the undersigned, residents of the city of New York, in the
State of New York, do hereby jointly and severally covenant with
the United States and agree, in case the foregoing bid of Messrs.
Quintard & Whitney (proprietors of the "Morgan iron works" in
this city) be accepted, that they will, within ten days after the
acceptance of said bid, execute the contract for the same, with good
and sufficient sureties, to furnish all the material and perform all the
labor proposed, in conformity with the terms of the advertisement
under which it was made.
HENRY  R. MORGAN.
J. C. HARRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the United States Navy.
NEW YORK, September 7, 1858.
I certify that Henry R. Morgan and Isaac C. Harris, the above
named guarantors, are, to the best of my knowledge, good and sufficient.
AUGUSTUS SCHELL,
Collector of Customs for the district of New York.
BALTIMORE, September 7, 1858.
I propose to make at my engine works, in Baltimore, the engines,
boilers, and machinery for the sloop-of-war now building at Gosport
navy yard. Engines to be of eleven hundred horse power, measured
by the indicator, at the rate of 33,000 pounds lifted one foot high per
minute, with a consumption of 21 pounds of coal per horse power per
hour; coal bunkers to hold 175 tons, which, together with all the
machinery, water in boilers, tools, spare pieces, &c., shall not exceed
the total weight of 400 tons.
I propose to furnish the above machinery according to the accompanying plans and specification, complete in ten months, for the sum
of ninety-four thousand dollars.
Satisfactory guarantee or security will be furnished.
C. REEDER.




APPEND1X.                       259
OFFICE OF JAMES MURPHY & Co. S FULTON IRON WORKS,
New York, September 7, 1858.
DEAR SIR: We propose to construct the steam machinery and appendages, all complete in every respect, as per advertisement, Navy
Department, July 26, 1858, "Proposals for steam  machinery for
screw propeller sloops-of-war," and as per plans, drawings, and
specifications enclosed:
For the sloop-of-war at New York, ($130,000) one hundred and
thirty thousand dollars.
For the sloop-of-war at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, ($135,000,)
one hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars.
For the sloop-of-war at Boston, Massachusetts, ($107,:000,) one
hundred and seven thousand dollars.
For the sloop-of-war at Pensacola, ($127, 000,) one hundred and
twenty-seven thousand dollars.
Time to complete New York ship, seven months from commencement of contract.  Time to complete Portsmouth ship, eight months
from date of contract when signed.  Time to complete Boston ship,
seven months from commencement of contract when signed.  Time
to complete Pensacola ship, twelve months from commencement of
contract when signed.
We offer for sureties James D. Spackman, New York, and John
Greacen, jr.
Truly and respectfully yours, &c.,
JAMES MURPHY & CO.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, September 8, 1858.
SIR: With this I submit drawings and a specification, under which
I would agree to furnish one or more of the engines for screw-propeller sloop-of-war, under your advertisement of July 26, 1858.
The machinery will be constructed at the West Point foundry, conducted for some years by myself, and formerly by Mr. G. Kemble,
and at which the engines of the United States steamers Missouri and
Merrimack were built.  In regard to the very stringent terms required and the mode of payment, I should understand that the contract will provide for some modification of the latter in case of delays
in the building, launching, or sending the vessel to sea, beyond the
specified terms, provided such delay arises from no want of forwardness on my part.  I would agree to furnish the machinery for the
sloop-of-war building at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in eight months
from the execution of the contract for one hundred and thirty-six
thousand dollars, and also the machinery for the sloop-of-war building at New York for one hundred -and thirty thousand dollars in the
same time.




260                         APPENDIX.
Referring to the specifications and drawings as generally applicable, with proportionate reduction of the parts, to the second class of
vessels embraced in your advertisement, I would agree to furnish the
machinery for the sloop-of-war building at Pensacola in eight months
from the execution of the contract for one hundred and eighteen
thousand dollars.  In each case I understand the time to be that in
which I am to fulfil completely my part of the contract, not being
delayed as above stated. Having an establishment well known to be
complete in all the departments of casting, forging, and finishing
machinery to a much greater amount in the time specified than embraced in my offers, I am further enabled to say that I could name
even a shorter time, but from the delays unavoidable from putting on
board and transacting work of this description, particularly during
the approaching winter, but it will be my. endeavor to hasten the
time as much as possible.
The drawings, not being quite prepared when I left home, have
been sent to me by express, and I regret to find, on receiving them
this morning, that the position of the centre of gravity has not been
marked.  As this, however, can be -supplied on my return, and in
fact is a result from what is fully decided, I trust that the accidental
omission of it will not be deemed material.
With great respect, I am sir, &c.,
R. P. PARROTT.
Hon. IsAAC ToucY.
We the undersigned, Gouverneur Kemble, of Cold Spring, New
York, and William  Kemble, of the city of New York, do hereby
guaranty that, if the proposal of Robert P. Parrott for supplying the
engines of certain screw steam sloops-of-war, in accordance with advertisement of July 26, 1858, the bids of which are to be received
on or before the 8th day of September, 1858, shall be accepted, that
the said Robert P. Parrott will enter into the requisite contracts for
the same, and that we will become sureties for the faithful performance of the said contracts.
Given under our hands and seals this sixth day of September, 1858.
GOUV. KEMBLE.  [SEAL.]
WM. KEMBLE.    [SEAL.]
I hereby certify that the above named Gouverneur Kemble and
William Kemble are known to me, and that I consider them responsible and sufficient for the above undertaking.
A. SCHELL,
Collector of Customs for the District of New York.
NEW YORK, September 6, 1858.
COLD SPRING, September 10, 1858.
SIR: I will now ask leave to supply the accidental omission of the
"position of the centre of gravity" on the drawing submitted with my




APPENDIX.                         261
proposal of the 8th instant, and to state that it comes in the centre
line of the forward' engine.
I have already, in my proposal, explained the inadvertent omission
of it in the drawing, and I trust you will find it satisfactorily explained.
Asking to have this communication accompany my proposal,
I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
R. P. PARROTT.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON CITY, October 14, 1858.
SIR: I propose to modify my proposition for the engines and boilers
for the Norfolk ship, and request that you will have the same referred
to the board composed of Chief Engineers Hurst,Whipple, and Everett,
for their consideration, so that they may be able to report to you on
the advantages and general merits of my engines and boilers over the
other direct acting engines, as follows:
My engines to be 260-inch cylinders and three feet stroke, geared
21 to one propeller, to make ninety revolutions per minute. Engines,
all complete, not to occupy over twenty feet across the ship, and be
below the water line. Boilers the same dimension as boilers for the
Pensacola, 17 feet wide, 10  long, and 10  high, with horizontal
tubes; boilers made to carry fifty pounds of steam.  My condensers
to have over four thousand feet of surface, and insure as good a result
as any condenser now recommended for the other ships of this class.
I also propose to put the above engines and boilers all complete, with
220 tons, within the fifty feet allowed in the advertisement.
I am, with great respect, your obedient servant,
EDWARD LYNCH.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, September 21, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I am sorry to trouble you with more writing, but as I
have not said any thing about the size of the drums in the specification and now having included them in the estimate, I thought it best
to state that we will supply steam drums, one upon each boiler of
such a capacity that the steam room in the whole six boilers will be
equal to fifteen times the capacity of the two cylinders; the said
drums to be made of three-eighth (3) iron in the lower and head sheets
and five-sixteenths (2-~J) in the body.
Yours, obediently,
FREDERICK SANDERS.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD, Esq.




262                        APPENDIX.
OFFICE OF DELAMATER IRON WORKS,
Foot of West Thirteenth street, New York, August 27, 1858.
SIR: With the intention of offering to construct the machinery and
propellers for the several sloops-of-war, agreeable to the advertisements of the department, I have made careful computation of weight
and space, and find that the stipulated 1,000 horse power cannot be
produced without exceeding the limits prescribed by the department.
Under these circumstances, I respectfilly beg to be informed if you
will permit any increase of weight and space; and if so, to what
extent.
I deem it proper to accompany my request with the following brief
statement: The one thousand horse power which you demand, being
the net dynamic force of piston after deducting losses by condensation, imperfect vacuum, clearances, &c., the smallest possible consumption of fuel will be 21 pounds per horse power in the hour.
Accordingly, the stipulated 120 hours, running at maximum speed,
will demand 2,750 lbs. X  120 - 333,000 lbs., to which must be
added at least five per cent. by dust, &c.; so that 341.0-      1521 tons
2240      9will have to be deducted from the stipulated 400 tons, leaving only
247k tons for boilers, fresh water condensers engines, propeller,
unshipping gear, iron bulkheads, and the numerous other items specified in the advertisements.
A close estimate of everything not forming a part of the engines
exhibits an amount so inconsiderable that the balance left for the
motive power is utterly inadequate.
Permit me respectfully to say that those who, by long experience,
are thoroughly conversant with the subject will know that the stipulations of the department can only be complied with by stinting every
substance, and resorting to proportions in the construction of the
machinery incompatible with durability and safety.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
C. H. DELAMATER.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
August 28, 1858.
SIR: I have received your communication of the 27th instant, and
have to inform you in reply that the weight specified in the advertisement for machinery for the new sloops will not be deviated from.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
C. H. DELAMATER, Esq.,
Delamater Iron Works, New York.




APPENDIX.                        263
ATLANTIC WORKS, EAST BOSTON,
September 1, 1858.
SIR: As the Atlantic works intend to make proposals to build some
of the engines for the screw sloops-of-war, pursuant to the advertisement of July 26, 1858, we would respectfully ask for information in
regard to the following queries:
Will such competitors, as choose, be permitted to be present at the
opening of the proposals, and to examine each others plans, or to
know each others prices?
Will each competitor be permitted to appear before the examining
commission and explain his plans if they desire to do so?
Very respectfully,
ATLANTIC WORKS.
By WM. C. HIBBARD, Engineer.
1Hon. ISAAC TOUcEY,
Secretary of the N2avy, Washigton, D. C.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
September 6, 1858.
SIe: Your letter of the 1st instant has been received, and I have to
inform you that the department is obliged to answer the questions of
the Atlantic works therein presented negatively.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Mr. WM. C. HiBBARD, Eng'r,
Atlantic Works, East Boston, Massachusetts.
[The bidders were subsequently permitted to appear before the
examiners and explain their plans.]
PHILADELPHIA, September 13, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I venture to suggest to you the importance of awarding
the contracts for the machinery of the sloop now building at the navy
yard at this time, and, if it can be done without prejudice to the public service, to Merrick & Sons. Their's is the only establishment in
the first district which employs a large number of mechanics, at this
time 390, when in full work, 450.
The managing partners (Mr. M., sr., being absent in bad health)
are full of energy, straining every nerve to keep their force during
this depression, and, in so far as I know, the only old whigs of any
influence in that district who are in favor of the re-election of Colonel
Florence.
I know, from former experience, the value of that influence, and




26'4                       APPENDIX.
feel persuaded that it is the interest of the democratic party to increase it.
The first district will, I hope, be carried in any event, but with that
shop at work, full handed, two weeks prior to the election, the result
would, I think, be placed beyond all doubt.
With much respect,
W. C. PATTERSON.
The PRESIDENT.
Endorsement.
The enclosed letter from Colonel Patterson, of Philadelphia, is submitted to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy.
J. B.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1858.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, September 20, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: You are hereby appointed to examine the proposals,
specifications, and drawings which have been received at the department under its advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam machinery
for the propeller sloops-of-war building at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Pensacola.
After examination, each of you will report to the department, individually, in writing, which, in your opinion, are the best adapted to
the purposes for which they were respectively submitted, under the
advertisement referred to, and, under all the circumstances, should
be adopted by the department. You will also be pleased to give your
reasons for such opinion.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-Chief, U. S. Navy.
W. W. W. WOOD,
HENRY HUNT,
DANIEL B. MARTIN,
Chief Engineers, U. S. Navy, WZashington, D. C.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, September 24, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 20th instant " to examine
the proposals, specifications, and drawings received by the department under its advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam machinery
for propeller sloops-of-war building at Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Gosport, and Pensacola," I have
the honor to report that the accompanying table shows the names of




APPENDIX.                        265
the several bidders, the ships bid for, cost, and time required for
construction.
I am of the opinion that the engines, &c., proposed by the following bidders are (with some slight modifications) the best adapted
under all the circumstances of simplicity of arrangements, cost, time,
and professional standing of the firms to the purposes for which they
were respectively submitted under the advertisement referred to:
James Murphy & Co., the ship at New York, $130,000, 7 months.
Morgan Iron Works, the ship at Boston, $110,000, 7 months.
Woodruff & Beach, the ship at Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
$125, 000, 6 months.
Boston Locomotive Works, the ship at Pensacola, $115,000, 6
months, after launch.
Merrick & Sons,' the ship at Philadelphia, $102,000, 3 months.
Charles Reeder, the ship at Norfolk, $94,000, 10 months.
Upon inspection of the table it will be seen that there are six
bidders for the steam  machinery for the small sloop building at
Philadelphia, but only one of the parties (Mr. William  Norris, of
Philadelphia,) appears to have had the midship sectiou, plans, and
views of the vessel, and the other five bidders, it is to presumed,
were not advised that this vessel would be furnished with two propellers.
I would respectfully suggest that the others be furnished with the
drawing of midship section, diameter, and number of propellers,
quantity of power, &c., required by the projector of the vessel, so
that they may bid with a full knowledge of the requirements of the
department in reference to this particular ship. This course seems to
me judicious, as, in my opinion, the plans presented by Mr. Norris could
not develop, at sea, the amount of power (1100 horses) required by
the projector of the vessel, on account of a defective arrangement of
surface condensers.  It may be added that Mr. Norris does not give
the name of the establishment at which the work is to be executed,
as required by the advertisement.
I have selected the above bidders on account of the excellence of
their general plans, their character as engineers and mechanicians,
at the same time keeping in view the lowest average cost to the
government.  It is due to Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. for me to
state that their plans are unobjectionable, and I have not recommended their adoption solely on account of the high cost.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAML. ARCHBOLD.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




Steam machinery for screw propeller sloops-of-war. 
Name of establishment proposing.         Pensacola,       Norfolk.    Piladelphia,  Philadelphia,  New York.              Boston,        Kittery.
(small.)                       (large.)        (small )                       (small.)
James Murphy & Co., New York........   $127,000...$..............................   $130,000        $107,000       $135,000    Messrs. Arcbold, Martin, and Wood,
time. 12 mos.                                                  time, 7 mos.  time, 7 mos.  time, 8 mos.    New York ship; Mr. Hunt, Boston
ship.
Morgan Iron Works, New York.....                120,000       $149,000    $. 41,000          $110,000         137,000         110,000         143,000    Mr. Archbold, Boston ship; Messrs.
10 months.      7 months.       6 months.      7 months.       6 months.       7 months.      7 months.       Martin and Wood, Pensacola ship.
Novelty Iron Works, New York.....................    100,000                  98,500                          97,000..............       98,500    Mr. Hunt, New York ship.
11 months.    10 months.                       9 months.                      11 months.
Allaire Works, New York............................................    110,000                  97,000         105,000         97,000         110, 000    No time.
West Point Foundry, New York........    118,000........................................    130 000..............    136, 000
8 months.                                                     8 months.                       8 months.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia..          153,000        152,000         145,500         135,000......................................
8 months.      6 months.       5 months.       5 months.
Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia..........................................essrs.Archbold, Martin, Wood, and
3 months after                                                                   Hunt, Philadelphia ship.
launching.
Win. Norris, Philadelphia..............................................       6,000....................................... No time.
Murray & Hazlehurst, Ballimore........    100,000             115,000         110,000          90,000..................................
10 months.    10 months.    10 months.    10 months.
C. Reeder, Baltimore............................               94, 000.................................................................... essrs Archbold and Hunt, Norfolk
10 months.                                                                                     ship.
Bo-ton Locomotive Works, Boston......          115,000104,000                                                                                            Mr.  Archold,  Pensacola  ship;
Boston LocomotiveWorksBoston........................................................    1045000............... M Archbold, Pensacola ship;
6 months.                                                                     6 months.                       Messrs. Martin and Wood, Boston
ship; Mr. Hunt, Pensacola ship.
Atlantic Works, East Boston.............................................................    100,000.............
7 months.
Edward Lynch....................................    127,000............................    127,000.............    130,000
3 months after                                 3 months after                 3 months after
launching.                                     launching.                     launching.
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford, Con.......    118,000              125,000         125,000         118,000        125,000         118,000         125,000    Messrs. Archbold, Martin, Wood,
6 months.      6 months.       6 months.       6 months.      6 months.       6 months.       6 months,       and Hunt, Portsmouth, N. H., ship.




APPENDIX.                       267
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, U. S. N.,
Washington, D. C., September 24, 1858.
STR: In obedience to your order of 20th instant, to examine the
proposals, specifications, and drawings which have been received at
the department, under its advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam
machinery for propeller sloops-of-war, and, after examination, to report which in my opinion, are the best adapted to the purposes for
which they were respectively submitted, under the advertisement
referred to, and,under all the circumstances should be adopted by
the department, and reasons for each opinion.
I have the honor to report that, after critical examination of all
the plans and specifications submitted, and personal interviews with
the persons submitting them relative to such points as were not
sufficiently explicit, I have arrived at the following conclusions:
There were, altogether, fourteen proposals from different persons
received. By reference to the tabulated statement submitted by the
engineer-in-chief, the name of the person proposing, ship, price, and
time required for fulfilment of contract will be seen.
Of all the plans proposed, the following are, in my opinion, best
adapted to the purposes for which they were respectively submitted:
Those of James Murphy & Co., New York; Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
Philadelphia; Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia; Morgan Iron Works,
New York; Boston Locomotive Works, Boston; Woodruff & Beach,
Hartford, Connecticut.
The plans proposed by the above being, in my opinion, the most
preferable of all that were offered, and being from responsible firms
of known character and reputation, and well endorsed as to guaranty
their ability to execute the work in the time specified and proposed
by them severally, it only remains for me to mention such of them
for the execution of the contracts under consideration as would best
secure, under all the circumstances, the views of the department
under its advertisement, viz:
For New York ship, James Murphy & Co., New York. For Boston
ship, Boston Locomotive Works. For Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
ship, Woodruff & Beach.  For Philadelphia ship, (large,) Merrick &
Sons.  For Norfolk ship, Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia, with
modification in price.  For Pensacola, Morgan Iron Works.
In reference to the ship being constructed at Philadelphia, (classed
as the small ship,) the lowest bidder is the Morgan Iron Works of
those recommended, but the plans in no respect conform to the requirements of the vessel. It remains for me merely to mention, the
plan proposed for this ship by W. Norris, of Philadelphia, approved
by the constructor, Mr. Griffiths, is the only one suited to the ship
that has been offered, and leaves no choice in the selection of machinery for that ship of all the plans proposed.
The reasons which have influenced me in arriving at these results
are, in selecting the plans recommended, simplicity in arrangement
and detail, facility of access and effecting repairs, giving in contrast to
all the plans submitted, the largest amount of heating surface in boilers,




268                        APPENDIK.
and capacity of steam cylinders to develop the power required with
minimum pressures of steam.
It is due to Messrs. Reany, Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia, to state,
the plans submitted by them embraced in a most eminent degree all
the advantages of construction, comprising, in general arrangement,
simplicity, compactness, and perfectness of detail incident to long
experience and successful practice in building and designing screw
propeller machinery, and I recommend their plan to the favorable
consideration of the Hon. Secretary of the Navy for the Norfolk ship,
provided with such modifications in price as may, in the opinion of
the Hon. Secretary of the Navy, conform to his views.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. W. W. WOOD,
Chief Engineer United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Fashington, September 24, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 20th instant, "for an
examination of the bids, drawings, plans, and specifications for the
steam machinery for the new sloops-of-war, as advertised for by the
department, July 26, 1858," I would hereby state that I have, in
connexion with Engineer-in-Chief Archbold and Chief Engineers
Wood and Martin, made a careful examination, and would respectfully
report as follows, viz:
I would recommend accepting the proposals of bidders for the
respective ships, as follows, viz:
James Murphy & Co., Boston ship, $107,000; time, 7 months.
Woodruff & Beach, Portsmouth ship, $125,000; time, 6 months.
Novelty Works, New York ship, $97,000; time, 9 months.
Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia ship, $102,000; time, 3 months after
launching.
Charles Reeder, New York ship, $94,000; time, 10 months.
Boston Locomotive Works, Pensacola ship, $115,000; time, 6
months.
The following are my reasons for the above recommendations, viz:
James Murphy & Co. offer good engines and boilers, have a good
reputation as steam engine manufacturers, and are the lowest bidders
for that ship, whose plans are admissible, excepting two, whose proposals I have recommended for other ships.
Woodruff & Beach offer good machinery and boilers. They have
a new arrangement for working the pumps, which I believe is an improvement, and will operate well.  They are also the lowest bidders
for that ship, excepting two, the plans of one of which I would not
recommend, and to the other I have recommended another ship.
The Novelty Iron Works propose machinery, to which I can see no




APPENDIX.                        269
reasonable objection. Their bid is the lowest offered. Their establishment has ever bore a high reputation, having built more machinery
for sea steamers than any other in the United States.  I presume
many engineers would object to the smallness of their cylinders,
which will necessarily require a higher pressure of steam to develop
the power required; but as that merely requires a stronger boiler,
which I presume they intended to make, and as it gives lighter engines, I can see no objection, particularly as I believe it is a condition
to which all engineers will eventually come, in planning machinery
for screw propellers, where surface condensers are used. There is no
boiler offered that will not require bracing, and they have only to put
in a greater number or stronger braces to stand the pressure required.
Merrick & Sons offer good machiniery and boilers.  They present
direct acting engines, which I presume no engineer will deny are the
simplest and best, where they can be arranged in a ship. Their reputation as builders is good, and they are the lowest bidders, excepting
the Novelty Works, to whom you will perceive I have recommended
the New York ship.
Charles Reeder, of Baltimore, offers direct acting engines also,
which, as I have said by those offered by Messrs. Merrick & Son, I
believe them the simplest and best that can be adopted; he also proposes a new way of condensing or circulating the cold water, by a
water fan driven by an independent motion, using a small engine,
which, in my opinion, has many advantages over a circulating pump
driven by the main engines. His boilers are cylindrical, with horizontal tubes; they are very strong in form, and will no doubt generate
enough steam, but I think if he would modify them so as to have but
one tier of furnaces, they would fire easier.
The Boston Locomotive Works offer good engines and boilers very
similar to those offered by Jas. Murphy & Co. It is believed a very
creditable and responsible establishment; and it is the lowest bid
for that ship, whose plans are, in my opinion, admissible.
As it appears Mr. Wm. Norris is the only bidder for the small ship
to be built at Philadelphia, who was furnished with the plans, drawings, and midship section of the vessel, or who had a knowledge of
the kind of engines and propellers and amount of power required;
there could be no competition in the bid. I would therefore respectfully recommend that for that particular ship other proposals should
be offered, stating the amount of power required; also the number of
propellers, the weight and space allowed in the ship, and midship
sectional drawing furnished, showing where the engines are to be
placed.
Messrs. Reaney & Neafie, of Philadelphia, presented good machinery and boilers, but as their price is so much greater than those
offered by other good and responsible bidders, (offering as good engines,) I could not recommend their bid being accepted.
I would here state that there is not one plan offered which will not
require some slight modifications; and the parties have agreed to
make them in the contract.
It is very doubtful whether many of the bidders can finish and




270                        APPENDIX.
put in operation the machinery in the time they have specified, particularly for the Pensacola ship, where much time must necessarily
be consumed in the transportation.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. HUNT,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
EDWARD LYNCH.
Plan of engine inadmissible, as it occupied space greater than
allowed; deficiency in surface adequate to surface condensation in
place of condensers, and plan not approved.
Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.
The above proposition embraced no security or guarantee to the
government that the contract would be executed, if awarded.
The following plans were entertained by the board, as being the
most practicable and least objectionable of all those which were
offered:
James Murphy & Co., Morgan Iron Works; Reaney, Neafie & Co.;
Merrick & Sons; Boston Locomotive Works; Woodruff & Beach.
Messrs. Archbold and Hunt considered Mr. Reeder's plan a good
one, and Mr. Hunt considers the Novelty Works' plan a good one.
THE ENGINES OF THE ALLAIRE WORK.
Boilers: insufficiency of steam room. Engines: disk valves in air
pumps, or foot and delivery valves standing vertically, the greater
quantity of coals being stowed over boilers; declining to conform to
the specifications of requirements of the department without extra
compensation.
Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.
MURRAY & HAZLEHURST, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.
Plan of boilers involving the necessity of carrying all the coals
above boilers and engines, the whole area allotted the machinery on
the floor of the vessel being occupied by the engines and boilers, the
boilers being each 321 feet long; which arrangement brings the centre of gravity of the whole inadmissibly high, especially with no
water in the boilers, and ship under canvas.
Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.
WILLIAM NORRIS, PHILADELPHIA.
Deficiency of water passages through condenser; name of establishment where the work proposed for was to be executed omitted.
Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.




APPENDIX.                        271
THE NOVELTY IRON WORKS, NEW YORK.
Plan of engines objectionable in its general features, capacity of
cylinders being too small, involving the necessity of an initial pressure of 50 pounds of steam above the pressure of the atmosphere;
plan of securing tubes in condensers being an untried arrangement,
and general arrangement of condensers objectionable.
Objections concurred in by Messrs. Archbold, Martin, and Wood.
C. REEDER, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.
Boilers objectionable in having two tiers of furnaces; facility of
executing the work in the time specified, with properly equipped
tools, &c., for the purpose, and specimens of work from this establishment.
The above objections entertained by chief engineer.
WM. W. W. WOOD.
MR. REEDER'S PLAN.
Engines approved.  Boilers objected to for the reasons stated by
Chief Engineer Wood.
DANIEL MARTIN,
Chief Engineer.
WEST POINT FOUNDRY, NEW YORK.
The general arrangement of machinery objectionable-no surface
condenser and apparatus shown-and character of the work executed
at this establishment on board the frigate Merrimack.
Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.
ATLANTIC WORKS, EAST BOSTON.
Method of condensing arrangement decidedly objectionable. The
plan proposed for sea steamers never having been successfully applied,
the board being opposed to trying experiments promising so little
success on such a large scale.
Engines.-Cylinders of too small capacity to develop the power
required, without excessive and objectionable pressures of steam.
Boilers.-Grate surface, being entirely inadequate and insufficient
for the purpose, with the impracticable length of eight feet bars.
Objections concurred in by all the members of the board.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, D. C., September 24, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your order of the 20th instant, to examine the
droposals, plans, specifications, and drawings received under the




272                         APPENDIX.
advertisement of July 26, for the sloops-of-war now building, and to
report which, in my opinion, is the best adapted to the purposes for
which they are respectively submitted, and why, in my opinion, they
should be adopted by the department, I would respectfully report
that, after carefully examining the drawings and specifications, and
in view of their plans, propositions, spaces occupied, facilities for
getting at the various parts for examination, adjustment, and repair,
I have selected the following named bidders as having the best plans,
complying with the advertisement and thi requirements of the
department:
J. Murphy & Co., New York. 
Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia.
7 * J  -ra  i.  ir i  "r* )    r JLIIThese four plans aloe  1lar.
Boston Locomotive Works, Boston.       ese four plans are iilar.
Morgan Iron Works, New York.    J
Merrick & Sons, Philadelphia.
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford.
The parties named are the only ones whose plans I can recommend;
and in view of them, and their times and prices, do recommend the
following named parties for the ships set opposite to their names:
Portsmouth ship, Woodruff & Beach.
Boston ship, Boston Locomotive Works.
New York ship, Jas. Murphy & Co.
Philadelphia ship, (large,) Merrick & Sons.
Pensacola ship, Morgan Iron Works.
In the proposals for the Philadelphia small ship, but one of the
parties bidding, Mr. Norris, has had any knowledge of the style and
principles of engines required for that vessel, all the others having
followed the advertisement, consequently they have but one propeller hoisting gear, and the amount of power required by the advertisement, which is less than the projector of that ship requires. The
plans furnished by Mr. Norris will not, in my opinion, answer, containing, as they do, radical defects.  Mr. Reeder's plan of engines
is good, and his price satisfactory, but his plan of boiler I cannot
recommend; if they were made satisfactory, I would recommend him
for the Norfolk ship. In selecting the above named parties, I have
had in view their reputation as mechanics and engineers, as well as
their plans, specifications, and prices.
The plans, specifications, and reputation of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie
& Co. are good; but their prices are so much higher than others that
I cannot recommend them for the ship.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
DAN. B. MARTIN,
Chief Engineer, United States Navy.
Hon. ISA.AC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




APPENDIX.                          273
This contract, made and entered into this twenty-eighth day of
October, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, between George
W. Quintard and Charles A. Whitney, all of the city of New York,
in the State of New York, doing business under the firm of Quintard
& Whitney as principals, and Charles Morgan and Henry R. Morgan,
of the city and State of New York, as sureties of the first part, and
Isaac Toucey, Secretary of the Navy, acting for and in behalf of the
United States of America, of the second part,
Witnesseth that the said parties of the first part do hereby covenant and agree with the said party of the second part as follows:
that for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, they do hereby covenant and agree for themselves, their executors, and administrators,
and assigns, they will, at their expense and risk, furnish and deliver
under the sheers in the United States navy yard at Warrington, Florida, and erect on board the sloop-of-war, of ten feet
draught now building there, authorized by the act of Congress, approved
June 12, 1858, two horizontal double piston rod engines, of fifty inches diameter of cylinder and thirty inches stroke, with two large and
one small vertical tubular boilers of iron.  Said engines and boilers
to be arranged for driving the screw propeller, with all the necessary
cocks, valves, gauges, propeller and frame shafting, connexion and
parts complete with tools and appurtenances for working an efficient
cruising vessel at sea; said engines and boilers to be made of the best
materials and in a workmanlike manner.  The boilers to be tested
with a hydrostatic pressure of fifty pounds per square inch, and to
have an aggregate heating surface of 5,750 square feet, and 197 square
feet of grate surface, and 830 cubic feet of steam room, and to be made
perfectly tight and secure at that pressure.  The engines and all their
connexions and parts to be proportioned to stand the aforenamed
pressure.
The engines to be well secured to the ship by holding down bolts,
at least eight of which are to pass through the floor timbers nearest
the line of the keel, with heads let into the wood washers, (see drawing.) Boilers to be secured to the ship fore and aft, and athwartships,
and to each other by braces.
The said parties of the first part do hereby guaranty the following
points:
1. A successful and satisfactory operation at sea of the engines,
boilers, and appurtenances.
2. That the engines and boilers will be capable of developing at
sea at least 750 horses power, measured by the indicator, (on the
standard of 3,000 pounds lifted one foot high per minute, and at least
eighty revolutions per minute, that the coal per indicated horse power
shall not exceed 300 pounds per hour.)
3. That one hundred and twenty (120) tons of coal can be stowed
in the space allotted for the machinery, boilers, and coal, without
exceeding the total weight of 310 tons for machinery, appendages,
boilers and water in them  bunkers, tools, spare pieces, and coal as
aforesaid, and without infringing on the necessary amount of space
for ventilation and attending to the boilers and machinery; and it i"
18 C




274                          APPENDIX,
imntually understood by the terms of this contract that the entire responsibility of their success is to rest with them; and, therefore, the
said parties of the first part will arrange and proportion the details
of the said engines and boilers in such manner as they shall deem best
calculated to secure the most successful operation, having reference
to the specification hereunto annexed for such parts as are herein
named.
It being mutually understood that this contract covers the engines,
boilers, connexions, and all appurtenances of every kind necessary to
render the same completely efficient, safe, and convenient for cruising at sea, and the fitting, finishing, and arrangement of the details
of the engines, boilers, and appurtenances, and all matters connected
therewith, shall be made satisfactory to the engineer-in-chief, and
such other persons as may be appointed to superintend the same.
The said parties of the first part further agree to hold the United
States harmless against any demand for patent fees or any patented
article or arrangement used in or about the machinery herein contracted for, and shall procure a release therefrom.
The said engineer-in-chief or person superintending, to have the
authority to condemn any of the work in any stage of proposals either
from improper design, improper or bad material, or workmanship.
The parties of the first part further agree and contract, that the whole
of the said engines, boilers, and appurtenances shall be completed and
erected properly on board the vessel and ready for operation and trial
by steam, within ten months from  date of contract, provided the
vessel is launched, and if she is not launched, then in five months
from the day of launching, provided the delay is not caused by the
parties of the first part; and that such parts as are required to be
put on the vessel before launching to be duly completed, so as to
cause no delay.
It being mutually agreed and understood that all wood and carpenter work required to adapt the vessel to the reception of the
machinery, except the boring out of the shaft-hole through dead
wood, is to be furnished by and executed at the expense of the Navy
Department, which will permit the use of such facilities as it has at
the yard, for hoisting on board the heavy pieces of machinery. The
parties of the first part shall put in and firmly secure before launching, the holding down bolts going through the bottom, the casing
through dead wood, the saddles on both stern posts propeller frame,
and hoisting apparatus complete, after section of shaft outboard
delivery chest, blow and injection valves, and all pipes, bolts, and
valves going through the ship below the water line.
It is further agreed that the aforesaid parties of the first part shall
furnish and provide for the persons appointed by the Navy Department to superintend the work as they progress, suitable and convenient office room, and afford them satisfactory facilities for making
copies of all detailed drawings, and shall also furnish the detailed
weight of the entire machinery, boilers, propeller, &c.
And the said parties of the first part do further engage and contract that no member of Congress, officer of the Navy Department




APPENDIX.                          275
shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or agreement,
or to any benefit to arise therefrom; and it is hereby expressly provided, and this contract is upon this express condition, that if any
such member of Congress, officer of the navy, or other person above
named, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract, or to
any benefit to arise under it, or in case the parties of the first part
shall in any respect fail to perform this contract on their part the
same may be, at the option of the United States, declared null and
void without affecting their right to recover for default which may
have occurred.
That when the said parties of the first part shall have furnished
the material and labor for the engines, boilers, and appurtenances,
as herein specified, to the value of one half the whole amount required
for their complete execution, then upon presentation of triplicate
bills properly certified by the engineer-in-chief that the one half part
of the whole amount of the contract has been finished, and when
approved by the Navy Department, then will be paid to the said
parties of the first part or to their order, by the navy agent, at New
York, the sum of forty thousand dollars, ($40,000.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have completed
the whole work herein contracted for. and it is delivered in the Warrington navy yard ready for erection in the ship, and the same is duly
certified as aforesaid, then shall be made a further payment of twenty
thousand dollars, ($20,000.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have completed
the whole work herein contracted for, and after a successful trial-trip
of said ship and machinery at sea for at least one week, to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy, which trial-trip shall be made
at the expense of the United States, then the party of the second
part agrees to pay to the parties of the first part the further sum of
twenty thousand dollars, ($20,000.)
If the said trial-trip shall prove satisfactory, then the said party of
the second part shall at the earliest period practicable, and with all
reasonable despatch, cause the said ship to be sent on a cruise, and
whenever the entire machinery of said ship shall have worked successfully and performed to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the
Navy at sea for a period of three months, then the said party of the
second part agrees to pay to the parties of the first part the further
sum of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in full consideration of this
contract, the aggregate amount being one hundred and twenty thousand dollars, ($120,000.)
It being mutually understood and agreed, to entitle the said parties
of the first part to the fourth and last payment, the said machinery
shall be perfect and complete, and shall have performed satisfactorily
during the three months it shall have been in possession of the Navy
Department.  And in the event of a failure from improper design or
arrangements, mal-construction, defective machinery, or workmanship
of said engines, propeller, boilers, and to work successfully at sea
for at least three months, and in every respect satisfactory to the
Navy Department; or in the event of a failure frofh the causes before




276                         APPENDIX.
named at any time within the three months of the trial of the said
engines, propeller, boilers, &c., to be successful in every respect,
then it is hereby agreed and understood that the Navy Department
is authorized to have all modifications, alterations, and repairs made
so as to secure a successful operation of the engines at sea; which
modifications and repairs shall be made at the expense of the said
parties of the first part, and the sum or sums paid therefor shall be
deducted from the last payment aforesaid. It is further agreed that
the Navy Department shall have a lien on the machinery and all the
materials provided for the fulfilment of this contract, for the money
advanced or paid by the United States on account thereof; and that
the said parties of the first part agree that whilst under their control
they will keep the machinery, boilers, and materials insured against
loss by fire to the amount which may have been paid on account of
this contract, the policies being made payable to the government.
And the parties of the first part further agree that the weight of the machinery, water in boilers, shaft, propeller and appendages, with tools,
spare work and coal for five days, at 750 horse-power, may be equal
to but shall not exceed three hundred and ten tons (310) of two
thousand two hundred and forty pounds.  It is further agreed, that
if the weight and other conditions specified in this contract be not
complied with the Navy4 Department to be at liberty to reject the
whole machinery, the parties of the first part to be at the expense
of taking it out of the ship and to refund whatever amount of the
contract price may have been paid.
G. W. QUINTARD,   [L. s.]
CHAS. A. WHITNEY,  [L. S.]
CHAS. MORGAN,           [L. S.]
HENRY R. MORGAN. [L. s.]
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of
J. HENRY ROGERS.
ISAAC TOUCEY,   [L. s.]
Secretary of the Navy.
GEO. W. WELSH,
As to Isaac Toucey, Secretary of the Navy.
I hereby certify that I have made due and diligent personal inquiry
as to the ability of the sureties in this contract and am satisfied that
they are good and sufficient for the sum of one hundred and twenty
thousand dollars.
GEORGE N. SANDERS.
Navy Agent.
NAVY
The proposals submitted by you
advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam  macunnery ior tue larger




APPENDIX.                         277
screw propeller sloop-of-war building at the navy yard, Philadelphia,
have been accepted, and so soon as the contract can be prepared it
will be transmitted to you for your signature,
I am very respectfully your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Messrs. MERRICK & SONS, Philadelphia.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
October 2, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: The proposals submitted by you under the department
advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam machinery of the steam propeller sloop-of-war building at the navy yard, Pensacola, Florida,
have been accepted, and so soon as the contract can be prepared, it
will be transmitted to you for your signature.
I am respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
PROPRIETORS OF THE MORGAN IRON WORKS,
New York.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
October 2, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: The proposals submitted by you, under the departmient's advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam  machinery of the
screw propeller sloop-of-war building at the navy yard, Boston, Massachusetts, have been accepted, and so soon as the contract can be
prepared it will be transmitted to you for your signature.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
PROPRIETORS OF THE BOSTON LOCOMOTIVE WORKS,
Boston, Miassachutsetts.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
October 2, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: The proposals submitted by you, under the department's advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam  machinery for the
screw propeller sloop-of-war building at the navy yard, Portsmouth,
New Hampshire, have been accepted, and so soon as the contractcan
be prepared it will be transmitted to you for your signature.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
}Messrs. WOODRUFF & BEACH,
Hartford, Connecticut.




2 8                         APPENDIX.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
October 2, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: The proposals submitted by you, under the department's advertisement of July 26, 1858, for steam  machinery of the
screw propeller sloop-of-war building  at New York, have been
accepted, and so soon as the contract can be prepared it will be
transmitted to you for your signature.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Messrs. JAMES MURPHY & Co.,
New York.
This contract made and entered into this twenty-ninth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight, between James
Murphy, William J. Pease, and William  P. Buckmaster, all of the
city of New York, in the State of New York, doing business under
the firm of James Murphy & Co., as principals, and A. W. Thompson
and P. Poillon as sureties of the first part, and Isaac Toucey, Secretary of the Navy, acting for and in behalf of the United States of
America of the second part:
Witnesseth that the said parties of the first part do hereby covenant and agree with the said parties of the second part as follows;
That for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, they do hereby
covenant and agree for themselves, their executors, and administrators, and assigns, they will, at their expense and risk, furnish and
deliver under the sheers in the United States navy yard at Brooklyn,
New York, and erect on board the steam screw sloop-of-war building in the United States navy yard at Brooklyn, authorized by the
act of Congress approved June 12, 1858, two horizontal double
piston rod engines of fifty four inches diameter of cylinder, and
twenty-eight inches stroke, with two large and one small vertical
tubular boilers of iron, said engine and boilers to be arranged for
driving a screw propeller, with all the necessary cocks, valves,
gauges, propeller, and frame, shafting connexion and parts complete, with tools and appurtenances for making an efficient cruising
vessel at rea. Said engines and boilers to be made of the best materials and in a workmanlike manner.  The boilers to be tested with
a hydrostatic pressure of fifty pounds per square inch, and to have
an aggregate heating surface of 7,500 feet and 265 feet of grate surface, and 1,184 cubic feet steam room, and to be made perfectly
tight and secure at that pressure, the engines and all their connexicns and parts to be proportioned to stand the above named.
pressure, the engines to be well secured to the ship by holding-down'bolts, eight at least of which are to pass through the floor timbers
nearest the line of keel with heads let into the wood on washers
thus: (See drawing.) Boilers to be secured to the ship fore and
aft athwartships, and to each other by braces.  The said parties of.the first part do hereby guaranty the following points:




APPENDIX.                          279
1st. A successful and satisfactory operation at sea of the engines,
boilers, and appurtenances.
2d. That the engines and boilers will be capable of developing at
sea at least 1,000-horse power, measured by the indicator, (on the
standard of 33,000 pounds lifted one foot high per minute,) and at
least eighty revolutions per minute. That the coal, per indicator
horse power per hour shall not exceed 3} pounds, (three and onequarter pounds.)
3d. That one hfundred and seventy-five (175) tons of coal can be
stowed in the space allotted for the machinery, boilers, and coal,
without exceeding the total weight of 406 tons for machinery appendages, (boilers and water in them,) bunkers' tools, spare pieces, and
coal, as aforesaid, and without infringing on the necessary amount of
space for ventilation and attending to the boilers and machinery;
and it is mutually understood by the terms of this contract that the
entire responsibility of their success is to rest with them, and therefore the said parties of the first part will arrange and proportion the
details of said engines and boilers in such manner as they shall deem
best calculated to secure the most successful operation, having reference to the specification hereunto annexed, for such parts as are
herein named.  It being mutually understood that this contract
covers the engines, boilers, connexions, and all appurtenances of
every kind necessary to render the same completely efficient, safe,
and convenient for cruising at sea, and the fitting, finishing, and
arrangement of the details of the engine, boilers, and appurtenances,
and all matters connected therewith, shall be made satisfactory to
the engineer-in-chief and such other persons as may be appointed to
superintend the same.
The said parties of the first part further agree to hold the United
States harmless against any demand for patent fees or any patented
article or arrangement used in or about the machinery herein contracted for, and shall procure a release therefrom.  The said engineer-in-chief (or person superintending) to have the authority to
condemn any of the work in any stage of progress, either from improper design, improper or bad material, or workmanship.
The parties of the first part further agree and contract that the
whole of the said engiries, boilers, and appurtenances, shall be completed and erected properly on board the vessel and ready for operation and trial by steam within seven months from date of contract,
provided the vessel is launched; and if she is not launched, then in
three months from  the day of launching, provided the delay is not
caused by the parties of the first part; and that such parts as are
requisite to be put on the vessel before launching to be duly conmpleted, so as to cause no delay.
It being mutually agreed and understood that all wood and carpenter work required to adapt the vessel to the reception of the
machinery, except the boring out of the shaft hole through dead
wood, is to be furnished by and executed at the expense of the Navy
Department, which will permit the use of such facilities as it has at
the yard for hoisting on board the heavy pieces of machinery.  The




280                         APPENDIX.
parties of the first part shall put in and firmly secure, before launching, the holding-down bolts going through the bottom, the casing
through dead wood, the saddles on both sternposts, propeller frame,
and hoisting apparatus complete, after section of shaft outboard delivery chest.  Blow and injection valves, and all pipes, bolts, and
valves going through the ship below the water line.
It is further agreed, that the aforesaid parties of tie first part shall
furnish and provide, for the persons appointed by the Navy Department to superintend the work as they progress, suitable and convenient office room, and afford them  satisfactory facilities for making
copies of all detailed drawings, and shall also furnish the detailed
weight of the entire machinery, boilers, propeller, &c.
And the said parties of the first part do further engage and contract,
that no member of Congress, officer of the navy, or any person holding
any office or appointment under the Navy Department, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or agreement, or to any
benefit to arise therefrom.. And it is hereby expressly provided, and
this contract is upon this express condition, that if any such member
of Congress, officer of the navy, or other person above named, shall
be admitted to any share or part of this contract, or to any benefit to
arise under it, or in case the parties of the first part shall in any respect fail to perform this contract on their part, the same may be, at
the option of the United States, declared null and void, without
affecting their right to recover for defaults which may have occurred.
That when the said parties of the first part shall have furnished the
material and labor for the engines, boilers, and appurtenances, as
herein specified, to the value of one-half the whole amount required
for their complete execution, then, upon presentation of triplicate bills
properly certified by the engineer-in-chief that the one-half part of
the whole amount of the contract has been furnished, and when approved by the Navy Department, then will be paid to the said parties
of the first part, or to their order, by the navy agent at New York,
the sum of forty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three and
one-third dollars, ($43,333-.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have completed
the whole work herein contracted for, and it is delivered in the
Brooklyn navy yard ready for erection in the ship, and the same is
duly certified as aforesaid, then shall be made a further payment of
twenty-one thousand six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds dollars
($21,666 662.) And when the said parties of the first part shall have
completed the whole work herein contracted for, and after a successful trial trip of said ship and machinery at sea for at least one week,
to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy, which trial trip shall
be made at the expense of the United States, then the party of the
second part agrees to pay to the parties of the first part the further
sum of twenty-one thousand six hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds
dollars ($21,666 662.)
If the said trial trip shall prove satisfactory, then the said party of
the second part shall, at the earliest period practicable, and with all
reasonable despatch, cause the said ship to be sent on a cruise, and




APPENDIX.                          281
whenever the entire machinery of said ship shall have worked successfully and performed to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the
Navy at sea for a period of three months, then the said party of the
second part agrees to pay to the parties of the first part the further
sum of forty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three and onethird dollars ($43,333 33.) in full consideration of this contract, the
aggregate amount being one hundred and thirty-thousand dollars
($130,000.)
It being mutually understood and agreed that, to entitle the said
parties of the first part to the fourth and last payment, the said machinery shall be perfect and complete, and shall have performed satisfactorily during the three months it shall have been in possession or
the Navy Department.
And in the event of a failure, from  improper design or arrangement, mal-construction, defective machinery or workmanship of said
engines, propeller, boilers, &c., to work successfully at sea for at
least three months, and in every respect satisfactory to the Navy Department, or in the event of a failure, from the causes before named,
at any time within the three months of the trial, of the said engines,
propeller, boilers, &c., to be successful in every respect, then it is
hereby agreed and understood that the Navy Department is authorized to have all modifications, alterations, and repairs made so as to
secure a successful operation of the engines at sea, which modifications and repairs shall be made at the expense of the said parties of
the first part, and the sum or sums paid therefor shall be deducted
from the last payment aforesaid.
It is further agreed that during the trial trip, as before mentioned,
the steam machinery shall be under the control and management of
engineers to be appointed and paid by the parties of the first part
subject during such trial to the regulations of the naval service and
such personal and official supervision of the engineers appointed by
the said Navy Department as may be directed by the Secretary of
the Navy to secure a fair and satisfactory test of the machinery. It
is further agreed that the Navy Department shall have a lien on the
machinery and all the material provided for the fulfilment of the contract for the money advanced or paid by the United States on account
thereof, and that the said parties of the first part agree that whilst
under their control they will keep the machinery, boilers and material,
insured against loss by fire to the amount which may have been paid
on account of this contract.  And the parties of the first part further
agree that the receipt of the machinery, water in boilers, shaft, propeller and appendages, with tools, spare work, and coal for five days'
steaming at 1,000 horse power may be equal to, but shall not exceed
four hundred and six (406) tons of two thousand two hundred and
forty (2,240) pounds. It is further agreed that if the weight and other
conditions specified in this contract be not complied with, the Navy
Department to be at liberty to reject the whole machinery, the parties




282                         APPENDIX.
of the first part to be at the expense of taking it out of the ship and
to refund whatever amount of the contract price may have been paid.
JAMES MURPHY,                  [L. S.]
WILLIAM J. PEASE,              [L. S.]
WILLIAM P. BUCKMASTER, [L. S.]
A. W. THOMPSON,                [L. S.]
P. POILLON,                    [L. S.]
Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of LEWIS A. COHEN, as to
James Murphy, William J. Pease, William P. Buckmaster, A. W.
Thompson, P. Poillon.
CHARLES W. WELSH, as to         ISAAC TOUCEY,  [L. S.]
Secretary of the Navy.
I certify that I have made due and diligent personal inquiry as to
the ability of the sureties in this contract, and am satisfied that they
are good and sufficient for the sum of one hundred and thirty thousand
dollars.
GEORGE N. SANDERS, Navy Agent.
Per GEORGE A. BLOOD.
Memorandum-The above contract being referred back to the parties
of the first part for additional guarantee and the additional guarantee,
will be found on page 387. The certificate follows here.
I certify that I have made due and dilligent personal inquiry as to
the ability of the sureties in this contract (including John Greacen, jr.)
whose guarantee is endorsed thereon, and am satisfied that they are
good and sufficient for the sum of one hundred and thirty thousand
dollars.
AUGUSTUS SCHELL,
Collector of Customs for the district of New York.
NEW YORK, November 20, 1858.
Papers relating to steam machinery for the ten feet draught sloop-of-war
at Philadelphia, building under the superintendence of Mr. Grifiths.Special letter of invitation, dated October 2, 1858.
PHILADELPHIA, September 7, 1858.
SIR: I hereby propose to furnish the machinery for the steam
sloop-of-war (of ten feet draught) now under construction by Mr.
John W. Griffiths, temporary naval constructor at the Philadelphia
navy yard, in accordance with the terms of your advertisement of
July 26 last, and the plans and specifications herewith respectfully
submitted.




APPENDIX.                        283
Price for the same, one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars.
The machinery proposed is the result of the closest calculations,
in combination with the vessel, based upon actual experience to insure great speed, great durability, and great strength; and I beg to
call your attention to the coal bunkers and bulkheads, as shown in
the plans of vessel and engines; inasmuch as they are designed to
furnish strength, (in addition to their usual service,) so necessary for
heavy armaments.
I have the honor to be your obedient servant, very respectfully,
WILLIAM NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC ToucEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
P. S. A slight indisposition prevents my handing these proposals
in person.
SIR: The undersigned guaranty that if the contract for steam
machinery for screw propeller sloop-of-war No. 2, now building at
the port of Philadelphia, be awarded to Mr. William  Norris, that
gentleman will execute, when desired, a contract for the same with
the security required.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
W. C. PATTERSON,
H. L. GRAW.
Hon. IsAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
CUSTOM HOUSE,
Philadelphia, November 1, 1858.
I certify to the sufficiency of the above named persons for the sum
of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.
WILLIAM  HARBESON,
Deputy Collector.
WASHINGTON, November 2, 1858.
SIR: I beg leave to enclose herein tracings of drawings showing
centres of gravity of the machinery proposed by me for the sloop-ofwar of ten feet draught. Upon examination to-day of the advertisement
of the department for proposals, I am in doubt if I have complied
with the requirements therein regarding time of delivery, and naming
the establishment where the machinery is to be constructed.  If these
have not been specified, I beg leave to amend my proposal as follows:
The machinery will be constructed at the " Norris Works," Bush Hill,
Philadelphia, and will be finished complete on board the vessel and
ready for trial within two months after the vessel is launched.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




284                         APPENDIX.
[Endorsement.]
Delivered in person to the Secretary on Thursday, November 4,
1858.
C. W. W.
Received from Navy Department, and presented to Board of Engineers Friday, November 5, 1858.
S. A.
Circulcar letter to bidders.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, October 2, 1858.
G-ENTLEMEN: The department, since its advertisement of July 26,
1858, has adopted for the smaller of the screw sloops-of-war proposed
to be built at the United States navy yard, Philadelphia, a model
differing from that of the midship section sent you, for which you
furnished  an offer, plans, and specifications.;  You will herewith
receive a drawing, marked No. 1, showing the midship section and
plan of the vessel as now determined upon at the part occupied by
the boilers and machinery; a drawing, marked No. 2, showing a midship section at the forward boiler bulkhead; an end view showing the
two composition propellers attached and their diameters, and a plan
and side elevation from theeforward boiler bulkhead to the stern-post,
with the scale of dimensions marked thereon.-(See drawings.)
In this space it is intended to place engines and boilers that will
develop at sea 1,100 indicated horse power, and at least 100 revolutions of the screws per minute, and coal for 5  days' steaming at the
maximum  speed.  The total weight of the machinery, appendages,
boilers and water in them, bunkers, tools, spare pieces, and coal for
51 days' steaming at the maximum  speed, in the prescribed place,
must not exceed 477 tons of 2,240 lbs. each. The specifications and
conditions prescribed by the advertisement of July 26, 1858, (a copy
of which is enclosed,) with the above modifications, will apply.
If you feel disposed to modify your proposal for the above machinery,
you will be allowed until 3 o'clock of Tuesday, the 2d of November
next, for the purpose.  Your proposals should be addressed to the
Secretary of the Navy, sealed, and endorsed "Proposals for screw
propeller sloop-of-war building at Philadelphia, as modified."
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
The above letter was addressed to Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Murray & Hazlehurst, Baltimore, Maryland;
Woodruff & Beach, Hartford, Connecticut; Mr. James M. Cross, president Allaire Works, New York; Aessrs. Quintard & Whitney, Morgan
Iron Works, New York.




APPENDIX.                         285
OFFICE OF THE NOVELTY IRON WORKS,
New York, October 8, 1858.
Sin: We learn that proposals will be received for the steam
machinery of sloop-of-war at Philadelphia, to be built in accordance
with specifications differing from those published for the other sloopsof-war, and we write to inquire whether we can have the opportunity
of sending in proposals for the same, and be furnished with a copy of
the specifications.
Respectfully,
HORATIO ALLEN, President.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
October 9, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 8th instant has been received.
You are informed, in reply, that as the plan of the screw propeller
sloop-of-war at Philadelphia furnished by Mr. Griffith varied somewhat from  that mentioned in the advertisement of July 26, the
department has deemed it proper to afford to those who bid for that
vessel an opportunity to modify their plans accordingly.  No other
bids can be received.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
HORATIO ALLEN, Esq.,
President Novelty Iron Works, New York.
ASTOR HOUSE, BNEW YORK,
September 22, 1858.
SIR: Your telegraph has reached me, stating that the Board of
Engineers wished to see me on Thursday, (to-morrow.) I regret that
sudden illness will prevent my meeting the board, as requested, and
I have some fears that I shall be confined for several days. But I
have despatched Mr. Bartol, of Merrick & Sons, to represent me at
your board.  He is well acquainted with the drawings; whatever he
does in the matter will be confirmed by me. Will you, therefore, be
pleased to present Mr. Bartol to the board, and receive him as my
substitute, with full authority to act for me?
Your obedient servant, very respectfully,
WILLIAM NORRIS.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD, Esq.,
Engineer-in-Chief, &c., &c.




286                        APPENDIX.
NEW YORK, September 23, 1858.
SIR: Being detained at this place by illness that will not allow me
to travel for a few days, I find myself unable to comply with the
request of the Board of Engineers to appear before them, at Washington, to-day.
In getting up my plans I have availed myself of the aid of the best
engineering talent to be had in the country, which, combined with
long personal experience, has enabled me to present to the department propositions and plans of a reliable character; and deeming it
best to preserve a degree of independence, I have not drawn the information referred to exclusively from any one source.
In my present condition, presuming that the board were anxious
to close their labors, I have taken the liberty of requesting Mr.
Bartol, of Philadelphia, one of my engineer friends, to represent me
before the board, of which fact I have advised Mr. Archbold, pledging myself to be bound by his decisions. Should this meet your
approval, please telegraph him; otherwise, I would state that should
the board deem  a modification of some of the details of my plans
advisable, I should not object, the general arrangement and propositions being the same.
In a few days I hope to be able to call and see you.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM NORRIS,
By S. HENRY NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, September 22, 1858.
DEAR SIR: Mr. Wm. Norris was called to New York a day or two
since on business, where he is at present detained by illness, (dysentary;) he asked me, by telegraph, to go to Washington to explain his
plan to the board. As my doing this might be of injury to Merrick &
Sons, or Mr. Norris himself, I must refuse and explain.  I have been
acquainted with Mr. Griffith and the Norrises for twelve or fifteen
years; they called on me a short time since for advice in relation to
their machinery.  What I gave them was on my own account, and not
as engineer for Merrick & Sons. It was a personal favor on my part
to them, almost without the knowledge of Merrick & Sons. Having
explained to you how I became acquainted with their plans, I am
willing (as Mr. Norris is sick) to meet the members of the board and
explain his plans, so far as they have been explained to me, on Thursday evening, after the arrival of the I o'clock train from here, or on
Friday morning.  Trusting that my connexion with the plans may not
operate to the injury of either Merrick & Sons or the Norrises,
I am, respectfully yours,
B. H. BARTOL.
SAM'L ARCHBOLD, Esq.,
Engineer-in-Chief, U. S. Navy




APPENDIX.                         287
Please telegraph if I am wanted.
From the nature of Mr. Norris' illness, he may be able to leave for
Washington very shortly.
WASHINGTON, October 1, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I called on the Engineer-in-Chief, Mr. Archbold, this
morning, to make a slight correction in the drawings presented by
me for the sloop-of-war building by Mr. Griffith at the Philadelphia
navy yard.  Mr. Archbold observed that the matter in question had
already been noticed by the Board of Examining Engineers, and that
the board had reported on the machinery to you.
I therefore beg leave to enclose a letter from my draughtsman in
explanation of this matter.
I also beg leave to enclose a letter from Mr. B. H. Bartol, of Philadelphia, a well known, skilful engineer, to which I beg your particular
attention. In making the drawings for the machinery of the vessel, I
consulted the best and most skilful engineers in New York and Philadelphia, to assure myself that the whole machinery should be as
perfect as human skill could make it; and I believe, honestly, that the
said vessel will be the fastest, strongest, and most durable vessel-of-war
afloat, and a lasting credit to our country.
I have been suffering with chronic dysentery for four weeks, and
feeling somewhat worse this afternoon, I have concluded to return to
Philadelphia this evening, and thus I have taken the liberty of addressing you.
I will hold myself in readiness to come to Washington whenever
you may be pleased to desire my presence.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. IsAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Address box 1288, post office, Philadelphia, or 93 South 3d street,
Philadelphia.
PHILADELPHIA, September 7, 1858.
DEAR SIR: In putting up your drawings I notice an error that I have
made in the condensers, viz: the two side passages in each condenser
for the ascending condensing water should be drawn 41 by 18 inches,
(instead of 4- by 12,) so as to be equal in area to the 14-inch side delivery pipe named in your specification.
As you have given the size of the side delivery pipe, and the
openings alluded to are not marked, I presume every one will take it
for granted that they are equal in area; and I only mention it lest,




288                        APPENDIX.
accidentally, some one should measure the openings and not look at
the specification.
Respectfully, yours,
HENRY SCOTT.
General WILLIAM NORRIS.
N. B. The 12-inch relief valve on the fresh water air-pump is
omitted in both specification and tracing.
PHILADELPHIA, September 6, 1858.
DEAR SIR: As you have consulted me in relation to your plans for
the machinery of Mr. Griffith's vessel, and desire my opinion of the
arrangement and proportions, now that the plans are complete, I have
only to say, that for accomplishing the objects Mr. Griffith has in
view, viz: great power and speed, with moderate weight and unerring
certainty of action, I consider your plans well adapted. The proportions named  in your specification I endorse; considering the
difference in size of engines and velocity of piston, they will compare
favorably with the Wabash.
Respectfully, yours,
B. H. BARTOL.
WILLIAM NORRIS, Esq.
Extract from  proposals for screw propeller sloop-of-war building at
Philadelphia, by Reaney, Neafe & Co., November 1, 1858.
Time for completion, three months after launching. Anything not
herein mentioned to complete the within machinery in every respect,
in accordance with the advertisement of the department, will be done
by the within parties bidding; or any defects that may be detected
in' the plans, specifications or proposals by the examining board, the
parties bidding will willingly allow them to be altered to suit the
views of the board.
Price for complete construction and delivery, as above, one hundred and thirty-nine thousand dollars ($139,000.)
REANEY, NEAFIE & CO.
PHILADELPHIA, November 1, 1858.
OFFICE OF THE ALLAIRE WORKS,
No. 466 Cherry street, New York, November 1, 1858.
The Allaire Works will build the engines and boilers for the United
States screw sloop-of-war proposed to be built at the United States
navy yard, Philadelphia, for the sum of one hundred and forty thou



APPENDIX,                         289
sand dollars, ($140,000,) according to the plans and specifications
forwarded this day.
Your obedient servant, 
JAMES M. CROSS, President.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, November 4, 1858.
SIR: You are hereby appointed a board to examine the proposals,
specifications, and drawings for the screw propeller sloop-of-war, at
Philadelphia, as modified, which have been received at the department, under its special letter of invitation, dated October 2, 1858.
After examination, each of you will report to the department individually, in writing, which, in your opinion, is the best adapted for
the sloop, and, under all the circumstances, should be accepted by
the department.  You will all give your reasons for such opinion.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Chief Engineers W. W. W. WOOD,,HE NRY HUNT, WM. E. EVERETT, and
JNO. P. WHIPPLE.
19 0




Schedule of proposals, as modifled, for engines for sloop-otf war, of ten feet draught, buildig at Philadelphia, receive under   t
the invitation of the Secretary of the Navy of date of October 2, 1858.  OpenZcd in the presence of John Lenthall, 
Samuel Archbold, and Charles W. Welsh, NTovember 3, 1858.
Names.                           Price.         Time.  Kind of engine.                Diameter of Stroke  of Revolution  of  Horse                  Remarks.
cylinder.     piston.     propeller per power.
minute.
Reaney, Neafe & Co., Philadelphia, (two sheets   $139,000  3 months after!Horrizontal, geared 2-  65 inches..  3 feet.....                   100         1,100
of drawings.)                                                    launching.       to 1.
llaire Works, New York, (one sheet of drawings).    140 000 I None given....i Direct-acting steeple...  50 inche               ches..s..     100          1,100  No guarantors, and specifications very meagre.
Wm. Norris...................           126,000  None given...  Horizontal back-action, 65 inces.. 3 feet......               100         100  The place where to be
geared 2J to 1.                                                                built not mentioned.
~~I~      ~~~~.t                                                         ^~~~~
fr 
frH
pa




APPENDIX.                          291
WASHINGTON, D. C., November 8, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of 4th instant, to examine the
proposales, specifications, and drawings of machinery for the screw
propeller sloop-of-war at Philadelphia, as modified, which have been
received at the department, under its special letter of invitation,
dated October 2, 1858, and, after examination, to report which, in
my opinion, is the best adapted for the sloop, and, under all the circumstances, should be accepted by the department, and reasons for
such opinion, I have examined the proposals submitted as follows:
Mr. Wim. Norris, of Philadelphia, price named —.....$126,000
Reaney, Neafie & Co, of Philadelphia, price named.......  139,000
Allaire Works, New York, price named.......... 140,000
The plans and specifications proposed by the Allaire Works embraced a pair of direct-acting horizontal steeple engines, arranged for
driving the propellers without the intervention of gearing, involving,
in its application in this case, a velocity too great to secure durability, and to hazard the success desired.
That proposed by Mr. Norris, of Philadelphia, two double piston
rod back-acting engines, with cylinders of 65 inches diameter, and
36 inches stroke, with gearing so attached as to cause the propeller
to revolve in the same direction.  The design is of compact form,
and would, if properly executed as to detail, with modifications, probably work well, and differs materially from  the plan proposed by
Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.; which latter comprise two simple
direct-acting engines, with cylinders of 65 inches diameter and 36
inches stroke, with gearing so arranged that the propellers are caused
to revolve in opposite directions.
The plans of Mr. Norris and Reaney, Neafie & Co. are identical as
to size of cylinders and proportions as to the relative velocity of the
screws, compared with the revolutions of the engines or speed of
pistons.
The spaces occupied, respectively, by each are, by the engines
proper: fore-and-aft athwartships, Reaney, Neafie & Co., 23 feet, 24
feet; Mr. Norris, 22 feet 3, inches, 19 feet 3 inches.
Under all the circumstances, I consider the plan of Messrs. Reaney,
Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia, best adapted for use on board the vessel under consideration, for the following reasons: simplicity in
arrangement, affording easy access for attendance and repairs, and
method of operating the propellers with reference to the direction of
their revolutions contrasted to each other.
The plans proposed by the Allaire Works I consider objectionable
in view of the engines being direct-acting, and making 100 revolutions per minute, involving 200 changes or reverses of the reciprocating parts in the same time.
The plans of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia, contrasted with that of Mr. Norris, comprises fewer parts, is less comr




292                        APPENDIX.
plicated, more accessible, and, in my opinion, best adapted to secure
the object of the department under its advertisement.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. W. W. WOOD,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
NOTE.-In reference to the influence exerted upon or imparted to
the vessel by the direction in which the propellers are moving with
respect to each other, I will add, the practice of engineers heretofore
has been, where two propellers were used, to drive them in directions
opposite to each other, and I know of no sufficient reason to change
the practice, and would not do so were the responsibility of the
arrangement to devolve upon me.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. W. W. WOOD,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.
WASHINGTON, November 8, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your orders of the 4th instant, I have, in
connexion with Chief Engineers Wood, Everett, and Whipple, examined the plans, drawings, and specifications of the machinery for
the propeller sloop-of-war building in Philadelphia, and would respectfully report as follows:
There are but three bidders, viz: the Allaire Works, New York,
Mr. Norris, of Philadelphia, and Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., also
of Philadelphia.
The plans and specifications presented by the Allaire Works are
objectionable in many points. Their specifications not being full, we
can judge only from the drawings what kind of machinery is intended;
and as they show four piston-rod direct-acting engines, to make 100
revolutions per minute, which I consider too high velocity for engines
of the size given, I could not recommend their adoption.
There is so little difference in the engines offered by Mr. Norris
and those offered by Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., as it regards what
I consider will be their efficiency, that it is difficult to decide which
to recommend.  They both offer cylinders of the same size, and horizontal tubular boilers of the same capacity.  Both are geared engines,
and the same speed, and both their plans have not only good but objectionable points about them.
The engines offered by Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. are simplest
in form, but they necessarily occupy 130 square feet, or about 30 per
cent. the most space in the vessel, and will not, in my opinion, be any
more efficient than the engines offered by Mr. Norris. It is my opinion
the condensers offered by Mr. Norris are best.
Taking simply the plans and specifications as presented to the board.,




APPENDIX.                          293
together with the time and price for building the engines, I would
recommend accepting the bid of Mr. Norris.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
H. HUNT.
Ohief Engineer, United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
I would remark here, that in gearing the propellers there can be no
advantage or difference whether they both turn one way or in opposite directions, as it regards the steering of the vessels. If there
should be any lateral currents against the side of the ship it will be
counterbalanced in either case. Moreover, it is very doubtful whether
any lateral current from the propeller will strike the side of the vessel
when under way, even at a moderate speed.
Respectfully,
H. HUNT,
Chief Engineer, United States Navy.
WASHINGTON, D. C., November 8, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 4th instant "to examine
the proposals, specifications, and drawing for the screw propeller
sloop-of-war at Philadelphia, as modified, and to report which, in my
opinion, is the best adapted for the sloop," I have the honor to submit the following, as comprising the names of the parties whose plans
I have examined, and the amount specified in their proposals, viz:
Allaire Works, New York, $140,000; William Norris, Philadelphia,
$126,000; Reaney, Neafie & Co., Philadelphia, $139,000.
The plan of the " Allaire Works" is a four piston rod " back-action"
engine, connected direct to the propeller shafts; and as one hundred
revolutions per minute are required of the propellers, I should not
consider any form of engine other than geared suitable, and this objection simply would render this plan less desirable than either of
the others.
The plans of Mr. Norris and Reaney, Neafie & Co. are each geared
engines, and, in dimensions of engines and boilers, nearly identical,
although differing materially in design. That of the former occupies a
space of twenty-two and one-half (22) feet fore-and-aft, by nineteen and
one-quarter (19i) feet athwartship.  It is very compactly arranged,
and would probably give good satisfaction were the details to be well
carried out.
The design of the latter occupies twenty-three (23) feet fore-andaft, by twenty-four and one-half (24k) feet athwartship.  It is more
simple in arrangement, and more accessible for performing the usual
attendance and rapairs incidental to the operations of all steam
engines; therefore, if the increased space occupied is not objection



294                         APPENDIX.
able, I should recommend the adoption of the plan proposed by
Reaney, Neafie & Co.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. E. EVERETT.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NOTE.-In reference to your inquiry as to my opinion whether the
steerage of the vessel would be materially affected by the direction
which the propellers may be revolved in respect to each other, I have
to state that, in my judgment, it would not.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. E. EVERETT.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, D. C., November 8, 1858.
SIn: In obedience to the instructions contained in your letter of
the 4th instant, I have examined the proposals, specifications, and
drawings for the propeller sloop-of-war at Philadelphia, and respectfully submit the following report:
The specifications and drawings submitted by the "Allaire Works 
are so incomplete that I am unable to give an opinion upon them.
Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. propose horizontal engines, geared
in the proportion of two and a half revolutions of the propeller to
one of the engines.
Mr. Norris proposes horizontal back-acting engines, geared in the
same proportion as those of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
The advantages of the first plan are:
1. Greater simplicity in design.
2. Accessibility when the engines are in motion.
The disadvantages are:
1. The space occupied takes in nearly the whole width of the
vessel.
2. The liability to strains from the working of the ship is greater.
Advantages of Mr. Norris' plan:
1. The space occupied is thirty per cent. less than that occupied
by the engines of Reaney, Neafie & Co., and which can be made
available for coal if necessary.
2. Liability to strains from the working of the vessel is less.
In liability to derangement I consider there is very little difference.
Taking into view all the circumstances, I am in favor of the adoption
of Mr. Norris' proposal and plans, for these reasons:
1. The price is $13,000 less than that of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie
& Co.
2. A great saving in space is effected.




APPENDIX.                          295
3. I believe the engines of Mr. Norris will be fully equal in
efficiency to those of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN P. WHIPPLE,
Chief Engineer, U. S. N.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NoTE.-With regard to the difference in the mode of rotating the
propellers of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. and Mr. Norris, I am of
opinion that no difference in effect exists whether rotating in the
same or in opposite directions, and that the steering of the vessel
will not be affected.
JNO. P. WHIPPLE,
Chief Engineer, U. S. No
WASHINGTON, November 13, 1858.
SIR: I beg leave to present the enclosed Historical Sketch of Propellers in the United States, with a drawing; and also beg leave to
say, if, on completion of the ship, the revolving of two screws in one
direction, should affect the steering injuriously, (which I consider impossible,) I will, without charge, make the change, so as to cause the
screws to revolve contrary ways.
Most respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Historical Sketch of Propellers in the United States.
When Commodore Stockton and Captain Erricsson first brought the
small iron steamer R. F. Stockton from England to this country she
was fitted with two propellers in the deadwood, revolving in opposite
directions, as shown in engraving, one of the shafts being hollow. He
then entertained the idea that a single propeller would have some
unfavorable action on the water, and patented the use of two propellers used in that way.
His first vessels in this country were canal boats; and as they drew
but little water, he had two propellers set out from the centre, one
under each quarter, and by means of geering made the propellers move
in opposite directions. Shortly after this, some one, who believed
the doctrine unsound, built a canal barge with but one propeller in
the centre, and that only two-thirds submerged; the vessel was found
to steer perfectly well, and ended the theory that had been previously
maintained, and Captain Erricsson himself never built in this country
a vessel having two propellers, as shown in the drawing, although he
had patented it.  The results of these practical results was to prove




296                         APPENDIX.
that a propeller acts uniformily. Hence it follows, that if it was not
necessary to have propellers revolving contrary ways on one shaft to
cause the vessel to steer well, it is not necessary for propellers, when
placed out of the line of centre, to revolve in opposite directions; for
if 1,100-horse power in one propeller will not cause the vessel to
steer badly, putting the same power in two propellers, each turning
the same way as the one, will not alter the result.
WASHINGTON, November 16, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I beg leave to present enclosed1. A letter from Colonel Baker, collector at Philadelphia.
2. A circular letter from Messrs. W. C. Patterson, John G. Brenner, and others.
3. My letter, containing further information in regard to the action
of propellers.
4. A letter from Mr. J. W. Griffith on the subject of propellers.
I also enclose three letters to his excellency the President from
John G. Brenner and Henry M. Phillips.
Circular letter, same as addressed to yourself.
Be pleased to give these your kind consideration.
Most respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
CUSTOM-HOUSE, Philadelphia.
DEAR SIR: It gives me pleasure to commend to your favorable consideration General William Norris, of the celebrated locomotive works
of Philadelphia.  He, I understand, is a bidder for the building the
machinery of one of the war steamers now  in course of construction in this city.
I have been intimately acquainted with the Messrs. Norris Brothers
for many years, and have had large business transactions with them,
and it may not be amiss to state that they have always heartily advocated and sustained the democratic party. In the campaign of 1856
their establishment not only contributed many hundred votes to elect
our present Chief Magistrate, but, to my certain knowledge, contributed
largely in other ways to bring about that result.
I feel assured that no other large manufactory establishment is more
deserving of patronage from the government than the Messrs. Norris,,
and therefore hope it may be in your power to accommodate them.
Truly, your obedient servant,
J. B. BAKER.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




APPENDIX.                        297
PHILADELPHIA, December 20, 1858.
DEAR SIR: A few weeks since I was requested by Mr. William
Norris to state in a letter to you my knowledge of the political character of the locomotive establishment of Messrs. R. Norris & Son, of
Philadelphia, which I did; but I did not intend to convey the impression (as I learn has been the case) that the marine engine works
of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. were not of the same political creed,
whom I know by reputation, and it is proper to say it is of the highest
character.
I am ignorant of the merit of the respective plans for the engines
for the new war sloops now being built, and therefore it does not
become me to recommend either.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
J. B. BAKER.
Hon. IsAAc TouCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, November 15, 1858.
SIR: The undersigned, having been informed that efforts are made
to cause the Navy Department to introduce into the steam propeller
sloop-of-war under construction at this port, under the direction of
Mr. Griffith, machinery not in accordance with his views, beg leave
most respectfully to represent that the reputation of this city must
be benefited or injured by the success or failure of this vessel, and
they therefore hope that you will cause to be carried out the plans of
machinery approved by him.
With great respect,
W. C. PATTERSON.
JNO. G. BRENNER.
R. PATTERSON.
C. MACALESTER.
C. H. FISHER.
THOMAS ROBINS.
JOY PATTERSON.
HEon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
[A similar letter to the above, addressed to the President, on file in
Navy Department.]
PHILADELPHIA, November' 15, 1858.
MY DEAR SIR: Within the last few days I have heard that Messrs.
Norris Brothers have applied for some of the government work connected with the new steamers.  Their skill as mechanics is known
throughout the world, and they were the first to introduce upon the




298                        APPENDIX..
continent of Europe the use of American locomotives.  They have
been and are my very good friends, active, zealous, and disinterested
democrats; their establishment is within my district, where they employ many hundreds of operatives, who, under their exerted influence,
were valuable members of our party during our late disastrous campaign. The first and the third districts have already such work, and
it would gratify me exceedingly if mine (the fourth district) were as
well taken care of.
The merits of the Messrs. Norris, my sincere conviction that they
will be faithful to government, and a desire that my term of service
shall be marked by something useful to my district, induce me thus
to trouble you.
Very respectfully, your friend and servant,
HENRY M. PHILLIPS.
His Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN,
Washington.
PHILADELPHIA, November 15, 1858.
MY DEAR SIR: I understand General Wm. Norris, of the celebrated
locomotive works of this city, will be a bidder for building the
machinery of one of the steamers now in course of construction.  I
have been a near neighbor and have known Messrs. Norris & Brothers
for many years, and take great pleasure in recommending them, both
to make the kind of machinery wanted and to their being the most
influential and liberal democrats to the party in this city.
If they are successful in getting the work I know it will give
general satisfaction to the public and to more democrats than any
other house in this city.
I know of no other establishment so deserving of patronage from
the government as Messrs. Norris & Brothers, and hope they may be
successful.
Very respectfully, yours, &c.,
JOHN G. BRENNER.
The PRESIDENT of the United States.
PHILADELPHIA, November 15, 1858.
DEAR SIR: In answer to your inquiry as to the effects produced on
the steering qualities of vessels by any lateral action of propellers, I
would state that until now I never had any such question raised.  My
own observation and all scientific books on the subject ignore the
existence of such action.  Please note the following facts: The propeller International, on Lake Erie, had pone screw at her stern, its
diameter seventeen feet, and the load line draught but eight feet,
the centre of the shaft being two feet above the water line. The
propeller Buffalo, at the same place, had one screw, fifteen feet
diameter; when loaded, the centre line was but a few inches below
the water.  The propeller Oriental was in 1854 fitted with a screw




APPENDIX.                          299
of twenty-two feet diameter, while her load line was but eleven feet,
leaving her centre of shaft two feet above water.  This vessel did
not steer well, and they put a new screw upon the same shaft, four
feet less in diameter, when the evil was corrected.  I trust that
these extreme cases, and the fact that just such screws are now
being applied, will answer any objections that may be raised against
two screws, wholly submerged, revolving one way.
Yours truly,
JOHN W. GRIFFITHS.
WM. NORRIS, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA, Novembelr 16, 1858.
SIp: I have heard within the last few days that Messrs. Norris Brothers have applied for some of the government work, and I take pleasure in saying to you that I know none, in my opinion, more competent, deserving, and reliable.
Their establishment is within the district represented by me, and
nearly all of their operators (hundreds in number) are my constituents:
they have but poor prospects for the coming winter unless the government can aid them by allowing some of the work to be done by Messrs.
Norris.
Messrs. Norris are good democrats, willing and faithful members
of the party who,  through weal and through woe, " have labored zealously for its success.
Their fame as mechanics is world-wide, and they are men of high
character. and it will be to the fourth district a matter of essential
service for them to succeed in their present application.
Personally, mechanically, and politically meritorious, if their proposal is not extravagant, I earnestly hope that it will be accepted,
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
HENRY M. PHILLIPS.
Hon. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
Wash7ington.
PHILADELPHIA, November 16, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I am informed that Messrs. Norris Brothers, of this city,
are applying for some work connected with your department.
I know no men better entitled to receive the attention of a democratic administration than those composing this firm.  With a worldwide celebrity as machinists of the first class, they have also been
known as democrats who have never faltered in their active and
earnest devotion to the cause-men who, amidst the very howling o
the tempest raised by the opposition, are more energetic and determined in their support. I trust that the claims of these gentlemen,
who are so well qualified to perform whatever they may undertake,
and who are so deserving as democrats, will not be overlooked.
Very respectfully, yours,
JOHN HAMILTON, Ju.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.




300                        APPENDIX.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, November 18, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your request, I have made a careful examination of the plans of engines and propellers presented by Mr. Wm.
Norris and Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. for the ten feet draught steam
sloop building at Philadelphia, and respectfully submit the following
as my opinion of their merits:
Mr. Norris' circulating air-pumps are single acting, while Reaney,
Neafie & Co.'s are double acting. Double acting air-pumps have
several advantages over single acting ones for engines intended (as
these are) to make at least forty revolutions per minute.  Indicator
diagrams taken from the top of single acting pumps show, at or near
the termination of the stroke, that a very considerable strain is thrown
on the air-pump bucket and its connexions.
The piston of double acting pumps being only one-half the area of
single ones, there is only one-half the total strain, and this is disributed over the whole stroke, instead of being concentrated just at
the end of it.
Mr. Norris' plan of working the air-pump is by an additional crank
placed on the end of the main crank shaft, which transmits motion to
a vertical lever secured to an additional horizontal shaft, and upon
the other end of which is secured a double horizontal lever to which
the air and circulating pumps are attached and worked. Reaney,
Neafie & Co.'s double acting pumps are connected direct to the steam
piston, and the number of pieces of machinery used by them in transmitting motion to the pumps are four in number, while Mr. Norris
uses for the same purpose ten pieces.
The passages for condensing water from circulating pump marked
N in Mr. Norris' drawings are of about one-fifth the area of the pump;
consequently the water would have to be forced through them  at a
velocity of five times that of the pump buckets, which would bring
a very great and unnecessary strain on the pump bucket and connexions, and would, in my opinion, be unsafe for any length of time
at sea.
Mr. Norris transmits motion to the two-bladed propellers by a
large cog-wheel and two pinions, which would cause the propellers to
rotate in the same direction. Reaney, Neafie & Co. use a large cogwheel and three pinions to transmit the motion to two four-bladed
propellers, which causes them to rotate in opposite directions.
I consider Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s plan of engines decidedly preferable, for the reasons above given, to Mr. Norris'; also that screws of
four blades of small diameter, as in this case, are more efficient propellers than those of two; and when two screws are used they would
act more efficiently rotating in opposite directions, and from midships
to starboard and post, or outboard from the centre line.
Although Mr. Norris' bid is the lowest, and his plans have been
approved by one-half of the board of engineers, I cannot recommend.
the department to award him the contract, unless he will consent to
modify his plans by adopting double-acting air and circulating pumps




APPENDIX.                         301
and increased condenser passages for condensing water, and will
submit drawings, to be approved of by the department, delineating
said alterations.
As the projector of the vessel has approved of two-bladed propellers revolving in the same direction, and as it is presumed he will be
held responsible that the speed of the vessel will be in proportion to
the indicated power developed by the engines, these two points (although opposed to my views of efficiency) might be yielded to him.
I am. very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in- Chief.
Hon. ISAAC ToucEr,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, November 18, 1858.
SIR: The department is desirous of submitting to a board of gentlemen in civil life conversant with steam machinery certain questions.
I should be glad to avail myself of your experience, and, if you accept this invitation to be a member of the board, will thank you
to be present in Washington next Tuesday.
The board will be allowed ten cents a mile for travel and a reasonable per diem.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
CHARLES W. COPELAND, Esq., New York.
A similar letter to the above was sent to Washington Jones, esq.,
Philadelphia; Philip L. Mars, esq., Locomotive Works, Boston; Charles
Reeder, Baltimore; Erastus Smith, New York.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Novermber 27, 1858.
SIR: The department is desirous of submitting to a board of gentlemen in civil life conversant with steam machinery certain questions.
I should be glad to avail myself of your experience, and, if you accept
this invitation to be a member of the board, will thank you to be
present in Washington at the earliest practicable moment.
The board will be allowed ten cents a mile for travel, and a reasonable per diem.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Mr. MILES CORRYELL,
Siperintending Engineer, fMoorgan Iron WorJel, N2ew York.




302                        APPENDIX.
WASHINGTON, November 2, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I beg leave respectfully to ask your kind consideration
to the following:
When I had the honor of presenting my proposals for the machinery
for the steamer of ten feet draught, now building at the navy yard, I
believed that I would be the only person proposing for the same,
inasmuch as the machinery differed greatly from all other now in use.
I concluded, also, that you were aware of the fact that the ship and
machinery were a unit, sui generis, and had been most carefully
adapted, the one to the other, for the purpose of obtaining great
speed and great strength.
Mr. Griffith and myself have passed many weeks and months in
perfecting this combination of vessel and machinery.
You saw fit, in your good judgment, to give an opportunity to
other parties to amend their proposals for this ship, and now, having
had the advantage of taking all my points and lines, as well as knowing my price, they will present their amended proposals for machinery
that may apparently be different in form, but in reality composed of
the same essentials, which have cost me so much labor and time.
I have never solicited in any manner, direct or indirect, the good
feelings or interest of any of the engineers of the government in my
behalf. I had never known nor seen Mr. Archbold, nor any of the
late examining board of engineers, until after their reports were
made upon my drawings and plans. Nor did I think it prudent to
seek introductions to them.  I preferred resting upon the drawings
themselves as a proof of their value, and also upon my high reputation as an engineer, fully established and acknowledged in Europe
and America for over twenty-six years.  By my unaided exertions, in the year 1837, I raised  the  character of the United
States as manufacturers of steam  machinery, by selling to English
railroads  seventeen of my locomotives, and  more than  three
hundred  to the railroads on the continent, all built by me in
Philadelphia.  The present locomotive now in use all over the world
is my own invention, and from  the combination of my proposed
machinery with the ship now building by Mr. Griffith, I know I shall
have similar results, and thus furnish a war vessel which will be
stronger and swifter than any now afloat, and which will become the
model for all future vessels.  I therefore pray you, my dear sir, to
give me this opportunity of proving my words, and of furnishing a
steamer that shall give credit to our country and lasting honor to
yourself as the author.
On the score of politics, which I have never mentioned before, I
have greater claims upon the government than my competitors. Our
shop at Bush hill, Philadelphia, was the first institution in this country
that raised the banner of Buchanan and Breckinridge. The day after
the nomination we raised the standard with full length portraits of the
President and Vice President, and at the election our shop furnished
764 votes for them.  Notwithstanding the present monetary depression, we gave 312 votes for the administration at the last election.
We have supported the party with material aid, by thousands of




APPENDIX.                         303
dollars, and worked hard, as any of the party in Philadelphia will
testify.
Now, my dear sir, our competitors in Philadelphia were most violent
working opponents against the present administration, as is well known
in Philadelphia..
But I rest my claim upon my drawings, believing that they will
have the preference with the board of examiners, if justice be adhered to.
I again beg you to consider that Mr. Griffith and myself have calculated closely all the points of combination of ship with machinery,
to make it more perfect in every quality than any other vessel afloat.
Your obedient servant, very respectfully,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. IsAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, Novemzber 15, 1858.
DEAR SiR: In my short absence from  Washington I have not been
able to hear of any vessel that has two screws revolving in one direction, but I have ascertained why they run them in different directions,
and you will at once see that it was purely as a matter of. economy in
the construction of the engine, and had nothing whatever to do with
any difference of effect produced by the propellers. Please look at
this tracing of the simple form of engine used by Ericsson and others
for two screws; it has neither guides nor parallel motion to guide its
cross head, but the two cranks revolving in opposite directions preserve it in perfect line.
[See drawing.]
It was to enable him to use this form of engine that Ericsson turned
his propellers in opposite directions, and for this reason only Mr. John
H. Towne, the eminent engineer in Philadelphia, now retired from
business, and well known to the chief of the Bureau of Construction,
has given Mr. Griffith his opinion of his method of propelling by two
screws; his letter I annex.  Mr. T. constructed for Ericsson many of
his first vessels, and was intimately acquainted with his views, and
well versed in screw propulsion generally. Mr. T. says he has yet to
learn that the action of a screw is unequal; that if not unequal, it
must propel in a direct line; that if it propels in a direct line, as is
universally admitted, it is immaterial whether it revolves from right
to left or the opposite. In a treatise on the screw propeller, published by John Boune, London, 1852, he never alluded to any lateral
action of the propeller; at page 110, he says that in the action of
the screw in propelling the water is thrown back in the figure of the
frustum of a cone, with the small end against the screw as sketched,
[See drawnlg.l




3 04                        APPENDIX.
the rudder-post interfering in this case with the action of the screw.
In Griffith's vessel it will be as follows, with no object
[See drawing.]
to interfere with the action of the propeller.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAMI  NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, November 15, 1858.
DEAR SIR: My opinion is asked as to whether two screw propellers
placed just forward of the stern-post of a screw steamer, and both
revolving in the same direction, would have any more tendency to force
the stern of the vessel round, and thus affect her steering, than a
single propeller placed in the dead wood-the propeller in both cases
being wholly immersed.
In my opinion, there would be no tendency in either case to force
the stern of the propeller round, and the effect of the two propellers, one on each side of the stern-post, would be the same, in this
respect, as that of a single propeller in the dead wood.  I may add
that eleven hundred horse-power applied to two propellers nine
and a half feet diameter, one on each side of the stern-post, will be
very much more effective than if a single propeller of the same size
be used, chiefly because of the greater amount of surface obtained.
Very respectfully,
JOHN H. TOWNE.
J. N. GRIFFITH, Esq.
WASHINGTON, November 25, 1858.
SIR: I beg leave respectfully to submit that Messrs. Reaney, Neafie
& Co. are legally debarred from  receiving the award of contract for
machinery for steam propeller of ten feet draft, because they failed
to comply with all the requirements of the law in not furnishing in
their specifications the following:
1. The consumption of, coal per horse-power and per day;
2. Working power of steam;3. Weight of machineryi
4. Centre of gravity of macihinery;
5. Area of foot valves;
6. Surface of propeller;
7. Kind of propeller;
8. Non-compliance with measurements furnished them  by the
department.  The space taken- for their engines exceeds the space
allowed in the midship section of ship frnished them by the department.  At and during the examination of their plans and specifica



APPENDIX.                         305
tions by the late board of engineers, the foregoing eight requirements of
the law were missing.
I beg to call your attention also to a serious defect in the machinery
proposed by Messrs. Reaney, Neafie& Co., viz:
The fresh water air-pump is worked by one engine and the salt
water air-pump by the other-a bad feature, because, if the engine
working the fresh water pump gives out, the other engine may work,
but all the water used in the boilers will be salt, while if the engine
working the salt water air-pump breaks, then both engines are disabled entirely, and the ship- left without steam power.
The "San Jacinto," on her return trip, broke her rock-shaft near
Cape Town, but each engine being complete she worked first rate.
Your obedient servant, very respectfully,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. IsAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, November 26, 1858.
DEAR SIR: In reply to your favor of this date, I have the honor:to
inform you I have had much experience in the construction of upwards
of one hundred propeller steamers of light draught, and in some of them
the propellers were from one-half to entirely submerged.
I am satisfied, by practical results, that it will make no difference
whether the propellers turn one way or contrary motion to each other
on the steering of the vessel.  I have not observed any sideway.or
lateral motion when the vessel is fairly under way.
With many respects, yours, &c.
R. T. LOPER.
J. W. GRIFFITH, Esq., Washington, D. C.
No. 100 NORTH MOORE STREET,
New York, November 27, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I have been engaged in the building of propeller steamers
for the past ten years, during which time I have constructed some
twelve or fifteen, mostly light draught of water.
I have examined your plan of propelling with two screws turning
one way, and have no hesitation in saying that the vessel will steer
as well as if the propellers turned in opposite directions.  In using
two propellers I used a form of vertical engine that required the
screws to turn in opposite directions so as to guide the piston rod;
this was done for economy of first cost, and for no other reason.
Respectfully yours,
GEORGE BIRKBECK, JR.
J. W. GRIFFITH, Esq.
20 c




306                        APPENDIX.
OFFICE DELAMATER IRON WORKS,
FOOT OF WEST THIRTEENTH STREET,
New York, November 27, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I have examined your plan of propelling with two propellers, one either side, both turning the same way, and have to
remark that at this establishment have been built during the last
sixteen years over eighty propeller vessels, and have not observed
any lateral motion in the propeller when the vessel is in motion, and
hence I cannot see any reason why the two propellers as used by
you should not produce as good an effect in propelling as with one
propeller in the dead wood.
Yours, truly,
C. H. DELAMATER.
JOHN W. GRIFFITH, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA, November 27, 1857.
DEAR SIR: I understand that R. N. & Co. have obtained from
Captain Ericsson a letter addressed by him to a Mr. Ellis, in which,
for vessels of light and variable draught, he advises that the screws
should revolve in opposite directions. This Mr. Ellis (if such a man
exists) did not send Captain Ericsson length, breadth, depth or type
of my model, nor did he send midship section, or draught of water.
My model is of light, but not variable draught, nor will she pitch
about, these qualities belong to narrow, deep vessels. My model is
wide and shoal and consequently of uniform draught and very stable.
Stability is my great point.
Yours, truly,
J. W. GRIFFITH.
Wam. NORRIS, Esq.
WASHINGTON, D. C., November 27, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I beg leave to enclose the diagram and letter of Captain
Ericsson, together with a list of authorities, to all of which I respectfully call your attention.
I am, very truly, your obedient servant,
W. H. WITTE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
NEW YORK, November 24, 1858.
SIR: In reply to your communication regarding screw propellers I
have briefly to say that the mode adopted in figure 1 of your sketch
is inadmissible for vessels of light and changeable draught of water,
unless the pitch of the screw is reduced to a degree objectionable on




APPENDIX.                         307
practical considerations.  The principle of movement exhibited in
figure 2 is correct, but the detail is very defective. The driving shaft,
instead of being placed at a great elevation, and far from the centre
line of the vessel, should be brought nearly on a level with the propeller shafts, and almost in the vessel's centre line.  It is obvious
that your arrangement subjects the axis of the intermediate pinion to
a pressure twice as great as the force on the cogs, whilst the axis of
the pinion, which I have deliniated in your sketch, only receives — oof that force, the reduction of strain thus effected being in the ratio
of 200.55.  You will be convinced of this fact on ascertaining that the
cosine of the angle contained by the radial lines marked on the sketch
is just -DQ of the radius of the large intermediate pinion which I
have introduced. I need hardly observe that the reduction of pressure
on the journals of the intermediate pinion enables you to reduce their
diameter in proportion, so that the friction may be reduced to less
than -. But the size of the pinion has been nearly doubled, and
hence it will make only half as many turns in a given time, thereby
diminishing the friction under consideration to about 4-. It may be
readily proved that the introduction of a pinion, as I have shown, will
not absorb one per cent. of the aggregate motive power applied to
the true propeller.
The advantages of giving a contrary motion to the propellers in
vessels of light variable draught, or in a sea way, are too obvious to
need any demonstration.
Very respectfully,
J. ERICSSON.
W. B. ELLIS, Esq., Philadelphia.
[See drawings.]
Authorities in favor of the contrary motion where two propellers
are used: Napier, Perkins, Smith, Ong, Taylor, J. Taylor, Ericsson,
and all other known writers on screw propellers.
REANY, NEAFIE & CO.,
Per W. B. R.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, November 29, 1858.
GENZTLEMEN: The department desires you to examine the proposals,
&c., which have been submitted by William Norris, esq., and Messrs.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., for the steam machinery of the screw propeller
sloop-of-war, building at Philadelphia by the government upon Mr.
Griffith's plan, and to express, in writing, which of the two is preferable for the proposed purpose.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Messrs. ERASTUS W. SMITH, WASHINGTON JONES, and MILES CORRYELL, Washington.




308                         APPENDIX.
Reports of Messrs. Smith, Jones, and Corryell on the machinery for the.
Grifith ship.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, December 2, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your orders to examine the proposals, plans,
&c., which have been submitted by William Norris, esq., and Messrs.
Reaney, Neafie & Co., for the steam machinery of the screw propeller
sloop-of-war building at Philadelphia by the government, upon Mr.
Griffith's plan, and to express, in writing, which of the two is preferable for the proposed purpose, we have the honor to report:
After a careful examination of the drawings and specifications subImitted by both parties, we have no hesitation in recommending the
plan submitted by Mr. Norris as being preferable, and the following
are the principal reasons for our choice:
While the engines are of the same capacity and power, and equally
accessible for management and repairs, they occupy five feet less
space athwartships.
The speed of the circulating and air-pump buckets is materially
less than that of the pistons of the steam cylinders, having no direct
connexion thereto, but are worked by the main shaft so that the disabling of either engine does not prevent the effective operation of
either pump or the efficiency of either condenser.
The arrangement of the gearing is simple.  The wheels, although
not occupying more space, are of a greater diameter, thereby promising more durability from the consequent lessening of angular action
of the cogs and teeth.
The propellers are as efficient as those having a " curving of the
wings of the screw propeller in a direction perpendicular to the axis,  
and, being true screws, possess the advantage of greater efficiency in
backing.
The arrangement of gearing rotates the propellers in the same direction, but, after a most careful consideration of the probable effects
on the steering of the vessel, we can see no reason why the lateral
action should be greater with two submerged propellers, situated
equally distant on either side of the dead wood, and rotating in the
same direction, than that of one propeller situated in the dead wood,
the pitch and power applied in either case being the same.
In the construction of the chamber for the reception of the tubes
of the surface condenser, we recommernd that it be so made that,
while it will afford the application of the plan of tubes and their attacl]nments, as illustrated in the drawing' submi-tted, it shall also admit
of the application of the tubes anld their attachments of other plans
of surface condednsers, should the Navy Departilment at 1any future time
desire to make such substitution.
All of which is respectfully submitted )b, sir, vonr obedient servlats.,'ERASTUS B. SMI'TH.,
WASHIN(TON JO (NES.
Hoin. ISAAC TOUcEr,
Secrctary o/ the Navy.




APPENDIX.                         309
WASHINGTON, December 1, 1858.
DEAR SIR: In accordance with your desire, I have made an examination of the drawings and specifications by Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
and William Norris, esq., engine builders in the city of Philadelphia,
and bidders for the machinery of the small sloop-of-war building at
the United States navy yard in that city, do most respectfully submit
my approval of the plans and specifications by Messrs. Reaney,
Neafie & Co., as compared with the other; the following objections
being apparent in the William Norris plans, which are not to be
found in the other plans by Reaney, Neafie & Co:
The boilers are two feet longer than necessary for the given heating surface.
The condenser is a new and untried plan, so far as relates to marine
service, is liable to derangement after a few months' use, and consequent inefficiency.
The pumps for salt and fresh water are single acting, causing
strains upon the engines, which are lessened by the use of double
acting pumps, besides the additional parts to work this plan of single
acting pump.
The two-bladed screws, rotating in the same direction, present a
most serious objection to the plans, on account of the lateral motion
that will be given to the stern of the vessel. Four-bladed screws
will give more efficient propelling power, and rotating in opposite
directions counteract all lateral effort upon the stern.
Fully appreciating the confidence you have reposed in me, I have
endeavored to arrive at correct conclusions in the matter you have
submitted to my judgment, and feel confident that future experience
will sustain my views.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
MIERS CORRYELL.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, December 21, 1858.
SIR.: I beg leave to add to my specifications now before the department for machinery for the ship under construction at the Philadelphia navy yard, by Griffith, naval constructor pro tempore, (reserving
the right to modify certain parts of said machinery,) the following:
1. I guaranty the speed of the ship twenty miles per hour.
2. The cost of the machinery shall be one hundred and eighty
thousand dollars, ($180,000.)
If, upon the trial trips, the ship does not make the sp( ed of twenty
miles per hour. there shall be a reduction of $10.000 from the cost
price, for each and every mile lacking the speed of twenty miles per
hour as guarantied, reducing the cost as follows, viz.




310                         APPENDIX.
For a speed of 19 miles, $170, 000; for a speed of 18 miles, $160,000;
for a speed of 17 miles, $150,000; for a speed of 16 miles, $140,000;
for a speed of 15 miles, $130,000; &c., &c., &c.
Your obedient servant, very respectfully,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, I. C., D ecember9, 1858.
DEAR SIR: We are informed that our proposition to give you fifteen
miles per hour, as the speed of "Norfolk ship," in case the contract
is awarded to us, has not been deemed worthy of notice by the board
of engineers.
That it should have escaped their observation is impossible, and
that it should be regarded as unworthy of comment is, to say the
least, most extraordinary.
We have always supposed, and we learn from  your report just
issued, that the aim  of your department was and is "to combine
speed and power with strength in the highest practicable degree.'
We beg leave, therefore, most respectfully to call your attention to
that feature in our proposal which affords you a guaranty of a rate
of speed never before attained by any vessel built for warlike purposes by this or any other government.
We have the honor to be, your obedient servants,
REANY, NEAFIE & CO.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
P. S. We beg leave also to say that we will stipulate for even a
higher rate of speed for the ship now building at the Philadelphia
station, known as the "Griffith ship.^'
R. N. & CO.
WASHINGTON, D. C., December 22, 1858.
DEAR SIR: The undersigned submit, in explanation of their proposal
for the construction of the machinery for the steam propeller now
building at the Philadelphia station, known as the " Griffith ship,"'
the following, viz:
That they will stipulate, in case the contract is awarded them, for
a speed, under favorable circumstances, of sixteen miles per hour on
the trial trip, under a forfeiture of $15,000, if fifteen miles only is attained, or $7, 500 for each half hour between fifteen and sixteen miles
which they fail to accomplish.
Yours truly,
REANEY, NEAFIE & CO.
By W. H. WITTE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.




APPENDIX.                          311
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington. December 21, 1858.
Sin: In compliance with your verbal order, I have carefully examined the proposals for speed of Mr. William Norris, of the 21st
instant, and Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., of the 22d instant, to
furnish steam machinery for the ten feet draught screw steam sloop-ofwar building at the Philadelphia navy yard, and have the honor to
report:
Mr. Norris' offer is as follows, reserving the right to modify his
plans, that the speed of the vessel will be twenty miles per hour and
price $180,000; and if upon the trial trip this speed is not obtained,
there shall be a deduction of $10, 000 from the cost price for each and
every mile lacking the speed of twenty miles per hour, as guarantied,
reducing the cost as follows:
For a speed of nineteen miles per hour, $170,000; for a speed of
eighteen miles per hour, $160, 000; for a speed of seventeen miles per
hour, $150,000; for a speed of sixteen miles per hour $140,000; for a
speed of fifteen miles per hour, $130,000.
Messrs. Reany, Neafie & Co. offer to contract that (under favorable
circumstances) on the trial trip they will guaranty a speed of sixteen
miles per hour, price $139,000, and will forfeit $15,000 if fifteen miles
per hour only is attained, or $7,500 for each half mile between fifteen
and sixteen miles per hour which they fail to accomplish.
It will be seen by the above proposals that for sixteen miles per
hour Mr. Norris' price is $140,000, while Reaney, Neafie & Co.'s is
$139,000, or $1,000 less, and for fifteen miles per hour the former's
price is $130,000, and the latter's $124,000, or $6,000 less.
With regard to the proposal for twenty miles per hour, as an engineer, it is my opinion that efficient condensing marine engines and
dependencies to produce this speed for a reasonable length of time by
this vessel, with all the necessary equipments on board ready for sea
at the load draught of water, would occupy so much space as to make it
totally inefficient as a cruising vessel-of-war, and entirely inadmissible.
Being also of the opinion that, with steam machinery in this vessel of
good design and well executed, a speed in smooth water of fifteen
miles per hour may be obtained, and as Messrs. Reaney, Neafie
& Co.'s bid for this speed ($124,000) is $6,000 less than Mr. Norris',
I consider it would be to the public interest to award this contract to
them, with the distinct understanding that if any slight modification
of their present plans is considered necessary by them to fulfill the
contract, that no increase of space for the steam machinery be allowed;
that the stipulated speed is to be performed during at least six consecutive hours at the load draught of water, the successful performance
at sea for three months guarantied, and that during the trial trip the
engines, boilers, and dependencies are not to be subjected to any
undue strain or pressure to produce the stipulated speed.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
SAM'L ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-Chief.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.




312                       APPENDIX.
WASHINGTON, December 28, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I have this day presented to Hon. Secretary, Mr. Toucey,
an affidavit, a copy of which I enclose herewith.  All the statements
contained therein will be proven under oath by engineers of the
United States navy and other respectable parties.  I am satisfied
that the honorable Secretary has been deceived and is now deceived
by false representations, otherwise he could not withhold from me
the award of contract, to which I am entitled by the universal rulings
of the honorable Secretary and the established legal usages of the
department.
I have the honor to be your excellency's obedient servant, very
respectfully,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
His Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN,
President of the United States.
Affidavit.
William Norris, civil and mechanical engineer, a resident of Philadelphia, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, viz:
On the eighth day of September last, he presented to the honorable
Secretary of the Navy, plans, specifications, and price for the machinery of steam propeller, 10 feet draught, building at the Philadelphia navy yard, which said plans, &c., were exhibited before a
board of engineers of the navy, but no decision was arrived at, at
that time.  That the honorable Secretary then gave to all other
bidders time until the 2d November following, to answer their plans
and to make new proposals.  That soon after these events, deponent
was informed that Rainey, Neafie & Co., of Philadelphia, were in
possession of copies of his plans.  That deponent went to Washington
and informed the honorable Secretary of the Navy of this fact. That
the honorable Secretary assured him that no officer of the bureau
would dare do such a thing as to show plans, under the circumstances
by which these plans were retained by the department.
That notwithstanding the good faith and intentions of the honorable
Secretary, tlhe engineer-in-chief of the navy obtained possession of
these plans and drawings, and. did publicly exhibit the same in his
office during the month of October last.
That copies of parts of said drawings of this deponent and other
information of deponent' s plans have been furnished to Reaney, Neafie
& Co. from the office of the engineer-in-chief of the navy, which
have been closely imitated by Rainey, Neafie & Co., and in some
cases exactly copied.
That the members of the board of engineers convened on the 2d
of November were influenced by the engineer-in-chief, who advocated with great perseverance the plans of Reaney, Neafie & Co.,
and that in consequence of his positive declarations, two of said
members were induced to withhold their favorable report of this deponent's plans, &c., &c.




APPENDIX.                           313
That one member of said board has stated, since his report was
made to the honorable Secretary of the Navy, "that the inaccurate
assertions of the engineer-in-chief caused him to change his favorable
report which he had decided to make in favor of this deponent,"
That one member of this board who reported favorably on said
plans of this deponent was asked by the engineer-in-chief what his
report was, and when he told him that it was favorable to deponent,
the engineer-in-chief replied, " That he had got himself into a scrape
for making such a report."
That, according to the universal ruling of the honorable the Secretary of the Navy, and to long established custom, Messrs. Reaney,
Neafie & Co. are legally debarred from receiving the award of contract, because they have failed to comply with all the requirements
of the law in not furnishing in their specifications, viz:
1. Consumption of coal per horse-power or per day.
2. Working power of steam.
3. Weight of machinery.
4. Centre of gravity of machinery.
5. Area of foot valves.
6. Surface of propeller.
T. Kind of propeller.
8. The space taken for their engines exceeds the space very considerably allowed in the midship section of ship furnished to them by the
department, and, if so carried out, will destroy the efficiency of the ship.
9. The security offered by them for the execution of the contract
is very far from being sufficient; one of said securities being their
chief clerk, the other a hand on weekly wages.
The foregoing delinquencies were observed and accurately noted,
at the examination by the board of engineers, convened on the 2d
of last month.
The honorable Secretary appointed a third board of examiners,
consisting of three civil engineers, whose report was as follows: Two
of said board reported in favor and one against this deponent. This
result, being a clear majority, according to the honorable Secretary's
ruling, and according to law, entitles this deponent to the award of
contract.  This deponent therefore claims the award of contract,
based upon the general advertisement and upon the specifications as
presented and acted upon by the board of civil engineers, at the price
stated in deponent's specifications, which is $13,000 less than Reaney,
Neafie & Co.
Should the honorable Secretary desire increased speed —greater
than the speed I guaranty for the ship, which I here guaranty shall
be 15 miles per hour-I will, with few modifications to the details of
machinery, guaranty the following speeds at the respective following
prices, viz:
20 miles per hour, at a cost of...................... 17  5,000
19 miles per hour, at a cost of.......................... 165,000
18 miles per hour, at a cost of....................        155,000
17 miles per hour, at a cost of......................    145,000
16 miles per hour, at a cost of.........................  135,000




314                       APPENDIX.
I make the foregoing affidavit, conscious of its truth, and believe
it to be a duty to myself and to my reputation, and also with a view
to impress it upon the mind of the honorable the Secretary of the
Navy, to obtain from him the award to which I feel myself entitled.
WILLIAM NORRIS.
WASHINGTON, December 28, 1838.
Sworn and subscribed to before me, a justice of the peace in and
for the county of Washington and District of Columbia, the 28th day
of December, 1858.
JOHN S. HOLLINGSHEAD,
Justice of the Peace.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, December 29, 1858.
SIR: The department has received an affidavit from Mr. William
Norris, of which the following is an extract:
"That copies of parts of said drawings of this department and
other information of deponent' s plans have been furnished to Reaney,
Neafie & Co., and in some instances exactly copied."
The department makes the communication to you that you may
offer such explanations as you may deem proper.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Messrs. REANEY, NEAFIE & Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa.
PHILADELPHIA, January 1, 1859.
SIR: We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 29th ult., containing an extract from an affidavit
made by one William  Norris, embracing, as we understand it, a
charge against the department of the engineer-in-chief of having
furnished to us copies of parts of drawings, and other information
touching plans submitted by him for steam  machinery, and against
us with having closely imitated and in some instances exactly copied
them for our own use.
In reply, we beg leave to submit the following affidavit and argument:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
State of Pennsylvania. f
We, Thomas Reaney and John P. Levy, members of the firm of
Reaney, Neafie & Co., and William  B. Reaney, employed in the
drawing department of said firm, being severally and duly sworn, do
depose and say:




APPENDIX.                         315
That no copies or parts of drawings of one William Norris, touching his plans for machinery, have been furnished us from the office
of the engineer-in-chief of the navy or from any other source, either
directly or indirectly, in any manner or form whatever.
That we have not imitated in any way, or copied in any form, any
plans, drawings, or ideas of the said William Norris.
THOMAS REANEY,
JOHN P. LEVY,
W. B. REANEY.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, the 1st day of January, A. D.
1859.
JOHN CLOUDS, Alderman.
We avail ourselves of the privilege you afford us to make some
explanations in reference to the substance of the affidavit herewith
transmitted.
We confess, in the first instance, our surprise at the proceedings
which Mr. Griffith, Mr. Norris, Mr. Merrick, and other gentlemen
composing the combination, (formed not only against us, but against
the department,) have seen fit to institute.
In the first place it is susceptible of proof that Mr. Griffith was
willing, and, indeed, expected, that all the information he had afforded
Mr. Norris, to the exclusion of others; should be given to competitors
for making the machinery for the ship by the department itself.
It is quite well understood that Mr. Griffith directed the making
of Mr. Norris' plans, refusing to afford to any other house the least
information upon the subject, and treating with official insolence
those who approached him with reference to it.
In the next place it is by no means complimentary to an experience
of sixteen years, employed in the construction of more than three
hundred steamers, to suppose that we would be likely to ask, much
less improperly obtain, ideas from persons who had neither shop nor
tool and who have never constructed a marine engine of any kind.
If there is the least similarity in plan it must be the result of a
mere coincidence; or if not so, it is much more likely that it was
derived from the same source from which the eight points contained
in Mr. Norris' criticisms on our drawings were obtained. There is,
however, one material difference, which is a matter of street talk, and,
among men of science, a subject of common ridicule.  We allude to
the difference in the use of the propeller wheels.
Our conversation with you when Mr. Norris submitted the papers
alluded to was of such a character that we beg leave to call your
attention to it. We then declined to see Mr. Norris' plans because
we thought it might possibly be construed into ground for improper
remark, although Mr. Norris had just submitted to you a paper containing a description of some parts of our plans.  How this was
obtained we are not supposed to know, but we have too much confidence in the integrity of the engineer-in-chief not to exonerate him
from any complicity in the affair.




316                        APPENDIX.
We believe, however, that if you feel disposed to investigate this
charge you will find that the offence is quite small compared with
others committed by those who, having been corrupted themselves, are
now seeking covertly to disgrace the department from whom they
derive their power, and whose authority and power it is their duty
to support. In all our intercourse with your department we have
avoided or sought to avoid any connexion with any of your officials
which might be construed into an effort to obtain their favor.
We have not only not sought to copy the plans of Mr. Norris or
those of any other person, but we have carefully avoided copying the
example of those who, whilst bidders for contracts from your department, have gone to New York and-elsewhere, and, by the most abject
appeals and disgraceful propositions, have sought to corrupt the
authority and counsel on which you relied for honest and correct
information.
We regret the bitterness of personal feeling which has given rise
to this controversy; it was unsought by us, and will not now be evaded.
We shall, at no distant day, take the necessary steps to investigate
the whole affair, not so much to vindicate our own reputation from
the foul aspersions of a band of unscrupulous speculators and adventurers, as to expose and stamp their own infamy and disgrace.
Mr. Neafie, of our firm, is absent from the city; on his return we
will forward to you his affidavit, which you will receive on Tuesday
morning next.
Appreciating and estimating properly, as we believe, your earnest
desire to secure for your department its best interests, we express
our abiding confidence in your fearless impartiality and your determination to vindicate the truth and the justice and equity of the case.
We have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servants,
REANEY, NEAFIE & CO.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, January 3, 1859.
HONORED SIR: We did expect to send you by to-night's mail our
Mr. Neafie's affidavit, but, on account of his not returning home, we
judge the death of a near relative in Baltimore is the cause. You
shall have it as soon as we can get him home. Chief Engineer Wood,
we have every reason to believe, could give you a great deal of
information about the combination that is now going on, as they have
opened themselves freely to him, supposing that he was their friend.
We beg you will have a personal interview with him, as we are satisfied it will be useful to you.
Wishing you a happy new year and many returns, we remain your
obedient servants,
REANEY, NEAFIE & CO.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary af the Navy.




APPENDIX.                       317
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
State of Pennsylvania.
I, Jacob G. Neafie, one of the members of the firm of Reaney,
Neafie & Co., being sworn according to law, do depose and say:
That no copies or parts of drawings of one William Norris, touching
his plans for machinery, have been furnished us from the office of
the engineer-in-chief of the navy, or from any other source, either
directly or indirectly, in any manner or form whatever; that we
have not imitated in any way, or copied in any form, any plans,
drawings, or ideas of the said William Norris.
JACOB G. NEAFIE.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, the 5th day of January, A. D.
1859.
JOHN CLOUDS, Alderman.
PHILADELPHIA, December 30, 1858.
DEAR SIR: Will you be pleased to give your permission to Engineers
Everett and Whipple to testify what they know regarding my allegation that my drawings and plans were publicly exposed in the bureau
of the engineer-in-chief, and that copies of the same had been furnished from the bureau to Reaney, Neafie & Co;, of Philadelphia;
and also to testify what knowledge they may have in regard to the
other portions of my affidavit presented you on the 29th instant?
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAC TOUcEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, January 4, 1859.
DEAR SIR: In the short time I have had to obtain testimony in my
case, I have only been able to procure a small portion of that which
I have at command for a court of inquiry, yet I have enough to sustain all the charges of my affidavit, and to show you conclusively, viz:
1st. That Mr. Archbold furnished a copy of my plan or plans to
Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.
2d. That Mr. Archbold exposed for several days to public view in
his office my drawings prior to the board of November 2, and while
said drawings were supposed to be under lock and key.
3d. That Mr. Archbold disparaged my plans.
4- h. That two members of the civil board of three gave an unmistakablle report in favor of my plans.
5thl  TIhat Reaney, Neafie & Co. did not furnish, as required by




318                        APPENDIX.
the advertisement, to the board of November 2 the weight of their
machinery or its centre of gravity.
6th. That for machinery reported on as the best, my price was
$13,000 less than that of Reaney, Neafie & Co.
7th. That the guarantors of Reaney, Neafie & Co., Peter G. Rambo
and Samuel Rotan, are both employed within the premises of Reaney,
Neafie & Co. by them, and therefore legally disqualified from being
guarantors.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WILLIAM  NORRIS.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
PHILADELPHIA, December 31, 1858.
SIR: If it is the wish of the Hon. Secretary of the Navy, I am
willing to testify in reference to your proposals for machinery intended
for the vessel building under my direction.
First, as to power; second, as to plans.
While I was at Washington, at the call of the department, during
the sitting of the first board, I met Mr. Archibold the night before
leaving, and a few evenings before the board adjourned, when a conversation took place upon engines for the vessel, during which he
gave me to understand that your engines would not produce the
horse power required, viz, 1,150. On my return I wrote him, informing him that it was 1,100, and not 1,150 horse power that I had
asked for.  Enclosed you have his reply.
Second, as to plans: During the interval between the adjournment
of the first board and the meeting of the second, Mr. Reaney, of the
firm of Reaney, Neafie & Co., called on me in reference to machinery
for the vessel, and desiring information.  During the interview Mr.
Kearney informed me that he had received a tracing, from Washington, of section of the vessel. On questioning him I found that the
tracing he had received was one of your plans, showing side elevation,
with shaft and propellers.  As I had furnished no such drawing, and
you had, I was satisfied that the tracing was from your drawing and
not mine.
I remain, respectfully, yours,
JOHN W. GRIFFITHS,
Temporary Naval Constructor, Navy Yard, Philadelphia.
WM. MORRIS, Esq.
OFFICE OF ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
Washington, September 23, 1858.
DEAR SIR: Your letter of yesterday has been received, and, upon
referring to your letters in the department, I find that it is 1,100



APPENDIX.                        319
horse power you required to be produced for the propulsion of the
sloop you are building.
Your telegram has also been received, and the board has decided
that no explanations of Mr. Norris' drawings are now necessary.
Respectfully, yours,
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD.
JOHN W. GRIFFITHS, Esq.,
Naval Constructor.
MORGAN IRON WORKS,
New York, December 31, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 30th is received, requesting "I will please
inform you when and where I first saw the drawings of the machinery
proposed by you for the steam sloop No. 2, building at Philadelphia."
In reply, I would state that I arrived in Washington October 14;
that I first saw your drawings, within three or four days of that time,
in the office of the engineer-in-chief; previous to which I had no
knowledge whatever in regard to them.
In making this statement I am not aware of violating any privacy;
but your request being of so simple a character only, induces me to
reply other than through the department. I have to ask, however,
that in future, should you have occasion to write me upon any matter
connected with the present subject, you will not fail to make your
communication through the Secretary of the Navy, and trust you will
appreciate that the motive is not wanting in courtesy to yourself,
or a disinclination to oblige in any reasonable manner.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. E. EVERETT.
WILLIAM NORRIS, Esq.,
Philadelphia.
PHILADELPHIA, December 30, 1858.
SIR: In reply to your letter of to-day, I have to say that I am perfectly willing (if desired by the Hon. Secretary of the Navy) to
testify that I saw your drawings, or copies of them, of the machinery
proposed by you for the steam sloop building at this station under the
direction of Mr. Griffiths, in the office of the engineer-in-chief, on
or about the 12th day of October last, and that they were on his
table several days.
I am also ready to testify that Mr. Archbold, engineer-in-chief, did
endeavor, by his remarks, to disparage these plans.
Respectfully, yours,
JOHN P. WHIPPLE,
Chief Engineer, United States Navy.
WILLIAM NORRIS, Esq.




320                        APPENDIX.
NEW YORK, December 31, 1858.
SIR: In the matter of the steam machinery for the screw sloop-ofwar of ten feet draught building at Philadelphia under the superintendence of Mr. Griffiths, my reasons for reporting in favor of the plans
submitted by you were as follows:
1. The engines were not as long by five feet as those represented
by the plans submitted by Reaney, Neafie & Co., and consequently
occupied that much less space in the width of the vessel; the space
occupied "fore-and-aft" the ship by your engines was also a f.w
inches less than by the engines proposed by Reaney, Neafie & Co.;
hence the space covered and occupied by yours is very considerable
less than that occupied by theirs.
2. The arrangement of your "air" and  "circulating pump" I
consider superior to theirs, inasmuch as yours are operated by the
rotationhof the main shaft, and the breaking of the reciprocating parts
of either engine, and the stoppage of either engine from such cause,
does not prevent the effective working of both pumps; whereas, in
the plan submitted by Reaney, Neafie & Co., should the engine carrying the "circulating pump" (salt water pump) be stopped by the
breakage of any of its parts, both engines must stop.  Such accident
might occur at a time to endanger the ship, and any arrangement
that provides against such contingency is much to be preferred.
3. Your engines, taking less room athwartships, leave more room
for other purposes; and more especially, in the case of the Griffiths'
ship, they do not destroy the three feet longitudinal passages shown
on the naval constructor's plan.
4. Your arrangement of gearing gave wheels of a size that is known
to work well in practice, and much smaller than exist in the arrangement submitted by Reaney, Neafie & Co.; when employed to transmit
the power embraced in the case under consideration, I am confident
they would give a great deal of trouble by the excessive wear and tear
of the cogs, produced by the pressure and angular action; and, besides, in the Reaney & Neafie arrangement they employed a fourth
wheel, which must be small, corresponding with the pinions. This
wheel, if of iron, would make an intolerable noise; if the cogs were of
wood, the wear would be excessive, and very troublesome. v
5. Your proposal contained all the requirements of the advertise
ment submitted by the department, while in that from Reaney, Neafie
& Co. there were several important omissions, viz: the weight of
machinery, the centre of gravity of the machinery, the consumption
of coal, and some others.
6. For machinery, in my opinion better, your price was thirteen
thousand dollars less money.
Respectfully, yours,
ERASTUS W. SMITH.
WILLIAM NORRIS, Esq.
Sworn before me this 31st day of December, 1858.
THADDEUS B. GLOVER,
Notary Public, New York.




APPENDIX.                        321
Personally appeared before me, Charles D. Freeman, one of the
aldermen for the city and county of Philadelphia, Barnabas H. Bartol,
who doth depose and say: That when Mr. Washington Jones was
requested by the Secretary of the Navy to go to Washington to decide
on plans of machinery, he was absent from this city and did not return
until Mr. Jones had left town; and, further, that he had not seen him
for several weeks before that time; and that while the said Jones was
at Washington he had no communication with him, directly or indirectly, and that all statements to the contrary are false. And further
this deponent sayeth not.
BARNABAS H. BARTOL.
Sworn and subscribed to December 31, A. D. 1858, before me.
CHARLES D. FREEMAN,
Alderman.
So far as the above statement relates to myself, I pronounce it to
be correct.
WASHINGTON JONES.
Sworn and subscribed to on January the 1st, A. D. 1859, before me.
JAMES B. FREEMAN,
Alderman.
PHILADELPHIA, December 31, 1858.
DEAR SIR: In reply to your question, "Why, as a member of a
board of engineers, called by the Hon. Isaac Toucey, Secretary of
the Navy, I reported to him my preference for your plan of machinery
before that of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co., both intended for the
two feet draught sloop now building at the United States navy yard at
Philadelphia," I send you these as some of the most important
reasons for my choice:
1. Your engines occupied so much less space (five feet) athwartships, as to allow a clear passage, fore-and-aft, of three feet width
on each side, between them and the coal bunks. The walls of these
passages, composed of plate iron, are at such a distance from the sides
of the ship as to better serve as braces to the hull and as a support
to the deck.  Your engines, while thus occupying less space, are
equally as accessible, and a better position can be assigned to the
engineers between the engines, instead of over them.
2. Your much reduced rate of speed of the freshwater and circulating pumps (about I that of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.) gives
the water more time to pass through the valves and channels, diminishes the percussive action of the valves upon their seats, thereby
reducing the-wear; the better way of working the pumps, by an
attachment to the main shaft instead of to the steam piston, enables
one engine to be used even if the other be disabled, for while the
main shaft revolves the condensing apparatus can be operated. This
is not the case with the arrangement submitted by Messrs. Reaney,
21 c




322                       APPENDIX.
Neafie & Co. One of their engines works the circulating pump and
the other works the fresh water pump, both by direct attachments to
the steam pistons; now, as both pumps are essential to the operation
of the condensing apparatus, the derangement or breakage of one
engine, and consequent loss of its attached pump, compels the stoppage
of the entire machinery.
3. Your propellers are better adapted than those of Messrs. Reaney,
Neafie & Co. to the requirements of the case. Being true screws they
have as much efficiency as those proposed by Messrs. Reaney, Neafie
& Co. when going ahead, and have as much efficiency when backing,
an advantage npt possessed by those having " a curving of the wings
of the screw paddle in a direction perpendicular to the shaft or axis,
and which cannot be over estimated, for as the sloop is intended for
shoal water, it is among the possibilities that she may run ashore,
and her engines and propellers should be able to perform the work
of extricating her.
Your gearing is of greater diameter, of stronger proportion, and
will work more quietly; will absorb less of the engine power and
endure longer, in consequence of the less angular motion of the teeth
upon each other. Your plan contains but three wheels, while that
of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co. contains four; the fourth being
intended to change the direction of revolution of one shaft and propeller in order to cure an imaginary defect in the steering of the
vessel, said to result from rotating the propellers in the same direcotion. Supposing such to be the effect, the evil is endeavored to be
cured, but only by the infliction of a greater one. The foregoing
superiorities of your plan decided my vote in your favor. Had the
board been asked to decide if the two proposals complied with the
terms of the advertisement, or instructed to take into consideration
the prices, two more reasons would have been added to those in your
favor: one, your having fulfilled the requirements of the advertisement in giving the centres of gravity of machinery with coal on
board, and the total weight of machinery, both of which were lacking
in the drawings and specifications of Messrs. Reaney, Neafie & Co.;
and the other is, for engines of exactly the same capacity your price
is thirteen thousand dollars less.
Very truly yours,
WASHINGTON JONES.
Mr. WM. NORRIS.
P. S. The guaranties of Messrs. R., N. & Co. were, I think, Peter
G. Rambo and Samuel Rotan.
Personally appeared before me, Samuel B. Freeman, one of the
aldermen for the city and county of Philadelphia; Washington Jones,
who doth depose and say, that the foregoing letter was written by
him, and contains the reasons for his action upon the said board of
engineers.
WVASH:INGTON JONES.




APPENDIX.                        323
Sworn and subscribed to on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1859,
before me.
JAMES FREEMAN, Alderman.
Henry Heller, being duly sworn, doth depose and state, that he is
acquainted with Peter G. Rambo and Samuel Rotan, of the city of
Philadelphia, and that the business of both of them is within the
premises of Reaney, Neafie & Co., of this city, according to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
HENRY  HELLER.
Sworn and subscribed before me, this 3d day of January, A. D. 1859.
ROBT. C. TITTUMARY, Alderman.
Lewis J. Rice, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that he is
acquainted with Samuel Rotan, of this city, and that the said Rotan is
employed within the premises of Reaney, Neafie & Co., of this city.
LEWIS J. RICE.
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 3d day of January, A. D.
1859.
T. Y. FEMINGTON, Alderman.
I hereby certify that the only Peter G. Rambo in the Philadelphia
Directory of 1858 is on page 555, and that this is a correct transcript
of what is there recorded, according to the best of my knowledge and
belief: Rambo, Peter G., clerk, F. road, ab. Palmer, (K.;) and that
the said Directory does not contain the name of Samuel Rotan.
F. A. GERMON.
Sworn and subscribed before me, the 3d day of January, 1859.
ROBT. C. TITTUMARY, Alderman.
This contract, made and entered into this - day of, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, between Thomas Reaney, Jacob G.
Neafie, and John P. Levy, of the city of Philadelphia, in the State of
Pennsylvania, as principals, and   -        and    -as
sureties, of the first part, and Isaac Toucey, Secretary of the Navy,
acting for and in behalf of the United States of America, of the second
part, witnesseth: That the said parties of the first part do hereby
covenant and agree with the said party of the second part as follows:
That, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned, they do hereby
covenant and agree, for themselves, their executors and administrators and assigns, that they will, at their expense and risk, furnish and
deliver under the sheers in the United States navy yard at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and erect on board the steam screw sloop-of-war
of ten feet draught, building in the United States navy yard in Philadelphia, authorized by the act of Congress approved June 12, 1858,
two horizontal condensing cross-head engines, of sixty-five (65) inches
diameter of cylinder and thirty-six (36) inches stroke, with two large




324                         APPeNDIX.
horizontal tubular and one small vertical tubular boilers of iron. Said
engines and boilers to be arranged for driving two screw propellers
by gearing 2- to 1  master wheel arranged with wooden cogs,
pinions of cast iron, or one of composition, if required, with all the
necessary cocks, valves, gauges, propellers, and shafting connexions
and parts complete, with tools and appurtenances for'making an efficient cruising vessel at sea.  Said engines and boilers to be made of
the best materials and in a workman-like manner.
The boilers to be tested with a hydrostatic pressure of fifty pounds
per square inch, and to have an aggregate heating surface of 6,850
square feet, and 270 square feet of grate surface, and 1,520 cubic
feet of steam room, and to be made perfectly tight and secure at that
pressure.
The engines and all other connexions and parts to be proportioned
to stand the above named pressure.
The engines to be well secured to the ship by holding-down bolts,
twenty at least of which are to pass through the floor timbers nearest
the line of keel, with heads let into the wood on washers, thus:
(See engraving.)
Boilers to be secured to the ship fore-and-aft and athwartships,
and to each other, by braces.
The said parties of the first part do hereby guaranty the following
points:
First. A successful and satisfactory operation at sea of the engines,
boilers, and appurtenances.
Second. That the engines and boilers will be capable of developing
at sea at least 1,100-horse power, measured by the indicator, (on the
standard of 33,000 pounds lifted one foot high per minute,) and at
least 40 revolutions per minute. That the coal, per indicated horse
power, shall not exceed three and one-fourth (3-) pounds.
Third. That 209 tons of coal can be stowed in the space allotted
for the machinery, boilers, and coal, without exceeding the total weight
of 477 tons for machinery, appendages, boilers, (and water in them),
bunkers, tools, spare pieces, and coal, as aforesaid, and without
infringing on the necessary amount of space for ventilation and
attending to the boilers and machinery; and it is mutually understood, by the terms of this contract, that the entire responsibility
of their success is to rest with them; and therefore the said parties
of the first part will arrange and proportion the details of said engines
and boilers in such a manner as they shall deem best calculated to
secure the most successful operation, having reference to the specifications hereunto annexed, for such parts as are herein named; it
being mutually understood that this contract covers the engines,
boilers, connexions, and all appurtenances of every kind necessary
to render the same completely efficient, safe, and convenient for
cruising at sea. And the fitting, furnishing, and arrangement of the
details of the engines, boilers, and appurtenances, and all matters
connected therewith, shall be made satisfactory to the engineer-inchief and such other persons as may be appointed to superintend the
same.




APPENDIX.                         325
The said parties of the first part further agree to hold the United
States harmless against any demand for patent fees or any patented
article or arrangement used in or about the machinery herein contracted for, and shall procure a release therefrom. The said engineerin-chief, or person superintending, to have the authority to condemn
any of the work in any stage of progress, either from improper design,
improper or bad material, or workmanship.
The parties of the first part further agree and contract that the
whole of the said engines, boilers, and appurtenances, shall be completed and erected properly on board the vessel and ready for operation and trial by steam within seven months from date of this contract, provided the vessel is launched; and if she is not launched, then
in three months from the day of launching, provided the delay is not
caused by the parties of the first part; and that such parts as are
required to be put on board the vessel before launching to be duly
completed, so as to cause no delay. It being mutually agreed and
understood that all wood and carpenter work required to adapt the
vessel to the reception of the machinery, except the boring out of
the shaft holes through deadwood, is to be furnished by and executed
at the expense of the Navy Department, which will permit the use
of such facilities as it has at the yard for hoisting on board the heavy
pieces of machinery.  The parties of the first part shall put in and
firmly secure, before launching, the holding-down bolts going through
the bottom, the casings through deadwood, propeller hangers, and
stern fixtures, out-board delivery chest, blow and injection valves,
and all pipes, bolts, and valves going through the ship below the
water line. It is further agreed that the aforesaid parties of the first
part shall furnish and provide for the persons appointed by the Navy
Department to superintend the work, as they progress, suitable and
convenient office room, and to afford them satisfactory facilities for
making copies of all detailed drawings, and shall also furnish the detailed weight of the entire machinery, boilers, propellers, &c.
And the said parties of the first part do hereby engage and contract that no member of Congress, officer of the navy, or any person
holding any office or appointment under the Navy Department, shall
be admitted to any share or part of this contract or agreement, or to
any benefit to arise therefrom; and it is hereby expressly provided,
and this contract is upon this express condition, that if any such
member of Congress, officer of the navy, or other person above named,
shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract, or to any
benefit to arise under it, or in case the parties of the first part shall,
in any respect, fail to perform this contract on their part, the same
may be, at the option of the United States, declared null and void,
without affecting their right to recover for default which may have
occurred.
That when said parties of the first part shall have furnished the
material and labor for the engines, boilers, and appurtenances, as
hereinbefore specified, to the value of one-half the whole amount required for their complete erection, then, upon presentation of triplicate bills, properly certified by the engineer-in-chief that the one



326                         APPENDIX.
half of the whole amount of the contract Jtas been furnished, and
when approved by the Navy Department, then will be paid to the
said parties of the first part, or to their order, by the navy agent at
Philadelphia, the sum of forty-six thousand three hundred and thirtythree dollars, ($46,333.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have completed
the whole work herein contracted for, and it is delivered in the Philadelphia navy yard ready for erection in the ship, and the same is duly
certified as aforesaid, then shall be made a further payment of twentythree thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars ($23,166.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have completed
the whole work herein contracted for, and after a successful trial trip
of said ship and machinery at sea for at least one week, and that
during this trial the vessel shall attain a speed (under favorable circumstances of weather and sea) of sixteen statute miles per hour for
six consecutive hours, and without causing any undue strain on the
engines, boilers, and dependencies, to the satisfaction of the Secretary
of the Navy, which trial shall be made at the expense of the United
States, then the party of the second part agrees to pay to the parties
of the first part the further sum of twenty-three thousand one hundred
and sixty-six dollars ($23,166.) That in case a speed of fifteen and a
half statute miles per hour is only obtained, the sum of fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty-six dollars ($15,666) only will be paid in
lieu of $23,166, last aforesaid; and in the case of only fifteen miles,
under the conditions above named, being obtained, then the sum of
eight thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars ($8,166) to be paid.
If the said trial trip shall prove satisfactory, then the said party of
the second part shall, at the earliest period practicable, and with all
reasonable despatch, cause the said ship to be sent on a cruise; and
whenever the entire machinery of said ship shall have worked successfully, and have performed to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
the Navy at sea for a period of three months, then the said party of
the second part agrees to pay to the parties of the first part the further
sum  of forty-six thousand three hundred  and thirty-five dollars
($46,335,) or as much as may be found due, in full consideration of this
contract, the aggregate amount being one hundred and thirty-nine
thousand dollars; if a speed of sixteen (16) statute miles per hour is
obtained, then the aggregate sum will be one hundred and thirty-one
thousand five hundred dollars ($131,500;) and if only fifteen miles per
hour, then the aggregate sum will be one hundred and twenty-four
thousand dollars ($124,000.) It being mutually understood and agreed
that, to entitle the said parties of the first part to the fourth and last
payment, the said machinery shall be perfect and complete, and shall
have performed satisfactorily during the three months it shall have
been in the possession of the Navy Department.
And in the event of a failure from improper design or arrangement,
mal-construction, defective machinery or workmanship of said engines,
propellers, boilers, &c., to work successfully at sea for at least three
months, and in every respect satisfactory to the Navy Department,
or in the event of a failure from the causes before named at any time




APPENDIX.                         327
within three months of the trial of said engines, propellers, boilers,
&c., to be successful in every respect, then it is hereby agreed and
understood that the Navy Department is authorized to have all modifications, alterations, and repairs made so as to secure a successful operation of the engines at sea; which modifications and repairs shall be
made at the expense of the said parties of the first part, and the sum
or sums paid therefor shall be deducted from the last payment aforesaid.
It is further agreed that during the trial trip, as before mentioned,
the steam  machinery shall be under the control and management of
engineers to be appointed and paid by the parties of the first part,
subject during such trial to the regulations of the naval service, and
such personal and official supervision of the engineers appointed by
the said Navy Department as may be directed by the Secretary of
the Navy, to secure a fair and satisfactory test of the machinery.
And it is further agreed that the Navy Department shall have a
lien on the machinery and all the material provided for the fulfilment
of this contract for the money advanced or paid by the United States
on account thereof, and that the said parties of the first part agree
that, whilst under their control, they will keep the machinery, boilers,
and materials insured against loss by fire to the amount which may
have been paid on account of this contract, the policies being made
payable to the government.
And the parties of the first part further agree that the weight of
the machinery, water in boilers, shafts, propellers, and appendages,
with tools, spare-work, and coal for five (5) days' steaming at 1,100horse power, may be equal to, but shall not exceed, 475 tons of 2,240
pounds.
It is also understood that the stipulated speed, horse power, and
revolutions of engines is to be obtained when the vessel is fully
equipped for sea at the load draught of water.
It is further agreed that if the weight and other conditions specified in this contract be not complied with, the Navy Department is
to be at liberty to reject the whole machinery, the parties of the first
part to be at the expense of taking it out of the ship, and to refund
whatever amount of the contract price may have been paid them.
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
[SEAL.]
Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence ofI certify that I have made due and diligent personal inquiry as to
the ability of the sureties in this contract, and am satisfied that they
are good and sufficient for the sum of one hundred and thirty-nine
thousand dollars, ($139,000.)




328                          APPENDIX.
Dickerson  f& Sickels' contract for engines, boilers, screw-s7hafting, &dc,
United States sloop-of-war "Pensacola."
This agreement, made this third day of April, one thousand eight
hundred and fifty-eight, between Edward N. Dickerson and Frederick E. Sickels, of the city of New York, engineers, under the name
of Dickerson & Sickels, parties of the first part, and the government
of the United States, by Isaac Toucey, Secretary of the Navy, party
of the second part, witnesseth: That the parties of the first part agree
with the party of the second part that they will, with all possible despatch, furnish the drawings and plans for a four-cylinder engine, with
its boilers and all necessary machinery, for the propulsion of the
United States steam sloop-of-war now in progress of construction at
Pensacola, Florida, by the party of the second part, and will superintend the construction of the said machinery and its erection on board
of said sloop at the machine shops of the party of the second part at
Washington or Norfolk, as may be required; and they will convey to
the party of the second part all the patent rights that are now granted,
or may be hereafter granted to them or either of them; also, all extensions of the same, including patents granted October 19, 1844; September 19, 1845, and September 12, 1848.
And the party of the second part, in consideration thereof, agrees
with the parties of the first part to pay them for the services above
agreed to be performed, and the use of the patent rights on said ship,
the sum of five thousand dollars, ($5,000,) payable as follows:
When the parties of the first part shall have furnished to the party
of the second part a set of drawings, to consist of one side elevation,
one end elevation, and one plan of engines, boilers, screw-shafting,
and appendages complete, together with a set of working drawings,
all to an accurate scale, then, upon presentation of triplicate bills,
properly certified by the engineers-in-chief that the aforesaid drawings have been received, the party of the second part will pay to the
parties of the first part the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars,
($1250.)
And when the party of the second part shall have completed, under
the proper superintendance of the parties of the first part, one-fourth
of the whole amount of the labor on the engines, boilers, and appendages, and the same is duly certified as aforesaid, then shall be a
further payment of twelve hundred and fifty dollars, ($1250.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have superintended the construction and fitting of one-half the whole amount of
work on the engines, boilers, and appendages, and the same is duly
certified as aforesaid, then shall be a further payment of twelve hundred and fifty dollars, ($1250.)
And when the said parties of the first part shall have superintended
the construction, fitting, and erecting on board of said sloop-of-war
the engines, boilers, screw-shafting and appendages, and after a successful trial trip of said ship and machinery at sea for at least one week,
to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy, then the said party




APPENDIX.                         329
of the second part agrees to pay to the parties of the first part the
further sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars, ($1250,) the aggregate amount being five'thousand dollars, ($5,000,) being in full for all
services, claims, or patent fees, by the parties of the first part, their
executors, administrators, and assigns.
But it is understood and agreed that this contract shall not be held
binding upon the party of the second part unless the valve gear now
in progress of construction at the navy yard at Washington for the
steamer Richmond shall perform successfully on trial; and that if said
valve gear perform successfully, then the work contemplated in this
contract shall progress to completion forthwith, under the direction
of the parties of the first part.
And it is further agreed that the space to be occupied by the machinery and coal shall not exceed fifty-six feet in the length of the
ship, and that the weight of machinery and coals shall not exceed
seven hundred tons of twenty-two hundred and forty pounds each;
and it is agreed that the assignment of patents hereinbefore referred
to shall only extend to their use on said ship during their present and
all future terms.
In testimony whereof, the parties hereto have fixed their hands and
seals, the day and year first above written.
EDWARD N. DICKERSON. [L. s.]
FREDERICK E. SICKELS.  [L. s.]
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Sealed and signed in presence ofSAMUEL ARCHBOLD, Engineer-in- Chief.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, County of Washington.
On this third day of April, 1858, before the subscriber, a justice
of the peace in and for the said county, personally appeared the above
named Edward N. Dickerson and Frederick E. Sickels and acknowledged the foregoing assignment to be their act and deed, foi the use
and purposes therein mentioned.
Witness my hand and seal the day and year aforesaid
HY. L. HARVEY, J. P   [L. s.]
JERSEY CITY, N. J., November 20, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I am to-day informed that William Birkbeck, esq., of
this place, is a proposer for the building of certain steam machinery
for the navy. I wish to say, in reference to this gentleman, that he
has long been well known among us as an engine builder, and has
built the engines and machinery for some of our boats here with great
satisfaction to the company who own the ferry.  He has every facility
at the Atlas Foundry to perform  the business on as large a scale as
may be desired, and has the confidence and esteem of our best and
most influential and wealthy men.  Should the contract be awarded




330                        APPENDIX.
to him the department will have no cause to regret it, and at the
same time a great benefit will be conferred upon hundreds of our mechanics, who have now, as a class, no advantage whatever from the
public works at the Brooklyn navy yard, from which the officers and
superintendents and master workmen there seem to have studiously
excluded them because they come from the wrong side of the Hudson
river.
As a matter of course, the contracts will be awarded according to the
prescribed rules of the department. I only write this to assure the
Secretary that, other things being equal, we here will all greatly rejoice at the assignment of the job to Mr. Birkbeck.  I have never
asked from any of the departments of the government any favor which
would be disadvantageous to the public service, and never will. I
simply desire to recommend this gentleman in the highest terms to
the department, and sincerely hope that his proposals may be successful
if within the scope of the rules in such cases.
Very truly yours,
J. R. WORTENDYKE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Reports of Chief Engineers Williamson, Isherwood, Everett, Whpple,
and Stimers, on steam machinery for the sloop at Norfolk.
WASHINGTON, December 4, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your order of the 30th ultimo, I (with Chief
Engineers Isherwood, Everett, Whipple, and Stimers) have carefully
examined the proposals, specifications, and drawings of the steam
machinery for the propeller sloop building at Gosport, Virginia, which
were received at the department under its advertisement of October
27, 1858, and have, individually, to report respectfully that, in my
opinion, direct-acting engines of one thousand horse power, to be
run at a speed of eighty revolutions per minute, cannot be relied on
for long and distant cruising, and are therefore unfitted for the naval
service. Of the plans proposed I prefer the geared engines, with the
boilers in which the tubes are placed over the furnaces, offered by
Messrs. Murray& Hazlehurst, of the Vulcan Works, Baltimore, for
the following reasons:
First. The machinery can be placed much lower in the ship than
that of any other bidder. It is placed within the space allowed by
the department, entirely under the water line, and consequently out
of the reach of an enemy's shot. This I consider an important advantage in a war steamer.
Second. The engines are so arranged that one can be used in case
of accident to, or breakage of, the other. This is not the case with
any other of the plans proposed.
Third. The connexions are much longer than is usual in such cases,




APPENDIX.                        331
and therefore easier, more efficient, durable, and less liable to derangement, &c.
Fourth. The general arrangement is more compact, simple, and
substantial, rendering the engines more manageable and easy to keep
in order.
Fifth. The price is but one thousand dollars above that of the
minimum bid. I therefore respectfully report that they are, in my
opinion, the best adapted for the sloop, and, under all the circumstances, should be accepted by the department.
The details and proportions, as well as I could judge from the
drawings, are in many instances objectionable. Mr. Murray, however, explained to the board the various modifications and improvements which he should make, in the event of his getting the contract,
all of which were fully satisfactory to me; but as doubts have been
expressed as to the propriety of allowing alterations in the details as
shown in the drawings accompanying the specifications, which doubts
I cannot feel, as the advertisement clearly specifies that "the details
of the designs and arrangement of the machinery will be left with
the party whose proposition may be accepted."  Should I, however,
be in error in this view of the case, and should the department decide
that no changes in proportions and details are to be made in the
original designs, &c., then I would respectfully recommend that the
proposals of Mr. Horatio Allen, of the Novelty Works, New York,
be accepted by the department; they being, in my opinion, the next
best in general arrangement and advantages, superior in detail and
proportions, and offered at the minimum price, to be completed in
the shortest time.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. P. WILLIAMSON,
Chief Engineer, United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, D.., December 4, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 30th ultimo, to examine
the plans and specifications of machinery proposed for the steam sloop
building at the Gosport navy yard, I have the honor to submit the
following as comprising the names of the parties who have furnished
plans and specifications, the kind of engine, price named, and time
required for completing the work:
Atlantic Works —geared, $130,000, six months; direct, $125,000,
six months.
Murray & Hazlehurst-geared, $131,000, eight months; direct,
$120,000, eight months.
Fulton Foundry-geared, $138,000, seven months; direct, $129, 000,
seven months.




332                       APPENDIX.
Reaney, Neafie & Co.-geared, $145,000, seven months; direct,
$135,000, seven months.
Boston Locomotive Works-direct, $120,000, seven months.
Novelty Works-geared, $130,000, six months; direct, $125,000,
six months.
I am inclined to give the preference to the geared form of engine,
with the belief that greater durability of machinery will be obtained,
and consequent increase of efficiency, than with the direct-acting, at
the speed of propeller which will be necessary to economically exert
the power placed in this ship.
Of the several plans of geared engines submitted, and considering
the relative merits determined without any or upon comparative modifications necessary to be made to the plans and specifications as furnished, that of the Novelty Works should most decidedly have the
preference; for, so far as any detail is shown in the plans, which is
quite as full as any submitted, it is almost unexceptionable in the
proportions and arrangement for a successful and efficient steam engine, even to the most minute degree, and in this respect excels any
other plan furnished.
No objections of any moment can be made against it other than
that a few inches of the upper portion of the steam chests are above
the water line of the ship.
The plans proposed by Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst are such, in
design, that the highest point of the machinery can be placed at least
one foot below water line, and has, in a degree, some little merit in
this respect; but the representations of detail, both in drawing and
specifications, are totally inadmissible, and do not even meet the approval of Mr. Murray, more than to simply demonstrate that an engine
could be constructed on that plan, which would be placed somewhat
lower in the ship than any other which has been proposed, and of
being able to work one engine independently in case of accident to
either.  All the conditions considered, I prefer the plan of the Novelty Works, for the following reasons:
1st. Their plans in detail and specifications are the most complete,
and, without modification, enable the department to understand what
is intended to be constructed, the disposition of parts and their proportions, without explanations.
2d. The degree of their exposure by being somewhat higher in the
ship is too little, in my estimation, to be seriously considered.
3d. The fact of being able to work one engine independent of the
other will depend upon what form of surface condenser is used, and
therefore the department has its option in that respect.
4th. The price and time are minimum.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. E. EVERETT,
Chief Engineer, U. S. N.
Hon. IsAAC ToucEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




APPENDIX.                         333
WASHINGTON, December 4, 1858.
SiR: In obedience to your orders of the 30th ultimo, to examine, in
conjunction with the chief engineers therein named, the proposals,
specifications, and drawings for the steam machinery for the screw
propeller sloop building at the navy yard, Gosport, Virginia, under
the advertisement of the department of October 27, 1858, and to report individually which, in my opinion, under all the circumstances,
should be accepted by the department, and to give the reasons for my
preference, I hare the honor to respectfully submit:
That on a careful examination of the various plans submitted, which
comprised both direct-acting and geared engines, my decided preference is for the latter, because, for the high rotatory speed of screw
required, the employment of geared engines is indispensable for durability and reliability; they are also much more economical in support
of fuel and in repairs.
The sole objections to them, when considered simply in regard to
themselves, are their greater bulk and weight; but if the comparison
be made of the bulk and weight of the entire machinery and fuel
carried, and due regard be had to the greater economy of the geared
engine with the latter for equal powers developed, it will be found
that with equal spaces and weights in the same vessel equal speeds
for equal times will be obtained, which leaves all the practical advantages appertaining to the geared form, per se, to be obtained without
deduction in favor of direct-acting engines.
Of the geared engines presented, those of Murray & Hazlehurst are
the best in point of general arrangement for a man-of-war steamship.
They are the only geared engines that are entirely below the water
line and protected from shot. This condition is considered as a sine
qua non in the British and French navies, and in none of their vessels,
not even in the case of gun-boats of from seven to eight feet draught
of water, is the machinery permitted to come above the water line.
They prefer to encounter any mechanical difficulty entrained by
such a condition rather than forego its advantages,  the complete
change in naval steamers from the paddle-wheel to the screw propeller, it is well known, is due almost wholly to this consideration.
The geared engines of Murray & Hazlehurst have their centre of
gravity lower in the ship and require less height above the shaft than
any other plan proposed; nor are these qualities obtained at the expense of occupying a greater area in the floor of the vessel or by an
inaccessible arrangement of parts or by recourse to forms of difficult
mechanical execution; on the contrary, the parts are as accessible as
those of other plans, and the engine is in all respects a plain horizontal cross-head engine with its connecting rod acting directly on the
crank pin; the sole novelty involved is one open connecting rod. The
arrangement has the further advantage of the maximum length of
connecting rod relatively to stroke of piston, and the engines are the
only ones proposed in which either can be operated by itself in the
event of the derangement of the other.  This condition I deem essential to safety and efficiency in all cases, and to obtain it is the obvious




334                        APPENDIX.
reason why two engines instead of one are placed in sea-going vessels.
I have had in one naval steamer personal experience of its necessity.
The details shown on the drawings of Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst
are absolutely inadmissible. These gentlemen, however, do not propose to build the engines with these details, but with such well known
modifications as will render them unexceptionable. Such modifications
are easy to make without affecting the general plan and disposition of
parts; and if the department, in view of the superiority of the general
arrangement for war purposes, elect to permit Messrs. Murray &
Hazlehurst to make the modifications of detail they propose, and if
these modifications, when embodied in complete drawings, are found
satisfactory to the department, I approve their engines as the best.
If, however, the department elect to award the contract upon the
general arrangement and details as exhibited by the different bidders,
I decidedly approve the geared engines proposed by the New York
Novelty Works, which are unexceptionable in all points of mechanical
detail, and which approximates nearest, indeed very nearly in general
arrangements, to the requirements for a war steamer.  In this case,
however, I consider it essential that they so far modify their plan as
to be able to work each engine separately.
I have the honor, &c., &c.,
B. F. ISHERWOOD,
Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy.
Hon. IsAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON CITY, January 22, 1859.
SIR: I have examined the modified drawings presented by Murray
& Hazlehurst for the machinery of the steam sloop-of-war now being
constructed at Norfolk, Virginia, and find them satisfactory and in
accordance with the views of the Board of Naval Engineers, on whose
reports the contract was awarded.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. F. ISHERWOOD,
Chief Engineer.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-chef.
WASHINGTON, D.., December 4, 1858.
SIR: In obedience to your orders of the 30th ultimo I have carefully examined the plans, specifications, and proposals of the bidders
for the machinery for the sloop-of-war building at Gosport, Virginia,
and I beg leave respectfully to report: That, agreeably to the invitation of the department in its advertisement, both direct-acting and
geared engines have been presented by the bidders; and in deciding
between these two general classes of screw engines, where the screw




APPENDIX.                        335
is to revolve with a speed of eighty revolutions per minute, I have not
the slighest hesitation in deciding in favor of the geared engines.
My reasons for this opinion in this immediate case are:
1st. From all the information which I have been able to obtain in my
engineering experience I am led very conclusively to the opinion that
decided improvements must be made upon existing forms of directacting screw engines to enable them  to make eighty revolutions per
minute without causing an injurious and destructive wear and tear
of the working parts.
2d. It has been shown, beyond controversy, that quick working
direct-acting marine screw engines have not been so economical of
fuel as in those which have been applied to drive the paddle-wheel,
or to the screw, by the intervention of gearing; and my opinion is,
that with equal aggregate weights of machinery and coal the same
vessel could be driven equal distances in equal times with the geared
engine as with the direct-acting; and that, therefore, all the advantages possessed by the geared plan, in its smoothness of working and
less self-destructiveness, would be clear gain without any offset whatever.
Of the plans of geared engines before the board, four were adjudged
to have come sufficiently within the stipulations of the advertisement
to be entitled to careful consideration. These may be divided into
two classes' one of which comprises those which may be built exactly
in accordance with the plans as presetedn in their details, as far as
shown; and the other, those which are decidedly objectionable in
some or many of their details, but which, if these are permitted to
be changed, possess characteristics inherent in their general design
which permits of a decidedly superior arrangement when the details
are so far modified as to remove the objections which can be brought
against the drawings, &c., as presented.
Of the first class mentioned, I am decidedly of the opinion that the
proposal of Horatio Allen, esq., of the Novelty Iron Works, New
York, is the most favorable to the government and to the ship.  His
price and time required are a minimum  of all the proposals for
geared engines. His plans are unsurpassed in their fullness and
excellence of detail, and they would, in my opinion, make an excellent pair of engines for a war steamer.
Of the other class, the proposal of Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst, of the Vulcan Works, Baltimore, is, in my opinion, the best
of the plans before this board, because, when the objectionable details
are changed it is, susceptible of being placed below the water line at
the same time that the screw shaft is high enough to permit of the
maximum diameter of propeller that could be desired for the vessel.
And that by a peculiar but simple arrangement of air-pump each
engine is independent of the other, and may be worked by itself when
one is disabled.
These advantages are possessed by none of the other plans before
us, and are not obtained at the expense of weight or space occupied,
or of any objectionable mechanical features.




336                        APPENDIX.
It is proper, however, for me to state that the details are so imperfect and objectionable as to render their employment inadmissible.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ALBAN C. STIMERS,
Chief Engineer, United States Navy.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, December 4, 1858.
SIR: In compliance with your order of the 30th November, I have,
in conjunction with Chief Engineers Williamson, Isherwood, Everett,
and Stimers, carefully examined the proposals, specifications, and
plans for the screw propeller sloop building at the navy yard, Gosport,
Virginia, and respectfully report:  That I consider direct-acting
engines developing one thousand horse power unreliable for long and
distant cruising when driven up to a speed of eighty revolutions per
minute, and therefore cannot recommend their adoption.
Of the plans of geared engines submitted, I would respectfully
recommend, under all the circumstances, that of Messrs. Murray &
Hazlehurst, provided they are modified in the details as proposed and
explained by Mr. Murray to my entire satisfaction, for the following
reasons:
1. The general arrangement is more simple and compact.
2. The engines are placed below the water line, which I consider
an important point in war steamers.
3. Should one engine be disabled, the vessel will still be able to
proceed with the other-an advantage which no other plan submitted
possesses.
4. The connexions are much longer than usual, which admits of the
power being transmitted in a more direct and easy manner.
5. They are less liable to derangement.
6. The price is but one thousand dollars above the minimum.
Of the two plans of boilers proposed by Messrs. Murray & Hazlehurst, I prefer that in which the tubes are placed over the furnaces,
as the adoption of the other would involve the necessity of carrying all
the coal in bunkers suspended from the deck. Should the selection of
the plan depend upon the drawings and specifications as furnished to
the board, that of the Novelty Works, New York, has, in my opinion,
the preference, as the details are quite as full as any submitted; the
proportions and arrangement suitable, so far as I can discover, for an
efficient machine; and the price is a minimum one.
I have the honor to be, &c.,
JOHN R. WHIPPLE,
Chief Engineer, U.S. N.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




APPENDIX.                          337
PHILADELPHIA, Jflarch 4, 1858.
SIR: In the interview our senior had the honor of holding with you
on the 3d ultimo, he was so much surprised at the main ground
assumed for the rejection of our bid that he could not submit to you
the various points that appeared exceptional to him in the contemplated award of the department, and hence desired an opportunity of
submitting them in writing before final action; and we have to thank
you for according to us that opportunity.
Nearly twenty years' experience in the construction of marine
steamers led us to the conclusion that when the department proposed
to award the contract for the machinery to that plan which combined
" the greatest number of advantages, " the details of the design and
arrangement of the machinery will be left with the party whose
proposition may be accepted as combining the greatest number of
advantages, keeping in view simplicity of construction, readiness of
access for adjustment when in operation, and not being subject to
derangement in working parts; that it was your wish and our duty
to combine those advantages to the greatest extent, never for a
moment supposing that all those advantages, which have met the
approval of a majority of your engineers, were to be thrown aside
on the ground of eight tons overweight, to which there cannot be
any objection.
By reference to the advertisement, the object of the department is
given as follows: "It being the object of the department to obtain
the most speed and power with the most economical consumption of
fuel, and the greatest stowage of coal which the space available for
that purpose will admit."
The object desired to be accomplished being plainly stated as above,
we investigated the subject with much care, making accurate comparisons between the vessels heretofore built by the department and
the one now building by Westervelt in New York.
The result of our calculations was, that, to obtain the most speed
and power, and the most economical consumption of fuel per hour,
going at the same speed, and the greatest stowage of coal, (the distance steamed being the standard.) required a small additional weight
of machinery beyond that stated in the advertisement.
To make sure that the object to be obtained by the department was
paramount to the limit given of total weight, we, as in former cases,
consulted with the chief of the Bureau of Construction and the engineer-in-chief; (the latter having informed us that the advertisement
was prepared by them.) Both informed us that a few tons excess of
weight was unimportant, compared with the special object in view.
In consulting them, we most certainly had no intention of showing
disrespect to yourself, but, not being aware of any change in the
practice of the department, were simply following what had been the
usual course in times past.
We believe that a large majority of the five engineers that have
been consulted have given it as their opinion that the machinery
designed by us will best carry out the aim of the department.
22 c




338                          APPENDIX.
Weights and power in engineering are synonymous terms when
applied to similar machinery.  We are, therefore, at a loss to understand how a party who proposes to give you sixteen tons less than is
allowed in the advertisements can be said to comply with the special
object of the department, which is clearly stated to be to obtain as
much power and speed as is possible within the space proposed.
The engines proposed by Reaney, Neafie & Co. are one-sixteenth
(1-) smaller tn han those proposed by Loring & Coney, and accepted
for the Boston sloop, and yet the Philadelphia vessel is from onesixth (-) to one-fifth (5) larger, and requires power in proportion to
her size.
We do not think that the advertisement can be construed, even in
a remote degree, as allowing any such departure from established
usage.
The machinery for both vessels is to be constructed, under
advertisements, precisely similar; and if Loring & Coney's engines are
not too large for that vessel, ours are of the right size. If Reaney,
Neafie &  Co.'s engines weigh, as they state, 324 tons, then Loring
& Coney's, which are larger, must exceed 320 tons, which is the
limit of weight for the Boston vessel; we therefore contend that
where the government has a special object in view, and it is clearly
stated, as in this case, that minor points of the advertisement admit
of a liberal construction which adheres to the spirit rather than the
letter.
Our engines, from their size, are able to use steam  much more expansively and economically than the smaller engines, and we therefore
submit the following points, which we are prepared to demonstrate to
your entire satisfaction:
First. That using precisely the same fuel with both sized engines,
and maintaining the same pressure of steam, the speed of the ship
will be five per cent. greater with the large than with the small
engines, owing to the advantages of using steam more expansively.
Second. That with the larger engines, the bunkers weight stow 151
tons of coal less than would be required with the smaller engines, and
yet drive the ship the same distance as would be made by the smaller
engines in thirteen days' steaming, using the same fuel per hour, and
maintaining the same pressure of steam-owing to the greater speed per
hour at which the ship would be driven; thereby making the distance
in less time.
Third. That to obtain the same speed per hour of the ship, and at
the same number of revolutions of the engines, the use of the small
engines requires the consumption of nineteen per cent. more fuel
than the larger engines; in other words, 24 tons per day being required with the large engines, 28. tons will be required with small
engines, which, in thirteen days' steaming, amounts to 58- tons more
fuel for smaller engines; or, to reverse the statement, 24 tone of coal
with the small engines would only produce the same effect as 20 tons
of coal with the large engines.  We therefore contend that our engines contain more power, will give greater speed, and with a more




APPENDIX.                             339
economical consumption of fuel, and that our coal bunkers will contain more days' fuel, at the same speed.
We also contend that the gross weight of machinery and fuel to
perform  a cruise will be less with our engines, as above stated; and
as the relation between the machinery and fuel is estimated, any
excess of weight in the engines should be allowed us in the fuel, if
we save it.
Having, as engineers, demonstrated that our machinery combines
all the essential elements necessary to success in a war steamer, as
required by your advertisement, it will be apparent to you that the
trifling difference in price is more than compensated by the increased
power, speed, and economy of fuel; in fact, comparing the bids on
this basis, ours is much the lowest of the two.
Your disinterested engineer will, we feel satisfied, endorse our
statements.  We cannot, however, regard Mr. Archbold in that light,
as, from the close affinity existing between him and the agent of
Reaney, Neafie &  Co. for several months past, and his known hostility to ourselves, he has become a partisan, and has endorsed
proportions for this vessel because presented by them, although ho,
has taken care to ignore them for the Pensacola ship.
The following table shows the comparison between the displacement, in tons, of the several vessels named, and the cubical contents
of their engines-in fact, showing their comparative power:
Name... essei.                               ".        ri.
Name of vessel.     a     Cylinders, two each.   0,        a a
ftob.0.c _F
Wabash —--        -_  4, 621  72 in. X 3 feet-.... 169.9 1 to —-.   27.25
Westervelt  -- ---       2,801  61 in. X 2 feet9 in.-   111.6 1 to....    25. 09
Pensacola     ----------  2,700  58 in. X 3 feet —---  110. 0 1 to. —    24. 54
Philadelphia, R., N. & Co_.  3,192  61 in. X 2 feet 9 in.   111. 6 1 to-. —   28. 60
Pbiladelphia,.M. & S. —-   3,192  68 in. X 2 feet 9 in..  138.6 1 to -..  23.03
Boston --------- 2,700  62 in. X 2 feet 10 in,  118.8 1 to-. —  22. 72
From which it will be seen that while the Boston steamer has 22.72
tons to a cubic foot of cylinder, the Philadelphia ship, with Reaney,
Neafie & Co.'s engines, will have 28.60 tons; both cannot be right.
A comparison between the Pensacola, the Boston, and the Philadelphia ship, with Merrick & Sons' engines, shows great uniformity.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
MERRICK & SONS.
BALTIMORE, September 28, 1858.
FRIEND ARCHBOLD: Your favor of yesterday is at hand, and I am
indebted to you for this evidence, in addition to the many I have received, of' your friendship. I intended writing to you on Sunday in




340                         APPENDIX
relation to my proposal. I find that I will have as much work this
winter as I can comfortably get along with, and, after viewing the
matter in all of its bearings, I have come to the conclusion that a
government contract just at this time would not be desirable, as it
would seriously interfere with my regular and old, standard customers,
to whom I am under obligation, and would not like to refuse, or divert
a continuation of their patronage.
I thought of asking your advice whether I should, under those circumstances, withdraw my proposal, but concluded to let it stand, in
opposition to any other effort that might be made in favor of our
patriotic city.
With regard to the boilers I proposed, the tubes are shorter than I
had first designed them, but meeting with the difficulty of removing
the tubes at too late a period to revise this portion of my plan, I
shortened the tubes in order to keep within the limit of fifty feet, and
allow the tubes to be taken out at the back end.
I could not recommend this plan of boiler for low steam  and a
Pirson condenser; it is not suitable for salt water; my design was for
high steam, fifty pounds, and a constant supply of fresh water expansion, six to eight volumes.
Under such an operation, with large water surface and ample steam
room in the boilers, I think they would give satisfactory results, and
would be by no means (as Mr. Martin thinks) a parallel case to the
Princeton or Alleghany.
Respectfully and truly, your friend,
C. REEDER.
True copy:                      CHARLES W. WELSH,
Chief Clerk.
WASHINGTON, February 21, 1859.
Your letter withdrawing your bid for Norfolk sloop cannot be found.
Telegraph whether you withdrew it.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD.
CHARLES REEDER,
Steam Engine Builder, Baltimore.
True copy:                      CHARLES W. WELSH,
Chief Clerk.
BALTIMORE, February 21, 1859.
DEAR SIR: I did withdraw my bid for the machinery for the Norfolk
sloop. I presume the letter is in the department.
C. REEDER.
SAMUEL ARCHBOLD,
Engineer-in-Chief United States Navy, Washington.
True copy:                      CHARLES W. WELSH,
Chief Clerk.




INDEX.
CONTRACTS FOR MACHINERY, ETC.
Page.
Frederic Saunders. —---                                                          -.               3
William  Cockcroft  — 1 —-           —.    -1 —--- ----                 ---------                 15
Miles Corryell] —---            ----—., —----------                   --     -21
Frederick E. Sickles-...... —. —      ------------------                   33
George W. Quintard             -----— 36
J. Vaughan Merrick  ------—. —----- ---------------------------                              44
S. S. Lee, United States navy —--------.                ----------—. —--                         53
Charles W. Welsh           --- ------—. —---                     ---------                        57
Daniel B. Martin, United States navy  -. —-. —-----------                ----         ---          61
Henry M. McGill -...-. —. —   ---------.. —--—.- -........ —........ —-..,    72
D. B. Allen. ------------ -                    -—,, —-75
Edward N. Dickerson -. —-. —-------------—. —... —--------....-.                                 80
William H. Witte --------            _ —-----------— _ —------------- ----- -                      86
Henry Hunt.. —.. —-------------..... —---                           ---------        ----       93
James Murphy                                                                                       97
Henry B. Beach -------------------------------    104
W. E. Everett —-------—. —---------------                                                ---    106
William  Norris. —----------------------------------........    121
J. P. Whipple.  --- ---                                  ------------------            -----    151
Samuel Archbold -..- --          - -       ----------     ----      -    ---      --              157
James Landy —-—. —------------------------    192
John W. Griffiths --.. -.......... -- ------------- -------------                195
READING FORGE.
W. W. W. Wood. - ------                   ----          -----                                     207
W. W. Keim, M. C.-... —-—. —-----—....... —.                                                    218
Maybury A. Bertolet --------............. —--- - ------.. —--    ---------    220
Peter McLaughlin —-----                   ---------------------                                   225
Correspondence referred to in testimony —-------                        --       ---     -  232-235
APPENDIX.
Documents received from  the Navy Department -----                -------------             236-340
















PART IV.
TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS
IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
NAVY YARDS OF THE UNITED STATES.
I D








BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      3
EXPENDITURES IN CHARGE OF BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS.
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 3. —Testimony of Con. Thomas R. Rootes.
THOMAS R. RooTEs called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your occupation?
Answer. Commander in the navy of the United States.
Question. How long have you been in the navy.
Answer. I entered the navy the 1st of March, 1827.
Question. When were you stationed in the navy yard at Brooklyn,
New York, and how long were you stationed there?
Answer. I was stationed there about 17 months up to the latter
part of October last; I believe from about May, 1857. I was detached
from the navy yard on the Wednesday before the elections that came
off in New York on Tuesday.
Question. What was the mode of appointing master workmen before you went to the navy yard in 1857?
Answer. I know nothing about that, as I never had performed duty
in a navy yard before that time.
Question. What is the duty of the commandant of a yard?
Answer. He opens and answers all correspondence, puts his signature to all requisitions and bills, and has a general supervision of the
whole yard.  Suppose there are 100 carpenters wanted: the foreman or master of the carpenters will make out a requisition certifying that 100 men are needed; this requisition is then taken to the
naval constructor, who also signs it; the requisition is then taken to
the commandant's office, where the signature of the naval constructor
is looked upon as a guarantee that the men are required, and the
commandant then puts his signature to it.
Question. What power has the commandant over the men after
they are engaged? Has he the power to remove them?
Answer. I took that power upon myself when acting commandant.
If I found men idling away their time I dismissed them.
Question. Was that made a matter of complaint against you?
Answer. Yes, sir; I made it my duty to go through the yard and
the shops.  They complained of that, holding that I should be compelled to confine myself more to the office.
Question. Were any complaints made to the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. There was no complaint made by me, except upon occasion when I reported 96 caulkers to the Secretary.  On one occasion
there were some 96 or 100 caulkers discharged from the yard. It
was during the time when we had nothing but treasury notes to'pay
the men with, and it was impossible for the purser to get change for
that purpose. It was some days before the men could get paid off,
On one occasion some two-thirds of these men came out in front of




4                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
the commandant's office and demanded to be paid their wages before
the others in the yard got theirs.  I told them that as soon as arrangements could be made by the purser to get change they should
all be paid in their regular order. At one time they went to the
purser's office and came out in front of it just as I came along, and
they made use of some very improper language. When pay day
came Purser Murray sent word to me at my house that it was utterly
impossible for him to go on with the duty of paying the men, for the
caulkers were acting outrageously. I had doubled the number of watchmen-put all in the yard that I could. I went over to the purser' s office,
and as soon as I got there I ordered out a file of marines and commanded
the men to stand back. I picked out some four or five men upon that occasion. They would never tell their names when I would ask them, and the
only way I could find out who they were was to point them out to
some one of the watchmen, who would watch them when they came
up to get paid and get their names then. I think I got three or four
of them on that occasion and discharged them. On another occasion
these men were discharged for want of work, a regular dismissal was
made out by the master of the caulkers himself; on that occasion it
was just as bad again; they hustled me off the sidewalk, and acted so
badly that I went into the office and sent for a list of the whole number of names, ninety-six in all, and told the first lieutenant that I was
going to dismiss the whole ninety-six of them. The first lieutenant
said: " Now, Captain Rootes, I think, before you do that, you had better
just dismiss those we can lay our hands upon, and leave the thing to
the department." I did so; I enclosed the whole ninety-six names to
the Secretary of the Navy and requested that they might be discharged, and never allow them to enter that or any other navy yard
of the United States again. The answer of the Secretary of the Navy
was, that if Commander Rootes would identify the men who had
acted in this way they would be dismissed. I answered by return
mail, stating that those I could get the names of had been dismissed;
and then that matter ended; however, it had a good effect, and the
men behaved remarkably well afterwards.
Question. Has the commandant of the yard the power of appointing these men?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Has he the power of removal?
Answer. Yes, sir, he has the power of removal. If we catch the
men idleing away their time we can dismiss them.
Question. What is the first rank in the yard below that of commandant?
Answer. Commander.
Question. Who was the commander in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. I was.
Question. What was your duty?
Answer. My duty was general. I could do nothing in the yard
when the commandant was there without his sanction. If I wanted to
make a change, I made a report to him; if I wished to adopt any
course in the yard, I went to the commandant and got his views upon




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        5
it.  In his absence I performed his duties. My duty is to carry out
the orders of the commandant or commodore.
Question. What was the next in rank?
Answer. The first lieutenant.
Question. What is his duty?
Answer. A general duty throughout the yard; for instance, to go
to the office every morning when the bell rings, and to be there at
one o'clock in the day and detail the men for certain duties in the
yard. In fact, his were general duties.
Question. What was the next grade below that of lieutenant?
Answer. It should have been that of master, but -we had none.
Instead of that we had a junior or second lieutenant.  When I was
in the Brooklyn navy yard the first lieutenant and myself generally
fitted out the ships. The junior lieutenant generally acted as an inspecting officer, inspecting the stores sent in, and saw that they were
sent in at fair market prices before he passed them.  The duty of the
commander of the yard was to attend to almost everything.  For
instance, a ship is going to be put out of commission; as commander,
I had to attend to that. A ship is going into commission; as coinmander, I had to attend to that.
Question. Has the commandant the power of limiting the number
of men employed in the navy yard?
Answer. The general way there was-at least I used to do it when
I thought the men might not be needed-whenever a requisition was
sent to the commandant for more men, I, when acting as commandant,
would send it back, writing upon it to know if it was absolutely necessary to have these men.  If it came back stating that they were
really needed, I usually let the men in.
Question. Was the duty of the lieutenant to carry out your orders?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the duty of the master?
Answer. His general duty was to inspect the articles and things
purchased, &c.
Question. Who was the master in your yard?
Answer. When I first went there, Lieutenant Newcome acted as
master.
Question. Who are the civil officers, according to their rank, and
what are their duties?
Answer. The naval constructor was Mr. Delano; his duty is to
have a general charge of the ship building; to attend to the whole
general building of the ships.  Then comes Mr. Graham, the constructing engineer, as he is called; he attends to the building and
repairing of docks, the building and repairing of houses, &c.  Then
comes Mr. Hastings, who is Mr. Graham's assistant; his duty, I suppose, is to carry out the orders of the constructing engineer.  Then
there is Mr. Anson Herrick, the naval storekeeper; he has charge of
everything that comes into the yard in the shape of stores, with the
exception of those in the ordnance department and the purser's department; he has charge of all things that pertains to ships, timber,
rigging, &c.  Then comes George W. Lee, the clerk of the yard; his




~~6   ~BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
duty is to see that the men are mustered night and morning, and
calls one portion of the roll himself, I think; as well as I can recollect, the clerk of the yard keeps the accounts of all the men employed
in the yard, a list of the time they are there, and by his books they
are paid.  Then there is the surgeon of the yard; his title indicates
his duties. There is the purser of the yard, whose duty it is to pay
off all the officers and men of the yard, and to pay off all who are
upon his books, some of whom may be in distant States.  Purser
Murray is in the Brooklyn navy yard now.
Question. What is the duty of the navy agent?
Answer. For instance, a requisition is made out for certain stores
that are needed; it goes over to his office, and he, I believe, is supposed to make purchases on open contract; all payments of moneys
for these stores pass through the office of the navy agent. The
commodore himself can pay no bill in the yard for these stores, but
his signature is a guarantee to the navy agent to pay it. Then there
is a gunner of the yard; he is a warrant officer in the service.  His
duty is to fit out that portion of the ship under his charge, with the
assistance of the ordnance officer, to put in the guns and the ammunition.  Then there is a gentleman called a carpenter to the navy, or
a master of the carpenters. He has some few hands under his charge,
and attends to patching up about the yard, the railings, and whatever
else tumbles down. The sail-maker is another warrant officer; his
duty is to attend to the cutting out and making and the repairing of
all sails for ships.
Question. Do you know how many master workmen-masters of
different gangs of workmen-there were in the yard when you went
in in May, 1857?
Answer. When I first joined the yard there were master workmen: James R. McGee, carpenter; William Merrifield, blacksmith;
Francis Phillips, spar-maker; Romeo Friganza, ship joiner; J. Hardenbrook, cooper; H. S. Strickland, caulker; Peter McManus, blockmaker; Lewis W. Berry, painter; James Kerrigan, boat builder; A.
J. McCarty, plumber; Hugh McLaughlin, laborer; John Farron,
steam engineer. Each of these master workmen has a department of
his own, with a number of men under him.  The head or master
laborer is a man who has charge of a large number of men, putting
stores in ships, &c.  Peter Turner was master gun-carriage maker;
Lawrence Cohen was master house carpenter; John Moore was
superintendent of the coffee-mill. In the Brooklyn navy yard we
grind all the coffee, pepper, and mustard for all the service. We
grind up 20,000 lbs. of coffee at a time sometimes. Under the old
contract system we used to get black pepper, one-half of which would
turn white in a few months. Now we have none of this adulteration
in these things.  I think this one of the best things for the service
that has been done. They have perfectly fresh articles of this kind.
When a vessel leaves she takes three months' or more supply of coffee,
e nd then when that is gone more is sent to them.  Henry Kent is
master machinist, and Edward Hart is draughtsman to the naval
constructor.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       7
Question. What persons were in these offices that you have named
when you left the yard?
Answer. Daniel Kennedy was appointed master stone-cutter. I
think that was a new office. David Hogg was made master caulker
in the place of Mr. Strickland, who was dismissed. Peter McManus
was removed from the place of master block-maker, and a gentleman
of the name of John Fox was appointed in his place; I examined
him for the place. Lawrence W. Berry, master painter, was removed,
and a gentleman by the name of William Turner was appointed in
his place.  However, the following are the names of those who were
employed when I left there: James R. McGee, master carpenter;
Romeo Friganza, master ship joiner; William Merrifield, master blacksmith; A. J. McCarty, master plumber; Francis Phillips, master sparmaker; James Kerrigan, master boat builder; William Turner, master
painter; David Hogg, master caulker; John Fox, master block-maker;
Thomas Hardenbrook, master cooper; Hugh McLaughlin, master
laborer; John Ross, master house carpenter; John Orr, master timber
inspector.
Question. What were the number of men employed in each of these
departments when you went into the yard?
Answer. The number of men for each and every day in the year
can be got from the books in the Brooklyn navy yard.  For instance,
on rainy days there would be 600, 800, or 900 men who would not
come into the yard.  All this can be obtained from the clerk of the
yard in New York. I think that when I left there were some 2,300
men in that yard.  I understand that the very day I was detached
and came on here there were a great many persons put in.
Question. Was there any limit upon the power of these masters of
the mechanics to put men in?
Answer. I will state this: When a change was made of one of the
master workmen, the new one would come into the yard and find a
gang of men already there. It became necessary to discharge some
of the men for want of work, and the list was made out and approved
by the master workmen and by the commandant of the yard, and the
men were dismissed.  When it became necessary afterwards to appoint new men, I observed that it was very seldom that many of these
old ones came back again.
Question. Who made the selection of the men?
Answer. The master workmen.  For instance, in Mr. McLaughlin's
department-that of the laborers-one hundred men are discharged
to-day; when we want one hundred men additional he makes the
selection.
Question. Who makes the appointment of the master workmen,
and of all the officers?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy, I think.
Question. What power has the commandant over these civil officers?
Answer. None at all.  For instance, the Secretary of the Navy
orders a gentleman there before the board to stand an examination for
the place of master carpenter or master blacksmith. The commandant.of the yard, the naval constructor, and the constructing engineer




8                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
compose that board. They examine the man and make their report.
If he passes, the appointment is given to him.
Question. Has the commandant of the yard the power to dismiss
these master workmen?
Answer. No, sir; he can suspend them from duty and report them
to the department.
Question. Has the commandant of the yard any power over the
officers, the naval storekeeper, the naval agent, &c.?
Answer. He cannot remove them, but they can do nothing pertaining to the yard without his knowledge.
Question. What power has he over the navy agent, for instance?
Answer. None at all that I ever found out.
Question. What power has he over the naval constructor?
Answer. The naval constructor is an officer of the navy, because
he is upon the register.  He holds his office during life, or good behavior.  He receives a warrant, I suppose, and is a warrant officer.
Question. What power has the commandant over the naval storekeeper?
Answer. He has some power over him, but I do not know that he
could do anything more than to suspend him from duty until he could
report him to the department.
Question. How do you obtain your stores in the navy yard, your
beef, pork, &c.?
Answer. The beef, pork, butter, cheese, and all those things, are
all obtained by contract, I think.
Question. Were there any contracts made this last year?
Answer. I do not know anything about that. I suppose there were.
I saw contracts in the New York yard before I left. Contracts for
beef, pork, and things of that sort, go to a different bureau-to the
purser, who attends to things of that kind entirely, although he
cannot do anything without the sanction of the office. The officer in
charge of that bureau, the purser of the yard, can order nothing and
get nothing without the approval of the commandant. As to getting
things by open purchase, we make out a requisition for anything that
is not furnished under contract.  A requisition is made out in the
first place, and signed by any department that wants the article, by
the ilaster workman of that department; then Mr. Delano signs, and
so on. It is then taken to the naval agent, who makes the purchase
and sends the things to the yard.  When they come there we have
an inspecting officer whose duty it is to inspect these articles and see
that they are good, and then, the next thing, to satisfy himself that
they are charged at fair market prices.  To do that he sends men
over to find out whbat is a fair price, and sometimes the articles are
all rejected on that account-for being above market prices. There
was a great deal of trouble about that matter in the Brooklyn navy
yard when I was there.
Question. Do you know of any particular cases of complaints made
to the commandant that the navy agent received a gratuity of money
for giving these open contracts or for making these purchases?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                         9
Answer. I do not know anything, of my own knowledge; I have
heard many things whispered about.
Question. If complaints had been made to you while you were the
acting commandant, had you any power to act in the matter?
Answer. No, sir; I should have forwarded the complaint to the
department.
Question. When the navy agent makes these purchases, do the
articles go to the naval storekeeper?
Answer. Yes, sir; in the receiving store.
Question. Does the naval storekeeper give a receipt for them?
Answer. Yes, sir; I believe they go to the naval storekeeper, and
the proper person inspects them and sees if they are of good quality
and at a fair market price; the inspecting officer is generally the
junior lieutenant of the yard; to satisfy himself of this he has to send
over to New York.
Question. Is that the only check upon the naval agent in making
purchases?
Answer. The navy agent is required, under the regulations, to certify or put upon the bills that they have been examined by him and
are all right; this matter was a source of great trouble in that yard.
Shortly after I was there the firm of Secor & Co. reported me to the
Navy Department; on one occasion, in fitting out a ship, the Vincennes, I think it was, there was a little fire engine or force-pump
required; there was no inspecting officer in the yard; one of Secor's
men came to me and said that there was a requisition for a fire
engine or force-pump, said the ship must have it. He said it will
be very costly. I said, sir, it does not make any difference about
the price of the article, provided it is a fair market price. I cautioned
the man several times about fair market price for the article; the man
went away. This and some other articles were brought into the yard
for which they charged $90 and $130 each; I do not know but what
more. The inspecting officer sent over to New York and found out
that we could get these articles for much less. I think that afterwards
we did get them for $80; these others were of course rejected, or a
part of them; I was reported to the department; there is a letter in
the Navy Department containing something about this pump and
other things; and I conclude the letter by saying that everything that
had been furnished to the New York yard by Secor & Co. while I
had been there had been far above market price.
Question. Who was this Secor?
Answer. I understand he was the security for Mr. Saunders; he
furnished nearly everything upon open contract, or open purchase,
that is, I thought so.
Question. What was the total amount of purchases made by the
navy by open contract?
Answer. I have not the least idea.  I do not know, and I could
not get at it except by going to the New York yard and referring
to the books.  It would be nothing in the world but guess work for
me to say now. It was immense; sometimes they would buy 300 or
400 barrels of pork at one time, at $26 a barrel more or less; all that




10                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
passes through his hands, though advertised, for the lowest bidder
furnishes the article.
Question. Who furnished all these goods in open contract?
Answer. From my recollection, Secor & Co., and other persons
whose names I do not recollect.
Question. Was there a man by the name of Grandison who fur-,
nished any of them?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question. Did John Wendell furnish any of them?
Answer. He used to furnish articles, but I do not know whether it
was by contract or by open purchase.
Question. Do you remember a firm by the name of Delano & Co?
Answer. Yes, sir; I recollect them; but I cannot tell whether they
furnished goods by contract or by open purchase.
Question. What relation did this C. A. Secor occupy in reference
to Mr. Saunders, the navy agent?
Answer. I have understood that he was a bondsman of his.
Question. Do you know Mr. Grandison?
Answer. I do not recollect that name.
Question. What connexion was there between Secor and Herrick,
the storekeeper?
Answer. I do not know of any.
Question. Are you sure that any inventory was taken of those
goods when they went into the hands of the naval storekeeper?
Answer. I was always given so to understand.
Question. When did Mr. Herrick become storekeeper?
Answer. He was there when I reported for duty.
Question. Was there any inventory taken then?
Answer. There was a trial made tI take one; there were two or
three persons engaged in taking it; but I think I have heard that they
never could agree; that is, their account and the storekeeper's.
Question. Do you J&now anything about it?
Answer. I do not; Commander Rodford, Commander Green, and
Purser Barry were on it; Lieutenant Leroy was on it at another time,
I think.
Question. Do these stores purchased by the naval agent have a
specific place to go into?
Answer. Yes, sir; we have what is called a receiving store, and
the goods are taken there; if they are obtained by open purchase
then the inspecting officer inspects them; if they are for the engineer's department, the engineer goes also, and sees if the articles
will answer the purpose; if the inspecting officer passes the article
as good and at a fair market price, he so certifies to the naval storekeeper, and he then puts it in the inventory, as I understand.
Question. Is there any account kept with the naval storekeeper,
charging him with these articles?
Answer. None but his own that I know of.
Question. Is there any officer charged with keeping an account
with the naval storekeeper?
Answer. Not that I know of. All of these articles that come into




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      11
the yard, whether by contract or by open purchase, before they are
signed or certified by the commandant of the yard, are put upon the
books of his office.  There is not an article bought for the yard, or a
piece of work done there, but what is put down on the books in
the commandant's office; I have always been led to believe so.  If
we want to find out how any particular fund stands we get it from
the commandant's office; so that these books can always show what
has been purchased, so I understood.
Question. Is that the account current kept with the naval storekeeper?
Answer. No, sir; not that I know of.
Question. What account is kept of these articles when they are
delivered out?
Answer. After the articles go into his store he cannot let anything
go out-at least they pretend not to do it-without a requisition
signed by the commandant of the yard.  At least that should be
done, and it was always done so far as I know. For instance, in fitting
out ships a requisition is made out for the ship, and the articles are
brought in and delivered on the ship, and the storekeeper makes out
the charges against them.
Question. Suppose that a quantity of pine lumber is ordered, and
it is purchased by the naval agent, and it is delivered to the naval
storekeeper, do not the ship carpenters go and use that lumber at
pleasure from the pile, for ship purposes?
Answer. I am  not aware of the fact.  If they did it was very
improper.  If a quantity of timber goes into the yard for the use of
the naval constructor, he makes out his requisition, and that goes to
the storekeeper, and he must have an account, so as to take it off
his books.  Even in the matter of coal, if a ship comes in there and
wants five hundred tons of coal, a requisition is made upon the storekeeper for it; the ship is charged with the same, and every eighth
or tenth bag is weighed as delivered. So far as I found out these
things, they all went on very well.
Question. What proportion of the articles purchased by the naval
agent was by open purchase, and what proportion by published bids?
Answer. I could not tell.
Question. Who opened these bids?
Answer. They were opened and the contracts awarded, I think,
here in Washington.  I can tell you how bids are opened in New
York. For instance: the Bureau of Provisions and Clothing writes
on to the commandant of the yard to authorize the navy agent to advertise for bids; as soon as he has advertised he notifies the commandant in writing that on a certain day the bids will be opened,
and he will be glad to see himself or any of his officers there at the
time to see the bids opened. The time arrives; the bids are brought
in; the seals are broken in the presence of the officer, and the
contract is awarded to the lowest bidder, if they can find him, which
si not always the case; and sometimes they have to go or send to
three or six different bidders before they can find the one, as the bids
are made out under fictitious names, so I have understood.




12                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. How many men were employed in the yard when you
first went there?
Answer. Between 1,700 and 1,900, I think.
Question. How many when you left?
Answer. Between 2,200 and 2,300.
Question. Was that more or less than the service required?
Answer. If I had been carrying on works of my own I should
have got along with less.
Question. What was the effect of the authority given to the master
workmen to employ their own laborers?
Answer. It gave them power to select their own friends, who, probably, often proved not to be as good men as might have been had.
Question. What effect did it have in increasing the number of men
employed?
Answer. The number could only be increased by a requisition.
For instance, everything wanted in the blacksmiths' department had
to go through Mr. Delano, the naval constructor.
Question. How was it about the laborers?
Answer. Mr. McLaughlin, the master laborer, selects those in his
department, and signs the requisition; then the commandant approves.
Question. Were any men employed during last fall by reason of
political considerations?
Answer. I do not know of anything of the kind, from my own personal
knowledge.  I have no information; none was sent to the office.  It
used to be whispered about by some parties, but always when I asked
them they backed out, and said they got it from such and such a man.
Question. Do you know the cause of your removal?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was any requisition made upon you from the Navy
Department in regard to the number of men in the yard-any requisition made before you were removed?
Answer. No, sir; the commodore was there at the time, and the
communications, if any, would go to him.
Question. Was your attention ever called, while you were in the
yard, to any correspondence between Commodore Kearney and Hon.
George Taylor?
Answer. No, sir; I never saw that correspondence, except some
that was published in the New York Times. When we received the
order to fit out the Niagara, after her return from the telegraph expedition, to take that cargo of slaves back to Africa, we had about four
days allowed us to do it in. The first lieutenant of the yard staid up
two days and two of the nights, and I staid up two days and two of
the nights, in order to get the ship ready.  On that occasion we had
to employ from one hundred to two hundred extra laborers, as our
other laborers were very much exhausted. After the Niagara sailed
I tried to get those extra hands discharged.  This was just a short
time before I was removed; but they always managed to find something for them to do. I have no doubt but what there would have
been a decrease but for some reasons; what they were I know not; at
all events, these men were kept on there until after I left.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     13
Question. What information have you in regard to there having
been an increase in the number of the men after you left?
Answer. I only know from hearsay. I heard it stated about that
some men had been employed, and that the clerk of the navy yard
gave the information.
Question. From whom did you hear this?
Answer. From some persons in my house, when I went on after my
family; from none of the officers, because I saw only one or two of
my old and most intimate friends. I had nothing to do with the yard
from the time I was detached.  I was detached right upon the spot,
without waiting to be relieved by an officer of my own grade.
Question. Can you give the time when you were detached?
Answer. It was the Wednesday in October before the New York
elections in November last.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who succeeded you after you were detached?
Answer. Captain Foote; I did not see him; my orders were peremptory, and I was in Washington the next morning.
Question. Was Captain Foote in New York at the time you left.?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. When did he take possession of your quarters?
Answer. I think I left to go down to Norfolk, after I had been on here
to Washington, about the eighth of the month, and I think that the
following Wednesday he went into my house; I was, you may say,
pitched right out, myself and family.
Question. Had there been any disagreement between yourself and
the Navy Department?
Answer. Not a word.
Question.  Had they issued any orders you had not carried out?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge. I went there determined
not to flinch from carrying out my duty; and the first thing I knew
about it I was detached. I thought I was gaining ground all the
time and being supported in all I did.
Question. What are your politics?
Answer. I am a democrat. When I went to New York, I went to do
my duty in my official capacity, not to be a politician.
Question. I have heard it stated that it is very often the case that
men are entered upon the roll there as laborers in some of the different departments, and receive pay as laborers, who absent themselves from work. Is that so?
Answer. That was one report, and I think in the correspondence;
and that is where I should like to have the committee call for the
correspondence between Mr. Graham and myself; between Commodore Smith and myself, as acting commandant; between the commandant of the yard and Mr. Graham, and between the commandant
of the yard and Commodore Smith.  That was one of the things I
thought I was clearing up pretty well when I left the yard. There
were a great many reforms made in the yard while I was there. It had
been the habit to allow several persons the right to take away the




14                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
checks from the names of those who missed the call at the bell ring;
while I was there that was all stopped. I never could get hold of
this matter so as to report it to the department. It was whispered
about that there were men who would go out about the country
electioneering for parties, and be gone eight or ten days, and receive
pay in the yard while they were gone; but I could never get proof
of it.  I think that a short time before I left the New York yard,
the foreman under Mr. Cohen made a charge against Mr. Cohen and
some one else in the yard that they were in the habit of letting men
go out of the yard and still receive their wages. I have no doubt in
my own mind that it was done, and I think if the committee will call
for this information they will find it out. My impression, is Commodore Kearney forwarded these charges to the honorable Secretary.
Question. By whose agency was this pay to be wrongfully allowed?
Answer. By the master workman winking at it, or some other
person.
Question. When do you call the roll?
Answer. About eight o' clock this season of the year; and then we
mark the absentees again at 1 p. m.
Question. Who calls the roll?
Answer. The clerk of the yard and his assistants. The roll is also
called again at one o clock; and no one can now allow the check to be
taken from a man's name for absence except the commandant of the
yard and the executive officer.
Question. When was that regulation commenced?
Answer. That was done, I think, a little short of a year ago.  That
is in the correspondence I wish the committee to call for, I think.
Question. You speak of the number of men in the yard when you
went there as being from 1,700 to 1,900 men, and when you left as
being from 2,200 to 2,300.  How did the work in the yard compare
at the two periods? Was there more work going on when you left
than when you went there?
Answer. In some departments there was more, in others there was
not.
Question. As near as you can remember, what work was going on
in the yard when you left last October?
Answer. We had work on the launching ways; work in the shiphouses; putting up a new storehouse; repairing ships and fitting out
ships; the St. Louis was being fitted out, and the Susquehanna had
just come up to the dockl; and then we were fitting out a large number of vessels for the Paraguay expedition.  But men do not work in
the navy yard as they work outside. We generally, however, aim at
having our men work 10 hours a day, I think.
Question. As far as you have seen, is the requirement rigidly
enforced?  Are they required to work up to the time of being discharged at night?
Answer. That is what we try to do.
Question. What is your precise meaning when you say that the
men do not work in the yard as they do outside?
Answer. I mean that they do not work with as much energy; that




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     15
they do not despatch business as fast. I believe it is generally
admitted by everybody that the day's work in the navy yard is from
twenty to thirty per cent. below that of a day's work outside.
Question. Have you known anything about government work in
any other department besides the navy yard?
Answer. No, sir; and that was a new thing to me there.
Question. Do you say that the stores sent over by Secor & Co.
were above fair market price?
Answer. That was my report to the department.  The firm of
Secor & Co. complained to the department that I had ordered a steam
engine or pump, and then would not accept it when they delivered
it. The department wrote to me for an explanation. I gave it to
them, and I referred also to a number of other articles they had furnished, and gave their prices for them; and the concluding portion
of my letter was, I think, that I would further state that during all
the time I had been in the yard nearly everything furnished by
Secor & Co. was far beyond the market price.
Question. Were these articles received in the yard?
Answer. They were rejected by the inspecting officer at first, but
after a time they came down and took the market prices on many
articles. On one occasion, in the New York yard, we got short of
teams in the yard; it was necessary that we should have another yoke
of oxen. I told the commodore that we wanted them.  " Very well,"
said he, "make out your requisition for them."  The requisition was
made out and sent over by private conveyance to the navy agent. I
sent word that I wanted the teamster to select the oxen. He sent
me word back that he would select them himself. We waited for them
a month and three days, or thereabouts, without getting them.  Then
I went into the office and told the secretary-the commodore was not
there-to cancel the requisition, and he did'so. I informed the commandant what I had done, he having signed the first requisition.
About a fortnight or three weeks after, it again became necessary to
have another team of oxen.  I made out the requisition for them,
and then sent up into the country and had them  brought into the
yard without passing through the office of the navy agent at all; the
bills passed through his office.
Question. Had you authority to do that?
Answer. We tried it. at any rate, and there were no complaints
Imade. I suppose that if Mr. Saunders had chosen to contest the
point, he could have refused to pay the bill.
By the Chairman:
Question. Has Mr. Saunders been absent a great portion of his'time in Kansas?
Answer. I do not think I saw him more than three times during
Ithe seventeen months I was in the New York yard.  I know this,
that on no occasion when in Mr. Saunder's office do I recollect of
seeing him there.
Question. Who attended to his business?
Answer. His chief clerk, I suppose.  There was some gentleman




16                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
there they called "Doctor,;" but I never saw Mr. Saunders in his
office.
Question. Who fixes the wages of the workmen in the navy yard?
Answer. It is supposed to be regulated by the wages outside, in
the private yards.
Question. Is not the precise rate given to each workman fixed by
the master of the workmen?
Answer. I suppose it is; he says, for instance, this man is worth
$21 a day, that one $2, and so on.  But I think our prices are always
more than is paid outside. We could never get the precise prices
outside. If we sent to the private yards and asked for it, they would
send word back that it was none of our business, in some cases.
Question. Do you know of any cases where these workmen paid for
being employed?
Answer. I have heard of it repeatedly. I have had men tell me
so; some of the Irish laborers who wanted work in the yard said that
they would have to give twenty cents a day, or so much a week, out
of their pay, to get a place. But when I would try to get them to
put it down in black and white, they would back out of it, and say
that they would not be able to get employment if they did so.
Question. How often were these complaints made?
Answer. Very often; I do not know how often.
Question. Had you ever any complaints brought before you that
the master painter took the paints of the United States government, and used them for the purpose of painting the buildings of
private citizens?
Answer. Not to my knowledge. I will say this, however, when this
master painter, who is now there, came to be examined before the board,
I asked him if he knew what was the duty of a master workman in the
yard. He said it was to set a good example to the men and keep them at
their duty. "Further," said he, "Captain Rootes there are not three
men in the yard now who do the duty of one," alluding, I suppose, to the
painters. I said to him " that is the opinion of more than yourself, and I
am glad to hear you say what you do; I hope when you come in here
you will set them a good example."  Yet within two or three weeks
after that my attention was drawn by some person saying that this
same master workman was receiving a gold watch from the men in
his employ. The master blacksmith also received one or two costly
presents; and one of the other master workmen received a diamond
breast pin, so I heard.  I often said to parties that I was afraid that
they were receiving these gold watches and diamond breast pins for
no good. But the men never complained to me about it. Suppose
that out of a gang of men some 100 or 150 were to be discharged from
the yard: some of the men in the gang get up a subscription for a
gold watch or something of that kind for the master workman; and
those who did not put their names down on the subscription were sure
to go out, from what I could hear.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were these charges ever made to the department?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     17
Answer. I was engaged in hunting the matter up when I was
detached from the yard.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you derive any information from the files of your
office when you went there as to the time when this mode of appointing laborers was instituted in the Navy Department?
Answer. I cannot tell now about that.
Question. Was not the former mode of appointment to give the
power of appointing to other parties than the master workman?
Answer. I think I have heard that formerly the employment of the
laborers was vested in the commandant of the yard.  I think I heard
that after I had been some years in the naval service.
JANUARY 27, 1859.
THOMAS R. ROOTES recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Do you remember the occasion of a large accession to
the force of laborers in the yard under Mr. McLaughlin, the master
of the laborers, while you were there?
Answer. Yes, sir; we had a pretty large accession to the force
while we were fitting out the Niagara, which I considered absolutely
necessary.
Question. When was that?
Answer. That was when she was fitted out to carry some negroes
back to Africa, in September or October, 1858. I cannot recollect
the date exactly. But on that occasion I considered it absolutely
necessary to have this increase of laborers.
Question. After the Niagara was fitted out and sent away, were
these additional laborers still retained'?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were retained until after I left, although I
thought they could be discharged. I had work for them sometimes;
but when the work got slack I told the commandant of the yard
on several occasions that I thought they could be dispensed with;
but they were kept at work.
Question. Were there any applications made to you, or to the commandant of the yard, or to any of the master workmen, by any member
of Congress as to the propriety or necessity of keeping these men
there in the yard until after the election was over?
Answer. I do not recollect that any application was made to me.
The commodore was in the yard at the time, and any such application
would go to him.
Question. Do you know of any such conversation or correspondence
between the commandant of the yard, Commodore Kearney, and any
member of Congress?
Answer. No, sir, I do not.
Question. Do you know whether any such request was made of the
commandant by members of Congress?
2D




18                   BROOKLYN. NAVY YARD.
Answer. No, sir; being second in the yard, and the commodore
being there, I would not have seen any of these communications.
Question. Were any complaints made at any time, or was there
any dispute, in regard to Mr. Turner, the master painter?
Answer. Yes, sir, there was; but it was not made to me, for the
commodore was in the yard at the time. Bat it passed in a measure
through my hands; I heard of it sometimes, but the written com.munications did not come to me. I suppose the difficulty you allude
to was the one between Colonel Harris, commanding the marines'
and Mr. Turner, the master painter.
Question. What was that difficulty?
Answer. There was an order given to paint the building which was
occupied by the marines at the gate of the yard as you enter. Colonel
Harris on several occasions told me in conversation, as I was the
executive officer of the yard, that these men did not do their work —
these painters, I mean-and that he had, upon several occasions,
spoken to them and threatened to report them.  He (Colonel Harris)
came down to the office one day-I don't remember which day-and
said, in conversation with me, that Mr. Turner, the master painter,
had come up to him and accosted him by saying,'You have interfered with my duty," or something of the kind, "by saying that the
painters had neglected to do their duty."  Mr. Turner used an oath;
I do not recollect the exact oath; but he cursed and damned Colonel
Harris for this.  I think this was reported by Colonel Harris, in
person, to the commandant, Commodore Kearney, according to the
best of my recollection, and the master painter was suspended from
duty by order of the commandant.
Question. What was the date of this transaction, as near as you
can recollect?
Answer. I cannot tell, unless I could see the books in the yard.
Colonel Harris' written report was made through the commandant of
the yard to the Secretary of the Navy for action, according to the
best of my knowledge.
Question. What was the result?
Answer. Mr. Turner was suspended from duty for some time.
Question. When was he restored?
Answer. I do not recollect.  It was a fortnight or three weeks after
he was suspended, more or less, that he was restored by order of the
Secretary of the Navy.  Colonel Harris is here in this city, in the
barracks here, and can give the committee all the information they
may need upon that subject.  There was another case when Mr.
Turner was reported.  On one occasion I was walking through a new
building that was being put up. I saw some three or four painters
there, and asked them how long they had been at work upon the
building, and they told me.  I told them that all the painting they
had done for the two or three days I could have done, with a couple
of hands, in half a day. That was my candid opinion. I think I
told Mr. Graham, the constructing engineer, of it; and either he or
myself made a complaint to the commandant of the yard. I think
some two or three officers were ordered by the commandant to inves



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      19
tigate the matter. I never knew exactly what was the end of it.
If my recollection serves me right Ii think the master painter was
censured.  I used to complain of him over and over again.
Question. Had the commandant of the yard any power over the
master workmen, to discharge them or to suspend them?
Answer,. He could not discharge them, but he could suspend them
from duty, and report them to the department.
Question. How frequently was Mr. Turner reported to the depart.
nent?
Answer. I do not know.  I recollect Colonel Harris' case very
well, because it was a very outrageous affair, and we did not like the
proceeding at all, of a master painter cursing and damning one of
the oldest officers of the naval service.
Question. Was it a common understanding in the navy yard that
these master workmen received gratuities from their men, or favors
from them?
Answer. That was my impression; but I could not get at the proof
exactly.  If I could have got it, it would have been my bounden duty
to have reported it to the department; to be candid with the committee, I thought these rumors were true, and I was after the proof
of the matter; it was necessary for one in my situation to be prepared
with proof to substantiate these charges if I were to make them.
Question. How general was the custom of presenting these master
workmen with watches and presents of this kind?
Answer. From what I heard, I was of the opinion that it was a
general thing; I was trying to get proof of that matter, but the parties would back out; they would write letters to me and sign their
names to them, and then when I called them up they would deny
their signatures; in some cases when men came to me in the yard to
obtain employment, I would tell them  that I had no power in the
matter, but that they would have to go to the master workmen; they
would say that they could not do that, as they would be obliged to
pay twenty cents a day out of their wages to get employment.  In
reference to Mr. Turner, I would say that at one time he got leave of
absence to go to Washington. In the course of conversation, I think
on that same day that Mr. Turner left, Mr. Graham, or some one sa;d
that the master painter had received a subscription of $100 or so fronm
his workmen to go on to Washington to get their wages raised, and
he would go on there and stay two or three days and return; M/r.
Graham, or some one led me to suppose that he made a handsome
sum in that way.
Question. Do you know that Mr. Turner took with him a large
number of his workmen over into Queens county, Mr. Searing's district, for the purpose of attending a convention there?
Answer. I do not know about his taking men over there. He applied to me, I think, just before the election, while the commandant
of the yard was there, for a week's leave, or for some few days' leave.
I think I said to him, -"Mr. Turner, the commandant of the yard is
here, or if he is not in the yard now he will be in soon, and you must
take your application to him."  In the course of that conversation




20                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Mr. Turner said to me, either in my office, or in the commandant's
office, that he wished to go up into his own district or his own county
for the purpose of having something to do with the elections, to keep
down the black republicans, or something of that kind; but as to his
taking men up there I cannot say.
Question. Would there be any difficulty in his taking off a detachment of men for a day or two?
Answer. If he had taken off a detachment of men they would
have been checked upon the books by the clerk of the yard for absence.
Question. Suppose he should take them off after the roll was called,
what then?
Answer. If they were to leave at eight o'clock, come in again
at one o'clock, at bell ringing, and answer to muster, that might be
done; such a thing might happen without our knowing it.  But if
they were absent for three days they could not come back into the
yard again without an order from the commandant.  A three days'
absence is equivalent to a dismissal; so I was given to understand.
Question. Was there any other check upon them but the calling
the roll?
Answer. It was reported to me on one occasion, that the men were
in the habit of leaving after roll call, and I told the watchmen that
they must report them to me. On several occasions there were some
belonging to Mr. Turner's party who were reported to me as leaving
the yard after roll call. But when I made inquiries of the master
painter, he would say that these men were sent over to New York
to select brushes, &c.
Question. Was that practice allowed by the commandant of the
yard?
Answer. Sometimes when there was a press of work, and men were
anxious to get their materials and tools, this was allowed.
Question. To whom did they go in New York?
Answer. They went to the navy agent or the contractor.
Question. Do they go without any requisition?
Answer. Oh, no, sir: but the requisition, with all the proper signatures, is sometimes made out eight or ten days beforehand. No article is got from the city of New York without a requisition, so far as
I know. If the master workman cannot go, the foreman is sent, or if
he cannot go, some trusty man is sent to the navy agent; and he sends
him, if the requisition is upon the contractor, to the contractor; and
if it is for open purchase, he directs him where to go.
Question. How general was the complaint that men answered to
the roll call and then left the yard?
Answer. There were several complaints made, and I always investigated them; but was satisfied sometimes that they were actually
going out upon duty of the yard. I had to take the words of those
who had charge of them as to that.
Question, You said that the men evaded their duty sometimes by
answering to the roll call, and then they went away. How was that?
Answer. That was done on several occasions, and I dismissed one
or two men who did that.  The watchmen about the office are very




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                      21
careful of that matter, and if they saw any one leaving the yard after
they had answered to their names, they would report them. And if
any of the men went out in that way I dismissed him without any
further investigation, upon the watchman's word. If they were going
out on duty, the master came to me.
Question. You said something in your testimony about making
open purchases.  Do you know of any persons who furnished articles
to the navy yard on open purchase besides Messrs. Secor & Co.?
Answer. When the navy agent could not get them from Secor &
Co., I suppose he got them from other parties; but my impression is
that they furnished the greater portion of the articles which were
got upon open purchase.
Question. Can you state anywhere near the amount that they furnished?
Answer. I have no idea; I should not like to say, only it was a
pretty large sum.
Question. Who is this Mr. Secor? is he engaged in any general
business?
Answer. I never was in his establishment in my life.  I think I
have heard that he was a hardware merchant; but if the committee
will call for my letter in answer to a letter from the Navy Department, in relation to the complaints made against me by Secor & Co.,
they would find from that letter all they want upon this subject.  I
suppose I referred then to a number of articles which ranged from
20 to 150 per cent. above market prices.
Question. You said you removed the Wednesday before the election in November, and that you had been in the yard 17 months.
Was that statement correct?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have been to the department since my testimony of yesterday, and there I got the dates of my order to the yard
and of my detachment from it.  I was ordered to the yard on the
20th of May, 1857; the order for my detachment was dated the 26th
of October. 1858; and I received it on the 27th.
Question. Had you any previous notice of your detachment?
Answer. Not a particle; not a word.
Question. When was Commodore Kearney detached?
Answer. On the same day I was.
Question. Had he any previous notice?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. When did Commodore Breese assume the superintendence of the yard?
Answer. I was not there myself; but I think that Commodore
Kearney or Mr. Schenck stated to me that Commodore Breese took
the command of the yard on the Monday following, at  1 or 12
o' clock; I do not know which.
Question. Did the other officers take their places in the yard at the
same time?
Answer. I do not know, for I was not there.
Question. What applications were made to you, if any, by members of Congress in relation to appointing men in the yard?
Answer. I have received applications on a number of occasions




22                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
from members of Congress to put men in the yard; but I never -put
a man in until there was a necessity for them.
Question. In favor of whom was the application made to you?
Answer. There were but two departments in the yard, the rigger's
department and the sailmaker's department, in which the commandant
of the yard had a perfect right to put any man. At the head of those
departments were warrant officers, and I went upon the ground that
while they were there we had a right to put men in there. I put in
some two or three for George Taylor, member of Congress, and some
one or two for Mr. Kelly, member of Congress, when I thought it
was necessary to do so. Members of Congress would ask me to let
men go into my department, and I would say to them, there are the
articles and regulations, and we have to go by them, and cannot go
beyond them.
Question. How many men who were in the yard in the fall of 1858
were appointed by master workmen?
Answer. I may say that ninety-nine out of every one hundred appointed then were appointed by master workmen.
Question. Then, if there were 2,300 men in the yard. 2,200 and
over would have been appointed by the master workmen?
Answer. Yes, sir; the greater portion would be by them. All are
appointed by them except the cases I have mentioned. In some cases
where we wanted a messenger we had to ask the master laborer to
appoint them. Even if we took a policeman in the yard, the master
laborer had to make out a requisition for him.
Question. How many men would be appointed by the commandant?
Answer. Very few. For instance, if we took on five hundred men
some week, probably there would not be more than ten, perhaps not
over five, that the commandant of the yard would appoint. The commandant of the yard, under the orders of the department, never
interferes in these matters.
Question. Do you know anything about any correspondence between
members of Congress and the Secretary of the Navy about the division of the master workmen among the representatives of Congress
from that region?
Answer. I do not think anything of that kind was ever put on file
in the New York office while I was there; but I was repeatedly told
by different masters in the yard that such was the fact. I know nothing of the sort from anything that is in the office. Mr. Graham, I
think, told me several times that such was the case.
Question. Who is Mr. Graham?
Answer. He is the constructing engineer.
Question. Was it generally known among the officers of the yard?
Answer. The master workmen would not hesitate to tell me so; I
never saw any of this correspondence; Mr. Graham told me it was
so, and Mr. Murphy, one of the master workmen told me that it was
so; he told me so the first or second day after he came into the yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you able to recollect now, when you were fitting
out the Niagara?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    23
Answer. No, sir; I cannot; I know that we were only about four
days and four nights doing it; exact date can be had at navy yard, New
York.
Question. How long was it after you fitted out the Niagara, before
you commenced fitting out the vessels of the Paraguay expedition?
Answer. Some weeks, I think; but then we employed the men, or
some portion of them, in screening a large amount of coal; the men
were sometimes very well employed, and then, again, work would
begin to get slack in the yard; I think there was something like a
thousand tons of coal to screen; as long as I could find plenty of work
for them to do I always kept them at it.
Question. How long was it after the work began to get slack before
you commenced upon the vessels of the Paraguay expedition?
Answer. It was but a short time. When that work of screening
that coal gave out we distributed the men about the yard moving
timber and clearing things up, &c.
Question. Had you more men than you needed while you were
fitting out the Paraguay expedition?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think there were too many at that time;
but there were more a few days before these vessels came over to be
fitted out; that I thought the work was slack, and I so reported to
the commandant of the yard.
Question. Do you mean that for the few days the work was so
slack you could have dismissed these men?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you mean that the men did not work well, or that
the work they did was not worth much to the government?
Answer. We kept them employed at work that would have to be
done at some time or other.
Question. You mean, then, that the work they did was not pressing,
but could have been postponed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you know at the time this work was slack that in a
short time you had to commence to fit out this Paraguay expedition?
Answer. We knew we would have to fit out some of them, but how
many we did not know. Sometimes if we knew that we should have
to work upon something in a few days, even if the work was then
slack, we liked to keep the men to do that work.
Question. You stated that it was the general understanding that
these master workmen received presents from their men, does it
come to your knowledge that any complaints of that character were
ever made to the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know that any complaints were ever made to
the Bureau of Yards and Docks?
Answer. Some were made from me. I was trying to get evidence
in regard to that when I was detached. If I could have got the evidence, I should have made a report to the department.  It would
have been my bounden duty to have done so. It was necessary for




24                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
me, in making the original report, to have had the evidence to support
the charges.
Question. Do you mean that the charges were often made to you,
and you investigated them, but could not get sufficient proof?
Answer. Yes, sir. Men used to write to me, and send their letters
to me through the post office, with their names to it; then when I
would send for them, and ask them about it, they would deny that it
was their signature.
Question. You say that the master of the painters, Mr. Turner, was
reported to the Secretary of the Navy for remarks that he made about
Colonel Harris-was that the extent of his punishment?
Answer. He was suspended for a fortnight or three weeks. I think
books at New York will show.
Question. Did he receive pay while he was suspended?
Answer. He should not have received pay. The books will show
whether he did or not. If a man is sick even, his pay is checked off
against his name. That is the order of the yard, I think.
Question. I think that one of the last answers you gave was somewhat in conflict with your testimony of yesterday, or else you did not
go as fully into the matter to-day as you did yesterday. You say
that nineteen-twentieths of the men are subject to the master workmen. Have the master workmen the right to appoint and remove men?
Answer. I will answer by saying that if the master painter, for
instance, wishes to have fifty additional painters for some particular
job, the naval constructor is informed, and he, in conversation tells
the commandant of the yard. The conmodore will say, let them come
in if necessary. The master painter is then sent for and he makes
out a requisition for the number of men required and a list of those
he wants appointed, with the wages to be paid to each set opposite their names. The master of the painters puts his signature to it,
then it goes to the naval constructor and he puts his signature to it,
and then the commandant of the yard puts his signature to it, for the
clerk of the yard will not receive the men without the signature of
the commandant.
Question. In discharging the men is the order for the discharge
equally subject to the approval and signature of the naval constructor
and commandant of the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many were changed; that is, how many men were
turned out and others appointed in their places while you were there?
Answer. It would be very hard for me to tell that, because these
changes take place so often.
Question. Was there anything unusual in the fall of 1848 in the
changing of men in the yard; in the turning out of some and putting
others in their places?
Answer. I do not know how that was then, for the commodore was
in the yard and the papers used to go directly to him. But while I
was acting commandant I used to examine the lists, and I saw that
many of the men who were dismissed at one time were not taken back
again when more men were appointed.  However, all this information
can be obtained from the yard if the committee desire it.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      25
Question. You stated yesterday that you were a democrat in
politics; what political end could have been accomplished by detaching
you from that yard at that time?
Answer. None that I know of.  I have been a democrat all my life;
but I never allowed my politics to interfere with my duty.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Could not a political object have been accomplished in
this way; by having you turned out, thus giving an opportunity for
some 500 or 600 men to be appointed during your absence and before
your successor arrived?  This is supposing you were the commandant
of the yard, trying to prevent the coming in of any unnecessary men?
Answer. Another officer taking my place might be of a different
opinion from me in regard to that matter. But Commodore Kearney
was still on duty, so I heard, until Commodore Breese relieved him,
which, I think, was on the Monday before the New York State
elections.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was there any time shortly before the election when
there was nobody in charge of the yard? That is, I would ask you
if Commodore Kearney remained there until Commodore Breese
relieved him?
Answer. Yes, sir, so I heard; I came on here to Washington the same
day I was detached, to see the Secretary of the Navy.  I returned to
New York in about a week, I think.  My impression is that when I
got back Commodore Breese was in the yard. That, I think, was some
where about the 5th or 6th of November.
Question. Did you have any opportunity on your return there of
ascertaining the number of men in the yard, at that time?
Answer. No, sir; I did not make any inquiry about that matter.
I was trying to make some arrangement for moving my family.
Question. Did you ascertain whether there had been any increase
in the number of men in the yard from the time you were there just
before the election?
Answer. I heard something of the kind in the yard, that there had
been more men taken in; but I did not hear that from any of the officers
of the yard.  Commodore Kearney was left there to be relieved by
his successor.  I was not left there to be relieved.  I was detached
from the yard peremptorily, without waiting to be relieved.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Is it customary to pursue that course with the officers of
the navy?
Answer. My case was the first one of the kind I ever heard of, and
the first time I ever knew of any such thing. I heard, some years
ago, that Commander Saunders, of the Norfolk yard, was detached,
but whether he was relieved or not I do not know.  I understood that
Commodore Kearney's orders were to the effect that upon being relieved he was detached, &c. My orders were, peremptorily detached.




26                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 5, 1859.
THOMAS R. ROOTES recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. State any circumstances brought to your knowledge in
which the property of the government was taken for other uses than
that of the public service.
Answer. A short time after I joined the New York yard I received
an anonymous letter-on one Sunday night, I think, probably between
the hours of 10 and 12 o'clock. In that anonymous letter the writer
went on to say that he could not look on and see the government
defrauded without making it known, (as well as I can repeat the language of the letter,) and the letter gave me the numbers given by
the timber inspector, stating that this timber was then overboard,
and ready to be taken away from the yard. I went down to the dock
early on Monday morning and saw the timber overboard, and I gave
the watchman strict orders not to allow it to leave the yard until
further orders.  I went then to the commandant's office, and gave
orders, in case the bills had been made out, to stop them. As soon
as I saw Mr. Delano, the naval constructor, I showed him this letter,
and remarked to him that we must find out about this matter. He
went down and examined into the affair, and came back and told me
that he had seen all these pieces of timber, with the marks that were
on them, (with the exception, I think, of one,) on -the inspector's
books, and that opposite to each of those numbers was a cross mark
made, stating, I think, as well as I recollect, that it was the intention
of Mr. Orr, the timber inspector, to report.  Mr. Delano told me that
Mr. Orr said that, after he had inspected the timber and passed it, and
had marked it, Mr. Delano, the naval constructor, went over the same
timber with him and rejected a portion of it.  This timber had been
marked, but the marks had been afterwards chopped out with an adze.
As well as my recollection serves me, the bills had been made out for the
whole amount of timber that had been passed by the inspector, in the
first instance, and required in that case nothing more than the commandant's signature to pass them through the navy agent's office for
payment. That is my impression. I intended to have reported the
affair, but Mr. Delano convinced me from his conversation that there
was no intention of any injustice.  I enter fully into the particulars
of this case, because some other evidence may come in here which
may put a different light upon this transaction.
Question. Do you know of any other case?
Answer. No, sir, I do not.
Question. I will ask you if Mr. Turner, the master painter, ever
refused to obey your orders in any particulars; and, if so, in what
respect?
Answer. Yes, sir, he did.  On the same day in which the difficulty
took place with Colonel Harris, I was coming up the yard and passing
near the marine barracks, or at least the house the marines occupy,
at the time they were painting it, 1 saw that there were some two or




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    27
three painters there standing idle-doing nothing at all. I walked
up to them and took charge of them myself, and sent one of the marines for the master painter, or if he was not present, for the foreman
of the painting gang. Mr. Turner came, and I ordered him to discharge these two or three men instantly.
Question. What was his reply?
Answer. My impression is that he said he would see Mr. Delano.
I then repeated the order to him to discharge those men. He walked
down with me towards the commandant's office. I ordered him again
to discharge those men, when he said that he did not know their
names. I told him that that was just what I wanted him to find out;
I did not know them. He continued towards the office with me. I
called some gentlemen up, (I do not now recollect who,) and I gave
the order to him again to go and obey my orders, in the presence of
those gentlemen. And, as he did not go, I then told him to go into
the commandant's office and remain there until I could report the
affair to the commandant.
Question. What did he say when you told him to discharge these
men.?
Answer. He was all the time saying that he wanted to see Mr. Delano, or something of that sort. I sent for the commodore up to his
house and reported the affair to him. Mr. Turner apologized, and
said he did not intend anything wrong.  I then said to the commodore, who was the commanding officer of the station, that if he thought,
in respect to the discipline of the yard, that the thing could be overlooked, I would leave it in his hands, and had nothing more to say.
The commodore took his apology, and let him off.
Question. Were those men discharged?
Answer. I cannot tell; the books will state.
Question. So far as you know, were they?
Answer. I think they were, but I am not positive on that point.
Question. What was the general conduct of the men during your
command in the yard?
Answer. The government had some fine mechanics there, who
worked well for its interest.
Question. Generally, how was it?
Answer. There were a large number ot them who were very insubordinate.
Question. I will ask you if theft was common in the yard?
Answer. In my opinion it was; I discharged numbers on account of
it. If you wish instances I can give you a plenty of them.
Question. No matter about instances. I would like to have you
explain another matter about which you have testified. How could a
man be absent for eight or ten days when you say that an absence for
three days would work his discharge?
Answer. That, I think, will be shown to the committee from the
correspondence which has been called for; but I will state it briefly
now if the committee desire it.
Question. I should like to have it stated.
Answer. In carrying out the orders of the Bureau of Yards and




28                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Docks, I discovered a large number of men (probably there may have
been from fifty to one hundred and fifty) who were excused from rollcall. These men never went to the office at all. After that the order
was given that every man should answer at muster, except those who
were excused by the commandant of the yard.
Question. By whom was that order given?
Answer. It was given by me, sir.
Question. After that order was given they could not be absent for
eight or ten days then as they had been before?
Answer. No, sir; every man had to answer to his name.
Question. By whom were they excused previous to your issuing
this order?
Answer. By the different officers who had been in command of the
yard; a gentleman in one of the departments would make out a requisition to have a man excused, it was thought to be for some good
purpose, and was generally granted.
Question. I will ask you if you examined into the paint contract;
and if so, what abuses existed in that contract?
Answer. A short time before I left the New York yard I think the
contractor, Wendell, or Wendell & Co., delivered dry white lead in the
yard; I should say from five to fifteen thousand pounds, more or less;
I took out samples of it for a number of casks and sent it to Doctor
Bache, who has charge of the laboratory; he analyzed it, and I think
the adulteration on that occasion was from twenty-two to thirty-five
per cent., or somewhere about that.
Question. What were the foreign mixtures?
Answer. I do not recollect; the department has the whole thing
before them in the Bureau of Construction; this lead was rejected;
and a few days afterwards one or more gentlemen came into the yard,
who manufacture paint in Brooklyn, and asked permission of me to
see the lead which had been delivered by Wendell & Co.; I took
them down to the store, and they took samples of the lead from the
head and centre of a cask, and brought the two samples to me on a
piece of glass; I discovered myself a great difference in them; I then
had lead taken from both heads and the centres of a number of the casks
and got Doctor Bache to analyze it again; I found that the adulteration then was in some places about forty-seven per cent., I think, and
the average adulteration was about thirty-five per cent.; all the evidence on that subject is in the Bureaus of Yards and Docks or Construction; I wrote to the bureau on the subject, and my impression
is that an account of this fraud or adulteration was sent to the different navy yards to look out in case of articles being delivered there;
I think this lead was all rejected; I left it in the yard.
Question. In speaking of members of Congress applying to you
to put men in the yard, you mentioned the names of some, I will ask
you whether you omitted the names of any gentlemen who made such
application?
Answer. Mr. Searing applied to me in the New York yard a short
time before the election in New York, to put some two or three men
on duty and employ them.  I told him I could not do it; the orders




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                      29
were against it; the masters had the privilege.  He appeared to be
very anxious that I should do it; I told him I could not without
having employment for the men, in other words, it would not be for
the interest of the government. I may have said that as soon as
there was employment it would be given to them, or something like
that. I know that one of the masters who was in company with me,
and I think Mr. Turner, said that it was all important to have these
men in the yard; that they could carry a great number of votes and
had a good deal of influence, and it was necessary for the nomination
of Mr. Searing. I said I could not help that.  There was some other
conversation, but I do not now recollect exactly what it was. I think
that is about the substance of it. Whether these men were employed
on that day or any other, I cannot say. I know that if I employed
them I did so because I thought it would be for the benefit of the
government?
Question. In your examination you stated that you were peremptorilv detached from the New York navy yard.  What do you mean
by that?
Answer. I mean that as soon as I received my orders, my detachment forwarded by Commodore Kearney, I was detached from all the
duty I had been attending to in the New York yard.
Question. Was that the usual mode of detaching?
Answer. Yes, sir; I presume so.
Question. Is it usual to detach an officer from duty before his successor arrives?
Answer. I never was; I never heard of its being done.
Question. You stated that you knew no cause for your removal; I
will ask you what has been the treatment of the Secretary to you
since?
Answer. When I came on here I called upon the Secretary several
times. In all my intercourse with the honorable Secretary he has
been kind and very friendly.
Question. What means did you take to ascertain the cause of your
removal?
Answer. I do not recollect whether I asked the Secretary or not?
I did not like to do that.
Question. You never heard anything?
Answer. I have heard a great many things whispered about.
Question. You did not know from him?
Answer. No, sir; I think not. Perhaps I may have, as my conversation with the Secretary was general, but he was always kind and
very gentlemanly. I think he did not give the reasons.
Question. How were things passed out of the navy yard gate.
What precautions were taken?
Answer. When a thing goes into the navy yard, whether brought
in by contract or open purchase, if bought upon open purchase and
rejected, it cannot be taken out without a pass signed by one of the
commissioned officers of the yard; and anything that goes out of
the yard requires a pass.




380      -E                     NBROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. State whether you have watchmen at thle yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; we have watchmen at the south gate and sentry
at the north gate towards the marine barracks, who examine everything and examine the passes as they go out,  Every precaution is
taken to save the government property from going out of the yard
that we can.
Question. How many men are employed in the naval storekeeper's
department, and is the number, in your opinion, at any time too
large?
Answer. I cannot give the exact number that was in the naval
storekeeper's department, but that can be obtained from the yard.  I
will say that in my opinion the number was too large. There was a
communication received from  the Bureau of Yards and Docks, which
has been alluded to several times, about the employes in  the
yard.  When that communication was answered, after the case
had been investigated, the bureau then wrote another letter that
certain parties must be discharged  from  the different departments, as well as I recollect.  I gave Mr. Herrick an order which
stands on the books of the office, to discharge so many from  his
department.  He complained and said that he had not more than
enough force, and asked me to suspend the order and let it stand
until he could communicate either with the Bureau of Yards and
Docks or with the Secretary of the Navy, I forget which. There
was another communication received from the Bureau of Yards and
Docks, making some other inquiries, and saying that we should see
the storekeeper on the subject. I did so, and he still said that he
had not more than the number required.  In my answer to that letter,
dated on or about the 12th of March, 1858, I stated to the Bureau of
Yards and Docks that I saw no reason to change the views which I
had upon the subject, and thought the reduction could be made.  In
this letter to the bureau, I cannot quote the exact language, but I
stated in substance that if the store-keeper gave more of his personal attention to the duties of his office, the number that I had
stated would be sufficient to carry on those duties. It may be as
well for me to state here, that I think I speak within bounds when I
say that I never saw the store-keeper more than twenty-five times in
the yard or in his office, during the time I was attached to the yard.
Question. Who is he?
Answer. Mr. Herrick. I was given to understand, when I mentioned about his being absent, that the former store-keeper had not
been there much, and it was not a general thing and was so understood, as will be seen from my letter to the Bureau of Yards and
Docks and to the Bureau of Construction, and I do not know but to
the Secretary himself. I am not positive on this point. I think in a
letter dated on or about the 9th of December, 1857, to the Bureau of
Construction, I said that the store-keeper is seldom in his office and
his clerks are inexperienced and I did not know when a change was
to take place, alluding to errors in the acounts, as the committee will
see from the correspondence. I would like to state that I think I




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     31
was a better judge about the force in his department being too great,
as I was always in the yard;
Question. A better judge than he was?
Answer. Yes, sir; I should think I was. In my opinion, the force
in the store-keeper's department was too large the whole time I was
there; but I did not discover it until about the 8th of April, when I
made this investigation. The whole correspondence is shown upon
the records of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Secretary of
the Navy, and the different orders given in the yard.
By the Chairman:
Question. You say you had four days given to you to fit out the
Niagara; what do you mean by that?
Answer. I mean that we had about four days to do it in, allowed
by the telegraphic despatch, and that the laborers whom I took on
the occasion, I considered absolutely necessary, in order to do the
work.
Question. Were they necessary after the work was done?
Answer, I think there were times when they could have been discharged, I have stated that before.
Question. Is there any explanation of any part of your testimony
that you desire to make, before it is closed?
Answer. I wish to state that I came here in obedience to summons,
without having any papers or correspondence with me, and nearly
the whole of my evidence is from memory, but I have endeavored to
give it as correctly as possible. There is another thing which I would
mention.  I have used the term "open contract" in some portion of
my testimony. It should be, in all cases, open purchase under open
bids. There is no such thing as open contract.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. To what is the insubordination, to which you referred a
while ago, in the yard to be ascribed? What is the cause of it?
Answer. I will give a number of instances where men were very
insubordinate.
Question. I want to know the cause only; I do not care about the
instances?
Answer. I don't know as I could answer that without giving some
cases.
Question. Well, mention a case then?
Answer. A short time before I left the yard the men got to knocking off work twenty to thirty minutes before bell ring in the evening,
and would collect some short distance from the gate, ready to go out.
I determined to stop it if possible, and I went down about the time
at which they had knocked off the evening previous, and as soon as
I got near them, between the ship houses, some of them in large
gangs sung out my name and hooted and hissed me. I can give more
besides this, if it is desired.
Question. I was aiming to get at what produced this state of insubordination-what was the cause of it?  I want to get at the root
of the evil, whether it is to be referred to the inefficiency of the
officers there, or to the system of discipline which prevails in the yard?




32                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I think it is the system, from the fact that they think
members of Congress put them there, and they can keep them there,
in defiance of the officers of the yard.  That is the only reason I cal
think of.
Question. You spoke of thefts being very common in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I should like to know among what class of persons in the
yard thefts were common?
Answer. Well, sir, it has been detected among the laboring men;
some one or two in the plumber's department, and some one or two
in the engineer's department.
Question. I will ask you whether these laborers and persons among
whom the practice of theft were so common were foreign born or
native born citizens of the United States?
Answer. From the best of my recollection, I should think it was
among the foreign born-Irish principally. I cannot speak positively,
but I should judge so from their faces. The books of the yard will
show that from the different discharges, where they have been discharged for theft, although I do not know as in all cases it would be
stated.
Question. Have you any opinion as to the proportion of foreign or
native born who were detected in these things?
Answer. I could not say; I think a great portion were foreign.
Question. Will you state what proportion of native and what of
foreign born persons were employed in the yard?
Answer. That would be very hard for me to state. It would be
nothing more than guess work; but I should think in some of the
departments that probably eight-tenths of them were foreigners.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was it your duty, as executive officer of the yard, to
exercise a general superintendence over all the departments of the
work?
Answer. I considered it so, and did it to the utmost of my ability.
Question. Were you there every day in the yard?
Answer. I tried to make it my rule to go around the yard twice
every day when not absent on duty, but when I had the whole of the
duties upon my shoulders, some days I failed.
Question. I feel it to be my duty to ask what perhaps you will feel
some delicacy about answering-what was the condition of C ommodore
Kearney when you were there with regard to health and efficiency?
Answer. The commodore at times was complaining; he attended to
the duties of his office generally when he was there.
Question. How often was he complaining?
Answer. I do not know, sir; he was quite sick there at one time.
I don't know as I could say how often.
Question. In regard to his health and general condition, are you
prepared to say that he was an efficient officer or otherwise?
Answer. He attended to his duties as commandant of the yard. He
attended to all the correspondence. I transferred it all over to him
as soon as he came; I told him what I had been doing.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    33
Question. Did you often have to discharge his duties as commandant of the yard?
Answer. Pretty much all the time he was absent on duty; the
books of the office will show the correspondence while he was there.
Question. Where did he live?
Answer. For the last short time before we left, he had moved up
and was living in his house at the navy yard. Previous to that he
lived at Amboy, and used to come up.
Question. A good part of the time, when commandant of the yard,
he lived at Amboy?
Answer. When he was not on duty in Washington.
Question. While he was acting as commandant of the yard you say
he used to live at Amboy?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How far is that'?
Answer. I do not know the distance. He moved into the yard to
stay and commenced housekeeping there; I do not recollect the time.
I looked upon him as the housekeeper.
Question. When the commandant of a yard is detached, what is the
custom about the commander?  Does he go with him, and do they
bring in a new commander?
Answer. I never heard of such a thing.
Question. Do they let the old commander remain?
Answer. If his time is not out. If they have both been in the
yard the term of service, three years, I suppose they would be detached both together. I never heard of the commander being taken
away when his time was not out.
Question. When a new commandant is appointed, a new commander is appointed; when one is taken away, the other is generally
taken away with him; is that the rule or not?
Answer. No, sir, I think not.
Question. HIave you ever known a case of a new commandant
coming into a navy yard and the old commander being retained?
Answer. Not to my knowledge; I have no recollection of it. Commodore Kearney and myself were ordered into the yard about the
same time.
Question. What did you say about his being very often absent from
the yard?
Answer. He was often absent from the yard; I cannot say whether
on duty or otherwise.
Question. You do not know about that?
Answer. He was often absent; the whole files of the office will
show that.
Question. To what place were you sent when you were detached?
Answer. I was ordered to report for ordnance duty in the New
York yard; to report to the chief of the Bureau of Ordnance, which
I did, and he ordered me, as well as I can recollect, to the foundry
opposite West Point.
Question. Is that an important and responsible position?
Answer. I believe it is considered so.
3D




34                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. When you received this letter of which you spoke,
about the timber, you made an investigation, and came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong about it?
Answer. I was convinced on that point by Mr. Delano that there
was nothing wrong.
Question. In regard to the lead that was found to be adulterated,
was it used by the government, or was it rejected?
Answer. It was rejected, I think; itwas in the yard when I left
there.
Question. If the inspector is competent and efficient, can any fraud
be practiced upon the government in that respect?
Answer. I believe the lead has to be analyzed in all cases.
Question. Do you consider it the duty of the inspector to have it
analyzed?
Answer. Yes, sir; and he also has to refer to the commandant of
the yard; I think that is the general form.
Question. I did not understand you exactly about those 150 men
that you say were excused from roll-call. By whose leave was that
excuse granted?
Answer. By the different commanders of the yard.
Question. In what way?
Answer. When the head of a department wanted a man excused
he would give the reasons; and if the commandant thought it was
necessary, he would do it.
Question. They were all excused by the commanders of the yard?
Answer. I think they were.
Question. Who do you mean by the head of a department-you do
not mean at Washington?
Answer. No, sir; Mr. Graham, for instance, in his department, and
the others.
Question. Either the constructing engineer or the naval constructor?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Had the department at Washington anything to do with
excusing these men from roll-call?
Answer. Not that I know of. The department, at least the Bureau
of Yards and Docks, knew when I left there what men were excused
from the yard. That is my impression.
Question. I want to know whether, so far as came within your
knowledge, when complaints were made to the department at Washington about misconduct in the yard, was there any remissness in the
department in having these things investigated into-these complaints
alleged against men or practices in the yard?
Answer. They seemed to be very anxious to have investigations
made.
Question. When you complained to Commodore Smith of the naval
storekeeper's having too many men, what was done then?
Answer. When I left the yard the matter was still pending.
Question. Was that complaint made a short time before you left
the yard, or how long before?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     35
Answer. I cannot tell; that can be got from the bureau.
Question. I wanted to find out whether the department here was
remiss.
Answer. That can all be found out by the letter of the Bureau of
Yards and Docks. That was all brought out by an order which I got
from the bureau to make an investigation; for they wanted to know
why so many men were excused, and how many men we had in one
department, and how many in another, and so on. It was a very
general investigation, and it took me three or four, or perhaps five
weeks.
Question. What is your opinion upon the best mode, if any, of
preventing this theft and insubordination in a yard? Could any regulation be adopted which would tend to prevent that theft; or is it
necessarily incident, in your judgment, to having so many men together?
Answer. It might be prevented if power was granted to search
the men. The only way in which I think it could be prevented is to
give authority to have every man searched as he goes out the gate.
Question. You were giving us a very interesting account of the
duties of the different officers of the yard, in your original testimony
here-the respective duties of the navy agent and the commandant
of the yard about making purchases; did you, when acting as.commandant of the yard, or executive officer, feel yourself responsible
for having the articles in the yard purchased at a fair price?
Answer. I did, sir; that is, I felt that it was my bounden duty to
know, before my name was put to a requisition or bill, that it was a
fair market price. The officer had to sign, before I put my name
to it, that it was a fair market price. There was a lieutenant' s name
signed to it to that effect.
Question. What pains did you take, in the discharge of this duty,
to see that the articles furnished by the navy agent were at fair market prices?
Answer. When I had to do that duty I would send a man to New
York to inquire the prices of articles; and when others were commandants of the yard they did the same thing.  The inspecting
officer attended to this also.
Question. That was the duty of the man acting as inspector?
Answer. I contend that it was his duty, and was my duty.
Question. And that duty you performed?
Answer. We always sent a man over to New York to ascertain the
market prices, as a general thing, if it was supposed they were above
market prices.
Question. Who were the successors of Commodore Kearney and
yourself at the navy yard?
Answer. Commodore Breese relieved Commodore Kearney, and
Commander Foot is my successor.
Question. What is your opinion of those two gentlemen as efficient
and faithful officers?
Answer. I have always heard that Commodore Breese was a fine offi
cer; Commander Foot stands high as an officer in the service.




36                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Do you consider them men of integrity as well as efficient
officers?
Answer. I do, sir.
Question. Would they be likely to permit themselves to be practiced upon by designing men for party purposes?
Answer. Not to my belief, sir.
Question. What is the practice of the government when a contract
is made, and the contractors fail to execute it; what then does the
government do usually?
Answer. So far as I know, the article is advertised for so many
days in the public papers in New York or anywhere else; it is then
purchased on the best terms, and the contractor is made to pay the
difference; that is what we call an open purchase under open bids.
Question. Do you know anything about some timber that Mr. Swift
deposited in the New York navy yard last summer?
Answer. There was a gentleman by the name of Swift, I think,
deposited a large quantity of live-oak timber in the yard; it was
brought into the yard and was allowed to remain; I think I spoke to
Mr. Swift several times about it, as it was in my way very much.
Question. How did il happen that it was permitted to remain?
Answer. I do not know, sir. Contractors would bring in timber,
and we would pick out what we wanted.  I recollect that this timber
was very much in my way, and I spoke to Mr. Swift about it.
Question. What afterwards became of that timber?
Answer. I think the government took some portion of it; that can
be found out by reference to Mr. Delano.
Question. Was it used before you left the yard?
Answer. Some portion of it may have been.
Question. Is your recollection distinct about it in any way?
Answer. No, sir; I know that we wanted some of it at one time;
at least Mr. Delano told me so.
Question. Do you know anything about the timber contracts of last
fall?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know anything about them.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What was the salary of the storekeeper?
Answer. I think I have heard that it was $1, 700; I am not positive
about it.
Question. You have spoken of the proportion of foreign born and
natives in the yard; in what departments of the yard are the foreign
born especially?
Answer. The most of them, I think, are in the master laborer's
department-Mr. McLaughlin's.
Question. Did you say that in the mechanical departments there
was a majority of foreign born?
Answer. No, sir; I do not wish to be so understood, because I
cannot tell.  There is a large number of foreigners; and there is a
large number in Mr. McLaughlin's department and in the dry dock
department.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    37
Question. Do you know what the proportion is in any of the
mechanical departments?
Answer. That could be got from the yard.
Question. You made some reference to painters being idle; I will
ask you whether that will not necessarily happen under the very best
management; that there is not always full employment for men, and
yet it would be a mistake to discharge them because there was not
full employment at any particular time?
Answer. These men that I have alluded to had plenty of work to
do.  There may be times when in all the departments the work may
be slack; but it was a general thing in the painters' department for
the men to be idle. I very often had to speak to Mr. Turner about it.
THOS. R. ROOTES,
Commander United States Navy.
No. 4.-TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM N. BRADY, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
JANUARY 27, 1859.
WILLIAM N. BRADY called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your employment?
Answer. I am sailing-master in the New York navy yard at present.
Question. When were you employed in that yard?
Answer. I was last ordered to the yard November 6, 1858.
Question. Did you come in at the time the new officers, Commodore
Breese and the others, did?
Answer. Yes, sir; about that time.
Question. How many men were there in the yard when you went
there?
Answer. As near as I can recollect, there were about 2,300 men on
the yard rolls.
Question. Were there too many or too few in the yard for the work
that was then going on?
Answer. I thought at the time that there was an extra large number for the work going on; more in proportion than I had been in the
habit of seeing for the same amount and kind of work in years past,
when I was formerly attached to the yard.
Question. When were you employed in the yard before the present
time?
Answer. I have been employed there at different periods since the
year 1829, both as boatswain of the yard and as master.
Question. Have the number of men been reduced since you have
been there; and if so, what is the present number employed there?
Answer. As near as I can recollect, we have now about 1,300 men.
Question. How does the amount of work going on now compare
with the amount that was being done in November last?
Answer. I think we are doing a similar amount of work at the present time, only we are not quite so hurried as we were then.  At
that time we were hurrying off this Paraguay expedition.  As soon




38                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
as we could possibly dispense with the services of such a large number of laborers without inconvenience to the public service, they
were discharged.
Question. When was the first dismissal of the men made?
Answer. I cannot say exactly. I think it was made sometime after.
I got there; I think about the first of the ensuing month, the first of
December, and more dismissed on the 15th of December.
Question. How many were discharged on the first of December?
Answer. I cannot say. There was a gradual diminution of the
numbers in the different departments, by order of the executive
officers of the yard.
Question. Do you remember of there being at any time a large
number of men discharged from the laborers' department?
Answer. I think it was about the first of December that some 150
or more in the laborers' department were discharged by orders of
Commodore Breese.
Question. How long was it before your last orders that you had
been attached to the navy yard in Brooklyn?
Answer. I was promoted in 1843, and until I was retired by the
board of fifteen, I think from July, 1843, until the 14th of December,
1855, I was in the Brooklyn yard, as master of the yard. I was taken
from the grade of boatswain and specially assigned to the particular
duty of equipping and fitting out the ships as I was a practical
seaman, and understood that business.
Question.  From December, 1855, until last November, were you
attached to the yard at all?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Where did you reside in the meantime?
Answer. In Connecticut.
Question. How far from the navy yard?
Answer. About 43 miles.
Question. What was your acquaintance with the yard during that
time in which you were not stationed there?
Answer. Very slight.  I merely called there once a month to
receive my leave of absence pay from the purser of the yard.
Question. How were these men in the yard appointed?
Answer. When it became necessary to increase the number of men
in any of the departments, the naval constructor gave orders to the
heads of those departments to take on such a number of men. For
instance the master blacksmith would be directed to increase his force
by fifty men, or the master cooper would be directed to increase his
force by fifteen or twenty men, just according to the orders from the
department.
Question. Who would name the men to be appointed?
Answer. The head of the department would make out a requisition
for the employment of so many men, and a list of names is sent in.
For instance the head of the smith's department; or the head of the
cooper's department would send in a list, say of fifteen men. The
naval constructor would examine the list, and if he approved the
names there, considered them the names of proper men to work in




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     39
the yard, he put his signature to it and would send it to the commandant of the yard for his signature. After it had received that it
would go up to the clerk of the yard, and these men would then be
mustered in and their names put down on the rolls of the yard for
pay.
Question. Is there any actual supervision over the master workmen?
Answer. It is presumed that a master workman has particular jurisdiction over his department, under the supervision of the naval constructor and of the commandant and officers of the yard.
Question. Is there any practical interference with appointments
by those master workmen?
Answer. Sometimes there is among the officers of the yard.  I
cannot say what the naval constructor does. His principal duty is
to examine and see that every man employed is a thorough workman
and worthy of being employed.
Question. When the order is given to decrease the number of men,
who makes the reduction of those to be discharged?
Answer. The master workman.  He recommends a discharge at
any time. If he observes any inattention, or neglect, or misconduct,
breaking the rules and regulations of the yard, which are printed,
it is his duty to dismiss them.
Question. When the commandant or the naval constructor decides
that a certain number of men shall be discharged from the smiths'
department, for instance, who selects the men to be discharged?
Answer. The master smith does that; and so it is throughout all
the departments in the same way.  Yet if there is the name of an
extra good man or workman on the list when it comes before the
naval constructor, it is his prerogative to check off that name and
send back to the master of that department and ask why it is put
down there.
Question. Is that pretty generally done?
Answer. I think it is rather doubtful about its being often done.
There may be some cases of the kind.
Question. Do you know when this large number of men whom you
considered useless were employed?
Answer. I do not. They were employed before I was re-ordered
to the yard.
Question. Did you understand, from any persons in the yard, when
they were employed?
Answer. I did not  I made no inquiry.  I observed that there
was a very large force in the laborers' department. I thought it very
large in proportion to what I had seen it in former years.
Question. Who is the master of the laborers?
Answer. Mr. McLaughlin.
Question. How many men had he in his department?
Answer. I could not say; he had a very large number.
Question. Were there 50 or 500?
Answer. I suppose there might have been from 400 to 500 laborers
in the yard in all, in his department; I should think so.
Question. What work were they engaged upon?




40                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. At different work; generally among the shipping. The
way I came to take notice of the matter was, that it was my duty to
detail gangs to attend to the storage and fitting of ships, &c. I
thought there was a large number of men who were very awkward
in their movements.
Question. Were they of any benefit to the service?
Answer. They no doubt were of some service, for they did work.
But I do not think they worked with that advantage that men might
have done who were properly selected.
Question. Who fixes the wages of the men?
Answer. The chief of the bureau of the docks and yards. Every
three months it is customary to go to New York and find the assimilated wages in the various similar departments there and in the vicinity of New York. We are governed by that, and generally give
similar wages. If the rate of wages is reduced outside, we reduce it
in the yard; if it is increased, we increase it also-that is, with the
sanction of the bureau.
Question. Were there any complaints made to you, or to the officers
of the yard, that these master workmen exacted pay or any pecuniary
consideration or, favor, for employing men?
Answer. I never heard of it. It would hardly be known to the
officers of the yard if it had been so, for they would try to shield it
from us if they could.
Question. Have the officers anything to do with them?
Answer. Only the appointment and direction of the work.  We
had a general supervision on behalf of the government, or we should
have. Whatever work is to be done in any of the mechanical departments we generally tell the naval constructor about it, and he
gives the direction to the head of the department, the master spar
maker, block maker, blacksmith, carpenter, or cooper, for instance.
We have some departments that come more particularly under our
own supervision-that is, of gentlemen attached to the navy properthat is, the boatswain, sail maker, carpenter, and other warrant officers of the navy.
Question. Were there any complaints made at the time you went
into the yard that these men, under McLaughlin and other master
workmen, had been employed there, or used there, for party or
political purposes?
Answer. None were made to me that I know of. I have been there
such a short time that I have had no opportunity of hearing any complaints of the kind since I have been re-ordered back to the yard.
Question. When you first went into the navy yard who appointed
the master workmen?
Answer. I think it was the commandant of the yard; for at that
time we had no bureaus.
Question. Who now appoints the master workmen of the yard?
Answer. They are appointed by the Navy Department; I presume,
by the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, by the direction of
the Secretary.
Question. Is it not commonly understood there in the navy yard




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      41
that master workmen are divided up among the representatives in
Congress from that region of the country, ratably, and are to some
extent the representatives of those members of Congress?
Answer. I have heard such rumors; but I never heard anything
official about it until, perhaps three or four weeks since, I was directed
by Captain Foote to send in a list, from the different departments
coming under my supervision, of the number of men and the different
congressional districts they were from; that is the only official intimation I have ever had of such a thing.
Question. Is it not a habit of common conversation and common
talk that particular master workmen represent particular members of
Congress?
Answer. I have heard such rumors; I have heard it frequently
spoken of in general conversation.
Question. Are they spoken of as Mr. Sickles' men, Mr. Taylor's
men, Mr. Kelly's men, &c.?
Answer. That is what I have heard circulated about among the
men.
Question. Do you know whether particular master workmen select
their men from particular congressional districts?
Answer. I cannot state that. The great number of men there are
strangers to me, from what was formerly the case when I was before
attached to the yard.  Of some of the old faces I see but very few.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You are a master in the navy, on the list of old masters,
not in the line of promotion, are you?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have been on the retired list.
Question. Were you recalled to the New York navy yard last fall
prior or subsequently to the congressional elections there?
Answer. I was ordered there a few days after Commodore Breese
joined the yard. I do not know upon whose application.
Question. Was it after the election?
Answer. It must have been after the election sometime. I reported
myself for duty on the 10th of November.
Question. Did you vote at that election in New York?
Answer. I never have voted there; my family reside in Connecticut.  When I was attached to the New York yard, I was never allowed
to vote.  Living, as I did, within the yard, I was outside of any ward,
and as the law required a residence for a certain time in a ward, I was
not entitled to a vote-at least so I was told.
Question. When you went to the yard you say they were engaged
in fitting out the Paraguay expedition?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. At what time did the vessels of that expedition leave
there?
Answer. I cannot say positively, from recollection; I think the last
of them got away sometime about the middle of December.  We had
four or five of them under way when I joined the yard.
Question. Did you fit them out and finish them  off one at a time
until you got them all off?




42                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. Yes, sir; we had them all under way at one time; but we
got through with some of them before we did with others, because
the equipping and fitting out of some would be greater than that of
others.
Question. Was the diminution in the number of men that you have
referred to caused by the getting away the vessels of this Paraguay
expedition?
Answer. Yes, sir; after we got a ship off there would be no necessity for so many men, and consequently we would diminish the force,
unless we had other work for them to be doing.
Question. When the number of men in the yard is too great, and
some of them are to be discharged, does the master workman of each
department make out a list of those he thinks can best be dispensed
with?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is that list final, or does it go to the naval constructor?
Answer. The list of the laborers does not go to the naval constructor, only the list from the mechanical departments. There are
a large number of workmen employed under Mr. Graham, which
come under the Bureau of Yards and Docks. But the master laborer,
Mr. McLaughlin, has nothing to do with the Bureau of Docks and
Yards.
Question. To whom does he submit his list? To the commandant
of the yard?
Answer. He submits it to the commander of the yard, not the
the commandant.
Question. Is the mode of appointment and dismissal the same?
Answer. Yes, sir. We always direct the master of the department
to make out a list of those to be dismissed, because it is supposed
that he knows which of his men are the least use, and can be the
most readily spared. There used to be a general order to retain the
most effective men, and discharge those not so well able to carry on
the public work.
Question. How do the men work in the yard?
Answer. Rather dilatorily, I think.
Question. Do you know anything about men appointed in the yard
being absent for days and getting pay during that time?
Answer. I do not. I know that I have the superintendence of the
mustering of the men, and was directed by the executive officer to
see that none of them went out of the yard after being mustered.
There was a rumor that the men would go forward and answer to
their names and then go out of the yard. There was one whom I
understood had been in the habit of doing that. I watched him to see
if he did go, but I never saw him do it. I never knew any of the men
to leave the yard in that way.
Question. Who calls the roll?
Answer. Mr. Lee calls the roll, and I witness it.
Question. If any are absent, does the clerk cross them?
Answer. He makes a mark against their names. If a man is late in




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      43
getting over in the ferry boat, if he appears before the reading of the
list is closed, we take the check off from against his name.
Question. If he does not come by the time the reading of the list
is closed, who has the authority to take the check off his name?
Answer. The executive of the yard will do it, if the master of the
workmen sets him to work when he does come in, and certifies that
he is entitled to pay for one-half or three-fourths of a day's work, as
the case may be. But the clerk of the yard has no right to take off
the check in that case.
Question. Has the clerk exercised the authority to take off this
check?
Answer. Only upon orders from the proper authority. He is a very
conscientious man, and would not do that he was not authorized to do.
W. N. BRADY,
Master, United States Navy.
No. 5.-TESTIMONY OF JACOB R. WORTENDYKE, M. C.
JANUARY 27, 1859.
JACOB R. WORTENDYKE called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are you a member of the present House of Representatives?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. From what State and district?
Answer. From the fifth district of the State of New Jersey.
Question. Did you file in the Navy Department, or send to the
Secretary of the Navy, certain papers, of which these are true
copies?-(See appendix to this deposition, papers marked A, B, C, D.)
Answer. I filed with the department some days ago some affidavits,
the jurat of which corresponded in data with the jurat of these copies;
and the affidavits purported to be the affidavits of the persons whose
names are upon these papers.
Question. Do you believe these to be true copies of those papers?
Answer. I took no copies of the originals; but the general tenor of
these appear to be the same, so far as I can recollect.  I would also
say that one of the papers which I forwarded to the department was
not sworn to, but a statement certified to in the presence of F. D.
Mulford. So far as I can judge without actual comparison the paper
here is of the same tenor.
Question. Did you ascertain from  the Secretary of the Navy
whether this man O'Connor, mentioned here in these papers, had
been previously discharged by his predecessor?




44                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
Answer. No, sir; I did not. I received a letter in reply to the
one I sent with these affidavits, stating that the transactions concerning which these complaints appear to be made were investigated
during the term of his predecessor.
Question. Have you any objection to furnishing the committee
with a copy of that letter?
Answer. None in the world.  The letter was as follows:' NAVY DEPARTMENT,
"January 24, 1859.
"SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 17th instant, enclosing' affidavits and a statement against one
Thomas O' Connor, one of the master sawyers in the Brooklyn navy
yard,' and to inform you that the allegations were preferred before I
took charge of the department, and were investigated by order of my
predecessor. The department is not aware of any charge made against
Mr. 0' Connor within the last few months, for an assault upon Michael
Mooney.
"I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
"ISAAC TOUCEY.
"' Hon. J.. WORTENDYKE,'" ouse of Representatives."
Question. Were these papers which were forwarded by you accompanied with an application for the removal of O' Connor.
Answer. I stated, as near as I can recollect, that these complaints
were being talked about in my district, and I advised the Secretary
either to dismiss the man or to suspend him until he could ascertain
the truth or falsity of these charges. These papers had been in my
hands for some time; they had been sent to me to be sent to the
department, and I sent them there.
J. R. WORTENDYKE.
A.
The undersigned charge Thomas 0' Connor, foreman of sawyers in
the navy yard, Brooklyn, with the following offences and misdemeanors:
First. That on or about the 2d day of June, 1854, the said Thomas
O' Connor then being foreman of sawyers, as aforesaid, fraudulently
contracted with Maurice Fitzgerald that he, the said foreman, Thomas
O' Connor, should give employment in the navy yard aforesaid to one
Edward Fitzgerald, brother of the said Maurice, if he, the said Edward, would give fifty cents a day to him, the said Thomas O' Connor,
in consideration of such employment.
Second. That, in pursuance of such contract, the said Edward
Fitzgerald was employed and went to work in the navy yard aforesaid,
the standing wages of the government being two dollars a day; and
that from the period between the 2d day of June, 1854, until the




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    45
22d day of December, 1854, the said Thomas O' Connor exacted, and
took from the said Edward Fitzgerald, through the hands of the said
Maurice, the sum of fifty cents per day for every day that Edward
worked, although the said Edward was permitted, in order to cover
the fraud, to draw the full amount, then refund, through his brother,
the portion of his day's earnings.
Third. That when the said Edward, who was in necessitous circumstances at the time of the first agreement, began to object to the
continued allowance and deduction from his earnings he perceived a
great disfavor on the part of the said Thomas O'Connor; and at
length, when the said Edward would no longer submit to the imposition and exaction aforesaid, he, the said O' Connor, discharged the
said Edward from the employment of the government of the United
States, without any other cause than that of refusing an allowance of
fifty cents per day.
Fourth. That the said Thomas O' Connor, about three weeks afterwards, called upon Maurice Fitzgerald, while at work in the navy
yard aforesaid, and then and there proposed to re-employ the said
Edward if he, the said Edward, would give him, the said Thomas
0' Connor, the sum of twenty-five cents per day for such employment;
that he then and there employed him on those terms.
Fifth. That the said Thomas O' Connor was paid and received in
all the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars and twenty-eight
cents out of the earnings of the said Edward Fitzgerald.
Sixth. That the said Thomas O'Connor permitted and sanctioned
the drawing of moneys from the department which were not justly
due to the parties drawing.
Seventh. That the said Thomas O'Connor proposed to Maurice
Fitzgerald to return him for full time, although the said Maurice
was absent, on condition that he, the said Maurice, should pay to him
one-half of the amount so received for lost time.
Eighth. That the said Thomas O' Connor actually was paid and did
receive one-half of such lost time.
Wherefore, The undersigned pray that the said Thomas 0' Connor
may be examined and dealt with according to law and the rules and
regulations of the navy of the United States.
Sworn to before me, this fourth day of January, eighteen hundred
and fifty-nine, a commissioner of deeds of the city and county of New
York.
MAURICE FITZGERALD,
JAMES SCARMELL.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 4th day of January, 1859.
E. S. McPHERSON,
Commissioner of Deeds.
B.
CITY OF NEW YORK,   
State of New York, 
Thomas Kerrigan, being duly sworn according to law, saith: That
during the administration of President Pierce, Thomas 0' Connor was




46                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
master sawyer of the Brooklyn navy yard, and that he did allow
Rodger McCormick, who was then working as a sawyer in the said
yard, to go out of said yard after answering to his name on the eighth,
ninth, tenth, and one-half of the fourteenth days of May, 1856, on
business other than that of the government; and that the said Rodger
McCormick did receive full pay for the above mentioned time by and
with the sanction of the said Thomas O' Connor.
Duly sworn this 4th day of January, eighteen hundred and fiftynine, before me, a commissioner of deeds of the city and county of
New York.
THOMAS KERRIGAN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of January, 1859.
E. S. McPHERSON,
Commissioner of Deeds.
C.
CITY OF NEW YORK, to wit:
State of New York,   w
Patrick Owens, being duly sworn according to law, saith: That he
has worked in the Brooklyn navy yard for several years as a sawyer
and was discharged; that during the building of the Niagara he did
apply for work to the said Thomas O' Connor as sawyer in said yard,
and that after he paid the said O' Connor the sum of twenty dollars,
he, the said Owens, was again set to work.
PATRICK OWENS.
Duly sworn before me, this 4th day of January, 1859, a commissioner of deeds of the city and county of New York.
E. S. McPHERSON,
Commissioner of Deeds.
D.
CITY OF NEW YORK, January 4, 1859.
This is to certify that I, Michael Gillin, was employed as a laborer
in the Brooklyn navy yard in or about the month of August, 1855,
and continued on until about the month of June, 1856, when I was
employed as a sawyer in said Brooklyn navy yard by Thomas O' Connor, then master sawyer, and that I had never worked a day before
at sawing; and also that the said Thomas O' Connor did exact and
receive the sum of fifty cents per day of my wages as a consideration
for such employment; and further, that he returned me as an operator
in said yard for time that I did not work, as I was out of the yard
doing his, the said Thomas O' Connor's, business.
MICHAEL GILLIN.
In presence ofF. D. MULFORD.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   47
No. 7.-TESTIMONY OF BERNARD DONNELLY, NEW YORK.
JANUARY 27, 1859.
BERNARD DONNELLY called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. Richmond county, New York, or Staten Island.
Question. Do you know Mr. Turner, the master painter in the
Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long have you known him?
Answer. I think I have known him for a little over two years.
Question. Do you know upon whose recommendation he was
appointed master painter?
Answer. He told me that it was upon the recommendation of Hon.
Mr. Searing.
Question. Did you apply to Mr. Turner for the appointment of any
one?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What did he say to you about it?
Answer. I applied to him to appoint a man who lived in the village
where I lived; a man by the name of O'Brien, a painter by trade.
le told me that he could not appoint him unless he was in favor of
the re-election or the re-nomination of Mr. Searing; but he would
appoint him upon the recommendation of Mr. Searing, but not otherwise.
Question. Was Mr. Searing applied to?
Answer. I did not apply to him.
Question. Did Mr. Turner live in the village where you did?
Answer. No, sir, he lives in Flushing, Queens county.
Question. What means did you then take to get O'Brien, or any
one else, appointed?
Answer. I was then determined to get a man in the navy yard; I
made up my mind to have one appointed. In looking around among
my friends, I came across a Mr. Richard Teller, who was in the liquor
department of the custom-house, New York, inspector of liquors, I
think he was. I think I mentioned to him my desire to get a man
appointed in the navy yard as painter. He told me that he thought
that he could get one appointed; that he had received word from Mr.
Turner, through a Mr. Edson, also in the custom-house, that he
(Teller) could have the appointment of a man in the navy yard, provided he would send Turner some liquor, five gallons of liquor, I think.
[Further examination postponed until to-morrow morning.]




48                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
JANUARY 28, 1859.
Examination of BERNARD DONNELLY resumed.
By the Chairman:
Question. What did you say when Mr. Teller told you this?
Answer. Mr. Teller stated that he had no one picked out to put in
the yard. I begged him to give me the privilege of selecting the
man for him. He hesitated, and did not seem willing to do the thing
in this way. I told him that if he would do it he would be helping a poor man, be helping his family, who were starving, and who
really had nothing to eat without begging for it. Said I, "If you
will do this you will be doing an act of charity." He said that in
that case he would comply with my request.  Said he, "I will get
the liquor and send it over to him."  I then brought a man forward
by the name of James Fulton, and introduced him to Mr. Teller. He
gave him a letter to Mr. Turner, and he went over to the yard and
was put to work.
Question. Upon the recommendation of that letter?
Answer. Yes, sir. He remained there some five or six days. After
that he came to me and said that he had been turned off, that he had
nothing to do. In sending him to the navy yard for a place, I had
told him he would have steady employment all the year round, and
receive two dollars a day for his wages. Being turned out, he came
to me to find out the reason. I told him I did not know why he had
been turned out, but that I would tell Mr. Teller of it. I did so, and
asked Mr. Teller if he had any idea of the reason. "Ah," said he,
"I have neglected to send that liquor; I will attend to it right away."
He did so; the liquor was sent. I told Fulton to go over there again;
he did so, and was set to work, and remained there some time. I think
that at the end of a week or ten days after he had been set to work
again, he came to me again and said that he had been assessed a tax
of three dollars to purchase a gold watch for Mr. Turner. He did not
seem to like it, and wanted to know what he should do about it. I
told him that I did not know; he might do as he liked about it; afterwards I advised him to pay it if the rest of the men did.  Shortly
after that a friend of mine, in the silk printing business, to whom I
had applied for a place for this man Fulton, informed me that he could
now let him have a place, and I then went and took Fulton out of the
navy yard.
Question. He then went into the service of this private citizen, did he?
Answer. Yes, sir; I then brought forward this man O'Brien, the
man I first mentioned to Mr. Turner, and I recommended him to Mr.
Teller, and Mr. Teller gave him a letter to Mr. Turner; but Mr.
Turner refused to appoint him, and said. that he must get a letter
from Mr. Searing. Mr. O'Brien then came home, but he could not
see Mr. Searing because he was then in Washington.
Question. Did you make any further effort to get Mr. O'Brien appointed?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    49
Answer. Nothing more that I know of. I dropped the matter then.
Question. Did you apply to Mr. Searing?
Answer. I did not.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Do you know that Mr. Teller furnished this liquor to Mr.
Turner?
Answer. Only from Teller's own say so.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did Mr. Teller write this letter for the man Fulton in
your presence?
Answer. Yes, sir; I saw the letter and read it over.
Question. Did you deliver that letter to Mr. Fulton?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And Mr. Fulton took it over to Mr. Turner and was
employed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In whose congressional district do you reside?
Answer. In Mr. Searing's district. I will say here that I recommended this man Fulton, although he was not a painter by profession,
and had been only about six months in this country; I recommended
him with a view to test the sincerity of Mr. Turner's profession.
Question. You wanted to test his friendship for Mr. Searing?
Answer. Yes, sir; This man Fulton was not a voter nor a member
of our party, and yet Turner appointed him.
Question. Have you any knowledge of Mr. Turner appearing at
any of the primary elections or meetings in Mr. Searing's district?
Answer. No, sir; but I know of his appearing at the democratic
congressional convention which re-nominated Mr. Searing.
Question. How far from the navy yard was this convention held?
Answer. It was held in the town of Jamaica, on Long Island. I do
not exactly know the distance; I think it is some nine or ten miles from
the navy yard.
Question. Did Mr. Turner attend that convention?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who were.with him there?
Answer. He had with him several men employed in the navy yard
as painters.
Question. What did they do there?
Answer. They acted in a noisy manner about the place; seemed to
take a deep interest in having Mr. Searing re-nominated, and opposed
all those who were inclined to go for some other candidate. They
were rather abusive in their manner.
Question. When did Mr. Turner leave the convention?
Answer. I do not know; I left him there when I came away. It
was in the evening when I came away. The convention was held in
the afternoon, in the day time, and I came away as soon as I was satisfied that the business of the convention was all over.
Question. Was Mr. Searing re-nominated?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When was Mr. Turner appointed to the place of master
of the painter?
4D




50                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. Some time last spring. I think it was during a visit he
made to Washington that he secured the place-during the time he
was on here as a witness in the Willet's Point investigation.
Question. Do you know whether any painters from the navy yard,
either individually or in companies, attended the primary meetings
in Mr. Searing's district which were held for the purpose of sending
delegates to a nominating convention?
Answer. I know of an instance where some painters from the navy
yard came into my district, into Richmond county, and went into a
primary meeting there and did what they could to secure delegates to
the county convention favorable to selecting delegates to the congressional district convention in favor of Mr. Searing's re-nomination.
Question. Do you know whether these men were paid for this time
by the government?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Were they then in the employ of the government?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did, this thing occur in any other county besides the one
in which you live?
Answer. Not that I know of my own knowledge-only from hearsay.
Question. What part did these men take in those primary meetings?
Answer. They would behave very roughly and very violently; -at
least they did in our place. They seemed to be desirous of securing
their object by any means, even by resorting to brute force, if
necessary.
Question. How long have you known Mr. Turner?
Answer. I think it is about two years last October that I first became acquainted with him.
Question. Where does he reside?
Answer. His residence is in Flushing, Queens county, I think.
Question. How far is that from where you reside?
Answer. I think it is about fifteen miles.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How long was this man Fulton employed at the navy
yard?
Answer. About three weeks.
Question. Three weeks altogether?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you know he was not competent when you recommended him?
Answer. I knew he was not a painter; but I believed he would be
able to perform the duties there, for I had previously heard of other
persons going in there and acting as painters who had never served
any time at the business.
Question. You say that you recommended him in order to test the
sincerity of Mr. Turner in his professions of anxiety for the political
welfare of Mr. Searing?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You say that Mr. Fulton was not a member of your
party and was not a voter?
Answer. That is what I said.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    51
Question. How then would his appointment test the sincerity of
Mr. Turner' s professions?
Answer. Mr. Turner had told me previous to this time that he desired to have men in there who were favorable to the re-election of
Mr. Searing, who could help him. Now, this man Fulton not being
a voter or a member of the party, could not help the re-election of
Mr. Searing. Still, Mr. Turner was willing to appoint him, notwithstanding what he said, in consideration of this liquor which was to
be sent to him.
Question. What do you mean then by what you represented to
Mr. Teller as your motive for desiring this man appointed? You say
that you told Mr. Teller that it would be a work of charity to appoint
this man; that he was a poor man, and that his family were destitute?
Answer. That was true.
Question. Were you candid about that being your motive?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then you had a double motive?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then you did not recommend him simply to test the sincerity of Mr. Turner?
Answer. Not that alone. I wanted to get the man employment; I
knew his family were destitute. They were in England at that time,
but I had seen letters from his wife stating that they were very destitute. I knew he had nothing to do.
Question. Was he a friend of yours?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you urge his appointment; were you very solicitous
about it to Mr. Teller?
Answer. Yes, sir; I urged it, and begged of him to do this for him.
Question. Did you believe that he could fairly and honestly do the
work for which lie would be paid in the yard?
Answer. I never stopped to consider about that.
Question. Did you recommend him to Mr. Teller as a person who
was competent?
Answer. I recommended him to Mr. Teller as a person I thought
would be competent to perform his duties.
Question. Had you a previous acquaintance with Mr. Teller?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then he had confidence in your recommendations had he?
Answer. Oh, no doubt about that. I recommended Mr. Fulton as
a man capable of performing his duties.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who is this Mr. Teller, and where does he reside?
Answer. He has a place in the New York custom-house, and residesP
I think, in Westchester county, New York.
B. DONNELLY.




52                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No...-TESTIMONY OF PATRICK FITZGERALD, BROOKLYN.
JANUARY 28, 1859.
PATRICK FITZGERALD called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Have you been employed in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long have you been employed there?
Answer. Since a year last August.
Question. In what capacity have you acted there?
Answer. I acted in the capacity of foreman of the painters.
Question. Who is the master workman of the painters?
Answer. William Turner.
Question. How long has he been there?
Answer. I think it was the latter end of March or the first of April
that he entered upon his duties there.
Question. By what member of Congress was he nominated to that
place?
Answer. By Mr. Searing, I understood.
Question. From whom did you understand that?
Answer. From Mr. Turner.
Question. Do you know whether or not any paints have been taken
from the navy yard for private use?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. State what cases of the kind have come to your knowledge?
Answer. I have known of 100 weight of zinc to be removed from
there and landed outside of the limits of the navy yard.
Question. Where was it taken from?
Answer. From the paint shop.
Question. What was done with it?
Answer. It was left in a house in Williamsburg.
Question. What became of it?
Answer. I cannot say what became of it after it was removed from
there?
Question. Who removed it?
Answer. Two men in the employ of Mr. Turner.
Question. What were their names?
Answer. John White and Reuben Munson; I saw them convey it
from the paint shop in the navy yard, and in a boat to take it and
land it in the hotel in Williamsburg.
Question. Did you hear what became of it then?
Answer. I heard that it was removed to Whitestone, a place near
Flushing?
Question. From whom did you hear that?
Answer. From the men employed to take it there.
Question. Who were they?
Answer. The two men who conveyed it from the paint shop to the
hotel.
Question. Where are those men now?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     53
Answer. One of them, I believe, is still in the employ of the master
painter of the Brooklyn navy yard, John White; but Reuben Munson
has been discharged.
Question. Did you learn from John White what use this paint was
put to?
Answer. I did not; but I learned from Mr. Turner himself that it
was to be used on his own house in Whitestone. He said he had
some painting to do in his own house, and that they were to take
some paint down there to do it.
Question. Do you know of any other cases where paints were taken
from the navy yard?
Answer. No, sir; I know of no case in relation to which I have got
possession of the facts; I may have heard of such cases, but I don't
know as to the truth of the matter. But I know this, that men have
been employed there in that department, and rated as first class workmen, who were taken right from the laborers gang, and never had any
knowledge about the art and mystery of painting.
Question. How frequently was that done?
Answer. It was done numerous times.
Question. What were these men set to work at?
Answer. At general painting. When they were first put to work
at painting, if they were to be favored in any way they were set to
painting mess bags. It is true these bags had to be painted well, but
they had only to be painted a plain black, and that was not so careful
work as some other was.
Question. What wages were given these men?
Answer. Some were rated as second class painters and some even
as first class painters, and some of them who were rated as first class
painters had no knowledge at all of the art and mystery of painting.
Question. Do you know of any cases where any of the men employed in the yard answered to the roll call and then did not work?
Answer. I do.
Question. How frequently was that done?
Answer. I know, of my own knowledge, of but one case.
Question. What was that case?
Answer. It was while they were employed working on what is
called the blocks; that is, the dock called the cobb docks, on which
there are some government buildings.  There were four men employed there during the time I acted as foreman of the painters. One
afternoon I went over there and missed two of these men.  I asked
the other two where the men had gone, and they told me that they
had gone out to Calvary Cemetery to paint a railing for Mr. Turner.
I missed these men from there on two separate occasions, and I was
informed by their fellow workmen that that was what they went
away for.
Question. Do you know of any cases in which the men after roll
call went off in considerable numbers to attend political meetings in
different places?
Answer. I knew an instance of the kind to occur once, but I believe the men who went away were docked a quarter of a day each.




54                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
To the best of my recollection that was the way it was done.
Question. When was that?
Answer. I think it was in October last, along before the election,
at the time of the primary meetings for appointing delegates to the
nominating convention,
Question. Where did these men go?
Answer. I think it was in Jamaica.
Question. In whose district?
Answer. In Mr. Searing's.
Question. Did Mr. Turner go with them?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know how many men went off that time?
Answer. I think there must have been eight or ten at least.
Question. Were these men residents of the district or not?
Answer. Some of them were, and some were not.  Some belonged
in the city of Brooklyn; others belonged in Flushing. I believe there
were not more than one or two of them who were residents of
Jamaica.
Question. Did you learn from Mr. Turner what the purpose`was in
going there?
Answer. I did not make any inquiries.
Question. How many men are employed in the painter's department, say in October last; how many were there employed under the
master painter?
Answer. To the best of my recollection I should judge that there
were about sixty men.
Question. Who appointed these men? Who selected them?
Answer. There were some from different congressional districts;
but the majority of them were from Mr. Searing's district.
Question. Did Mr. Turner select them, or were they recommended
to him?
Answer. They were recommended to him, so Mr. Turner informed
me. I have not officiated in the capacity of foreman since in September last. I was reduced at that time to journey work, and continued at that until the 10th of this month, when I was told to let my
call run out, and not answer to it, as there was nothing for me to do.
Question. How many men were employed in October last?
Answer. To the best of my recollection there were about sixty men
employed.
Question. Were these men appointed by Mr. Turner upon the
recommendation of members of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many men were employed after election was over?
Was there any reduction made then?
Answer. Yes, sir; I believe the number in our department was
reduced to thirty men.
Question. State whether, during the month of October last, there
were more or less men in the painter's department than were really
needed there.
Answer. I was not then foreman, but was reduced to journey work,




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    55
and did not give the matter any attention. But I heard the men
every now and then regretting that there was not more work to do;
for they were afraid of soon being discharged, as the appearance
then was that there would not be sufficient work to retain them much
longer.
Question. In your judgment, was there enough work for sixty men to
do at the time these men were employed there?
Answer. If I was to judge the work by what was a fair day's
work for mechanics outside of the yard, I should say that there was
not enough work for that number of men.
Question. Is there any difference in the amount of work done by
men in the navy yard and that done by men outside of the yard?
Answer. I judge there is.
Question. How much difference is there? One-half, one-third, or
one-quarter?
Answer. I would consider that a fair mechanic outside of the yard
would do as much in half a day as some of the workmen in the yard
would do in a day.
Question. How does the rate of wages paid to the men in the yard
compare with the rate paid outside?
Answer. I believe it is the same most generally in all the departments; it differs at different seasons according to the amount of work
done; take it in the business times of the year, in the spring and the
summer, and it ranges about the same.
Question. What is the rate of wages for first class painters in the
yard?
Answer. Two dollars a day.
Question. What would be a fair rate of wages for that class of
laborers that were put into the painter's department, though you
thought they were not competent?
Answer. I believe that, according to the number of men employed
in our department, we are allowed two laborers to do the rough work
around the shop.
Question. You do not understand my question exactly. What
would be fair wages for laborers of the same kind that you say were
put to work as painters?
Answer. The laborers we have in the painter's department are
allowed ten shillings a day.
Question. What are second class painters allowed?
Answer. They are allowed fourteen shillings a day.
Question. What are first class painters allowed?
Answer. They are allowed two dollars a day.
Question. Have you a class of laborers in your department besides
the painters?
Answer. We have only two there; sometimes only one.
Question. What are they allowed?
Answer. They are allowed ten shillings a day; we have one man
there who attends the paint mill. It takes a man accustomed to the
work to attend to that, although he need not be a first class painter;
but his work is very important, as he must have some knowledge of




56                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
mixing paints. I think that on that account he is rated as a second
class painter.
Question. Do you know any cases where men were allowed to go
from the navy yard to paint for any member of Congress?
Answer. Not to include navy yard time; that is, they were not
paid for that time by the government. I know that they have been
employed in the yard, and sent out to do this work, and were not
discharged, but were reinstated and set to work in the yard when
they got through the other work.
Question. Do you know whether they received any pay from the
government for this time?
Answer. I do not know that they did.
Question. Do you know that any paints of the government were
used?
Answer. Not that I know of.
Question. Where were the paints of the government kept?
Answer. Just as we received orders to do any work, there would
be a certain amount of paint drawn from the storehouse upon the
requisition of the master painter and the naval constructor.
Question. Who would draw this requisition?
Answer. The master painter, or the clerk who was employed by
him in his office.
Question. When he had drawn a given amount of paint, where was
it kept then?
Answer. In the shop.
Question. Under whose control was the shop?
Answer. The men always have general access to it.
Question. Do you know any cases in which paints, &c., were taken
from this shop for other than government uses?
Answer. Not to my actual knowledge, though I have heard of it.
Question. Could it be done without difficulty, without the assent of
the master painter?
Answer. It could, or without his assent, either.
Question. You say that you do not know whether anything of the
kind has been done?
Answer. Not to my own knowledge; I have heard of it, however.
Question. How much paint is generally drawnfrom the storekeeper
at a time?
Answer. We might have, perhaps-I have known-three tons of
dry lead at a time to be in the mill, and as fast as it was ground it
was brought down to the shop and put in casks, perhaps 600 or 800
pounds in each cask.
Question. How much oil would there be in the shop at a time?
Answer. I have seen 300 or 400 gallons at a time there.
Question. Was this always open to be used by the master painter
and his men?
Answer. They could always go in and help themselves; it is always
at their disposal.
Question. In what part of the yard is this paint shop situated?
Answer. It is right alongside the dry dock.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    57
Question. Who has the keys of it?
Answer. The shop is locked every night and the keys left at the
guard-house at the gate; and the captain of the watchmen takes the
keys of all the buildings in the yard, and goes around and examines
them all in the night in order to guard against fire and accident.
Question. Does the master painter have a clerk?
Answer. There is a man there who officiates in that capacity and
does nothing else.
Question. What men were detailed to paint the house of the
member of Congress that you spoke of?
Answer. Thomas Craig and John White.
Question. Is this John White the same White that you mentioned
before?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is he employed in the Brooklyn navy yard now?
Answer. Yes, sir, or was the last accounts I heard of him, which
was last Tuesday.
Question. Do you know of men being detailed from the navy yard
to work for any one else?
Answer. Not of my own knowledge.
Question. Do you know how they came to be detailed for the
instance you have mentioned?
Answer. I understood they were sent out there to remain at the
house until the job was completed.
Question. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Turner
about that matter'?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know of property being taken from any other
department of the navy yard for other than government use?
Answer. No, sir; I have never seen anything of the kind; I have
never paid any attention to any but the department I was at work in.
Question. Is there anything else that you know in regard to taking
the property of the yard for any other purpose than for government
use, or anything relating to matters in the yard?
Answer. I know nothing about property being taken beyond the
bounds of the yard to be used for other than government purposes,
except the case I have mentioned. But I know of an instance where
the men were taxed to bear the expenses of Mr. Turner on to Washington.
Question. When was that?
Answer. Some time last summer.
Question. What was the ground upon which the tax was levied?
Answer. It got to one or two men that he was going on to Washington, and it was represented to the men (I was one of the parties
that it was represented to) that he was going on to have the men's
wages raised to 18 shillings a day, and it was represented that we
ought to pay his expenses on there.
Question. Was there a collection taken up for that purpose?
Answer. Yes, sir; I paid over to him some $94.
Question. How much did you contribute?
Answer. One dollar.




58                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. How much was collected from each hand?
Answer. One dollar; some of them gave more.
Question. Did Mr. Turner go on to Washington?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know of any case of contribution among his men
to make him a present or a gratuity of any kind?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. State when and what that was.
Answer. It was a gold watch and chain.
Question. When was that?
Answer. I think it was about last June.
Question. How much did they cost?
Answer. One hundred and seventy-five dollars.
Question. Who contributed to that?
Answer. The workingmen in the painter's department.
Question. How much did you contribute?
Answer. Five dollars.
Question. Who got the matter up? Who started it?
Answer. A young man of the name of Leighton, in the office, first
suggested it. He told me that Mr. Turner would be glad to have it
carried through; and I then assisted in the carrying through of it.
Question. You went round and collected the contributions?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did all the men contribute?
Answer. I do not believe there was any who did not.
Question. Was there any objection made by the men to making
this contribution?
Answer. Not at this time, when this contribution was collected;
but afterwards, the following pay day, they had this other tax to pay
for him to go to Washington, and they complained of being taxed
again.
Question. How was this regarded by the men, as a tax or as a compliment to Mr. Turner?
Answer. I think if the men were left voluntary to themselves they
would not have done it. They did it merely through fear that, as
some few had started it, if the others did not encourage it they would
be discharged.
Question. Were these men subject to be discharged at any time?
Answer. Yes, sir; if the master painter chose to lodge complaints
against them of disobedience of orders and the like.
Question. Was it understood by the men that the master painter
could remove them at any time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know of any cases within your own knowledge
of men paying any gratuity for being employed in the yard?
Answer. No, sir; nothing more than has been collected through
these taxes and levies. We have had four of them this last year.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You have mentioned but two of these levies; what were
the other two?
Answer. There was one I did not contribute to. The other three




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    59
I did. I was informed that it was for the purpose of paying Mr.
Searing's expenses on to Washington at the time that Mr. Turner
was suspended on account of the difficulty that he had with Colonel
Harris.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was there a collection made at that time among the men?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much was collected?
Answer. I believe not much; $30 or $40.
Question. Did you contribute to that?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What was the other contribution?
Answer. It was to defray election expenses.
Question. How much was contributed in your department then?
Answer. I believe they collected $58 or $60.
Question. How was that contribution taken?
Answer. By the master painter.
Question. Did you contribute to that?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. Was the contribution general among the men?
Answer. I can't say whether they all contributed or not.
Question. Was that contribution general throughout the yard, in
other departments as well as yours?
Answer. Mr. Turner told me that his was the only department that
Mr. Searing had a claim on, on account of his being appointed through
Mr. Searing; and he thought the men employed in his department
ought to contribute to support Mr. Searing's election.
Question. Were there any other contributions or levies made upon
the men in the painter's department, to your knowledge?
Answer. None that I know of.
Question. Have you any knowledge of any particular cases where
men paid money to get employment under Mr. Turner?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. In what business are you now engaged?
Answer. In the painting business..
Question. When did you leave the navy yard?
Answer. On the 10th of this month, sir.
Question. On what account did you leave? was it voluntarily, or
were you discharged?
Answer. I was not discharged. I was requested not to answer to
my name, and to let my call run out. After three days, if a man does
not answer to his name, his call runs out.
Question. Who made that request?
Answer. Mr. Turner's foreman. He told me, on the 10th of this
month, when I came down to muster, that he had orders from the
Secretary of the Navy and the Hon. George Taylor not to retain me
any longer in his department; that I was not friendly to, or rather
that I opposed the candidates who were up for election, and who sustained the administration.




60                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. You thought that was wrong treatment, and did not like
it, I suppose.
Answer. No, sir. I thought it was useless for me to muster and
not to be put to work; so I complied with the foreman' s request, and
went home.
Question. When a master workman is guilty of misconduct towards
the men under him, what is their redress?  Or, if he is guilty of
misconduct in any way, what is the redress of the men?
Answer. I suppose it would be to report it to the commodore of
the yard.
Question. I understood you to have said that the master painter
had caused some of the paint to be taken out of the shop and carried
away to paint his own house. Is that correct?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is what I said.
Question. Were you cognizant of it yourself?
Answer. I was cognizant of the paint being removed from the shop.
Question. Did you report this to the commandant of the yard?
Answer. No, sir; I did not.
Question. Did you take any steps to have the matter reported to
the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Does it come within your knowledge that the master
painter has ever been reported to the commandant of the yard or the
Secretary of the Navy for misconduct?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. By whom was he reported?
Answer. By Colonel Harris.
Question. Was that the only case of which you know anything?
Answer. Yes, sir; that was the only case.
Question. That was for improper language to Colonel Harris, was
it not?
Answer. Yes, sir; it was.
Question. Does it come within your own knowledge that he has ever
been reported for levying contributions upon the men in the yard, or
for carrying away paints, or for abusing the privileges of his office?
Answer. I do not know, sir. I have heard it talked about among
the men. I do not know how far the thing may have gone, only from
the public rumors we have had.
Question. Then you do not know that he was reported for such
things, of your own knowledge?
Answer. Not to my own knowledge.
Question. Why did you not report him? Did you not conceive it to
be your duty, as an employe of the government, to take care of the
interests of the government?
Answer. I suppose it ought to be, but I was subservient to his
orders, and through that means I did not think that I should disobey
his orders.
Question. Did Mr. Turner himself take any part in levying the contribution upon the men for a gold watch? Did he ask you for any
contribution?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                      61
Answer. He spoke to me about it.
Question. What did he say to you?
Answer. He asked me if it was under way, and I said it was. He
said that he would like to have a watch.
Question. Did Mr. Turner ever use any threat in regard to the
matter? Did he tell you, or did he tell anybody in your hearing, that
if this thing was not done he would turn out the men?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. You spoke of some men who were sent at one time to
attend a primary meeting in Mr. Searing' s district, and you said some
of them were residents of the district and some were not. Did I
understand you to say that all of them were docked for their absence?
Answer. They were docked a quarter of a day.
Question. Can you give us the names of those who went, or such
of them as were not residents of Mr. Searing's district?
Answer. Well, sir, I am not in possession of their actual residence,
but those who went to this primary meeting were not all residents
of that district.  Some of them I am sure were not, because they
resided in the 17th ward; that is the ward in Williamsburg.
Question. Who were those who resided in the 17th ward?
Answer. There was John White, Thomas Craig, and a man by the
name of Crawford, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How are the men removed in that department?  Who
has the right to remove the men?
Answer. The master painter made out the list generally.
Question. Well, could he discharge a man?
Answer. He could discharge them individually for disobedience of
orders.
Question. What do you mean by saying that he made out the list?
Who did he make out the list for?
Answer. He receives orders from the naval constructor and the
commander of the yard; and if he has any more men in the yard than
he has work for, he is the choosing man, who shall be retained and
who shall discharged.
Question. Then he cannot discharge a man except for disobedience
of orders?
Answer. Or for want of employment.
Question. When there is a scarcity of work, does he give a discharge in that case?
Answer. He has the selection; and of those whose names are enrolled
in his book he discharges whom he pleases, and retains whom he pleases.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is his decision final, or does he submit his decision to
the naval constructor, and under him to the commandant of the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; he submits it to them after he selects the names
from the list.
Question. Do they have to approve it or not?
Answer. Yes, sir; they approve it.
Question. But suppose they do not approve it; suppose he makes out




62                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
the list, with certain men to be discharged, and submits it to the commandant and the constructor, and they do not approve it, what then?
Answer. In that case I suppose he would comply with their wishes;
but I have never seen his list contradicted.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You are not now employed in the yard, I understand?
Answer. No, sir; I have never been in the yard since the 10th of
this month.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You say that you have never seen Mr. Turner' s list contradicted; what do you mean by not contradicted?
Answer. I mean that, so far as my knowledge goes, I have never
seen Mr. Turner's list returned and objected to.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. When was this political meeting, to which eight or ten
men went from the navy yard?
Answer. It was shortly before the election, some three weeks or a
month; about October, I should think.
By the Chairman:
Question. How have you been employed since you left the navy
yard? Are you in the service of the government?
Answer. I was at work for myself at journey work when I was
subpoenaed.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What were the men engaged upon in October last?
Answer. On the work going on in the yard; some in painting boats,
and some in the spar shed and in the different departments.
Question. Was it in painting upon vessels that were fitting out for
expeditions, in repainting cabins, or any thing of that sort?
Answer. Yes, sir; there was some work of that kind.
Question. When a vessel is about to sail upon a cruise is there not
some painting to be done upon it?
Answer. Always.
Question. Were these men engaged to any extent in painting the
vessels going upon the Paraguay expedition?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When did those vessels leave?
Answer. At various times.
Question. Can you not tell when?
Answer. I could not give the date; I kept no calendar of them.
I was attending to my work in the yard at the time.
Question. As those vessels got off, the amount of business in each
department was diminished, I suppose?
Answer. Sometimes we had two of those vessels in hand, and
worked over time on them. The work was driven through in a hurry,
and the men worked nights on them.
Question. How did it happen that you were summoned here? Did
you voluntarily notify anybody that you could give information, or
were you sent for?
Answer. I was sent for, and served with a subpoena.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   63
Question. Before that time had you made known to anybody that
you could give interesting information upon this subject?
Answer. No, sir; there had been some conversation among the men
employed in that department.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Had you any conversation with any one upon the subject?
Answer. Not lately; I have in the yard.
Question. Since you were discharged?
Answer. Yes, sir, I have.
Question. With whom? With Mr. Allen?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know the gentleman.
By the Chairman:
Question. Who did you converse with about this matter?
Answer. I conversed with Mr. Berry about it once; I met him
the City Hall.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you say anything about these matters previous to
the time of your being dismissed from the yard?
Answer. I have not done so very publicly; but I have spoken to
men frequently about it, and men have spoken to me about it.
PATRICK FITZGERALD.
No. 9.-TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER WARD, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.
FRIDAY, January 28, 1859.
ALEXANDER WARD called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Mr. Ward, was you master laborer in the navy yard at
Brooklyn, at any time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When *as you appointed?
Answer. I was appointed in 1857; I think it was in September or
October of that year.
Question. Upon whose recommendation, what member of Congress?
Answer. Hon. Horace F. Clark.
Question. When did your employment there cease?
Answer. On the 15th of May, 1858, when I resigned.
Question. What was your position there?
Answer. I was master laborer to the constructing engineer.
Question. You had charge of the laborers employed in construce
tion?
Answer. A part of them; the ordinary laborers in digging out and
such work as that.
Question. You mean those employed in making improvements and
additions to the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many men had you under you when you went in?
Answer. When I went there, there were something like two or
three hundred men.




64                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. How many when you left?
Answer. Between seventy and one hundred.
Question. Who appointed these men, who named them?
Answer. I named them and the engineer confirmed them.
Question. What was the former practice in regard to the selection
of men in the navy yard?
Answer. Well, sir; it was supposed that the patronage was to be
given for the benefit of the democratic party.
Question. I will ask you what was the custom as to the division of
this patronage with regard to the appointment of these workmen,
among the members of Congress?
Answer. Previous to my going there, we had but one representative from New York, that was Mr. Kelly, and he had most of the
men in the yard.
Question. The appointments were recommended by him?
Answer. Yes, sir; he was the only democratic representative
before I went there.
Question. How was it afterwards?
Answer. When I went there, I divided them among the different
members of Congress as well as I could. Mr. Taylor had the majority when I went there, among the men, and Mr. Kelly had the
second highest number.
Question. Then you divided them among the members of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir; under their recommendations I appointed the
men they sent to me.
Question. How was that done? Were these recommendations of
the members of Congress in writing?
Answer. Many of them were in writing, but sometimes they would
come themselves in person and recommend a man.
Question. And upon this recommendation you would appoint the
man?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you examine into the qualifications or fitness of the
men thus recommended?
Answer. I could judge pretty well whether a man could handle a
shovel or a pickaxe.
Question. In your department there was not so much difficulty as
there might be in others; but how was it in the other departments?
Was there any examination as to the qualifications or fitness of the
appointees?
Answer. I do not know; I cannot speak except as to my own
department.
Question. Was there any dispute between you and the engineer as
to the right to nominate a man?
Answer. Yes, sir, there was. When I received the appointment
to this post, it was got through the solicitation of Mr. Clark. He
thought it would relieve him of considerable annoyance if I would
accept this place.
Question. And so you accepted it?
Answer. Yes, sir, I accepted it at his suggestion.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,                     81
By the Chairman:
Question. Were Commodore Kearney and Captain Rootes there at
the time you were there?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who were there when you first went into the yard?
Answer. Commodore Boorman and Captain Hudson.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. When did you leave the yard?
Answer. About ten months ago, I think.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was there any stealing of the paints or other stores of
the government while you were in charge of the painters' department?
Answer. No, sir; not that I knew of.
Question. Was any instance brought to your attention that the
public property was squandered or devoted to private uses?
Answer. No, sir: they could not take anything well there.
Question. Were the paints taken in that way?
Answer. No, sir. There was a man kept there to watch the shop
all the time. He was rated about the same as a second class painter,
and got some two shillings a day more than the ordinary laborers got.
He was required to have some knowledge of mixing paints. He was
what was called the shopman. There are a couple of men who are
employed in the painters' department who do not rate as painters.
We are allowed one or two laborers in our department. We always
have one to drive the paint mill, and generally pay him pretty good
wages, because it is a very unhealthy business, standing over the
paint all the time; and they do not live a great while. And we sometimes found it very difficult to get a man to attend to the business. I
think I, myself, raised the wages paid that man, because it was so
difficult to get any one to attend to that department.
Question. Were you ever requested to turn out a man on account
)f his politics?
Answer. No, sir. It appears to me, too, that I recollect something
of that kind, but who the parties were I do not now recollect.
Question. Who requested you to do it?
Answer. I do not remember.
Question. Did you turn the men out?
Answer. No, sir, I believe not; but I believe I discharged them
the next time I had occasion to discharge any afterwards; if I had
been imposed upon in relation to the politics of the men when I had
taken them on, I would have discharged them, because I would
employ none but democrats; if I knew an applicant was not a democrat
I would not employ him.
Question. Would you give the preference to a democrat who was
not competent over one of the other side who was competent?
Answer. No, sir, I did not say that.
Question. Do you mean to say that of two men equally competent
you would give the preference to the democrat?
Answer. Yee, sir; that is what I mean. I considered it my duty to,
6D




82                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
employ none but democrats, as I was put in there under a democratic
administration. They did so when the other party was in power.
When the whigs had charge of the yard no democrat could hardly
get work there. There are exceptions once in a while. When we
were in a hurry some of these men would get in, but we could not
tell about them at that time.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Are you sure that was done in the yard under the whig
administration?
Answer. Yes, sir, I lived just outside the navy yard and know
about it.
Question. Do youknow anything except from hearsay or from rumor?
Answer. I heard it from the men who could not get employment
there because they were democrats.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Was the Brooklyn navy yard well or badly managed up
to the time of your discharge?
Answer. I think it was very well managed.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
LEWIS W. BERRY recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. I will ask whether you received any testimonial from
the workmen while you were in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; I did.
Question. What was it?
Answer. A watch. I have it here with me. [The watch was
shown.]
Question. Do you know the cost of it?
Answer. I believe it cost a hundred dollars.
Question. I will ask you whether it was a general habit in the
navy yard for the masters to receive testimonials from the workmen?
Answer. Yes, sir; it had been done so previously for years and
years under former administrations; but I was in for nearly three
years before I received this.  I think I was one of the last ones who
received one, and this was got up unbeknown to me. I objected to
receiving it at first.
LEWIS W. BERRY.
No. 11. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL REILLY, NEW YORK.
JANUARY 28, 1859.
MICHAEL REILLY called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Were you ever employed in the navy yard in Brooklyn?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In what capacity?
Answer. As a workman, doing the duties of a clerk in the smiths'
department.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      83
Question. For how long?
Answer. For nearly twenty years.  From  the 21st of July, 1834,
to the 28th of September, 1853, excepting a very short interval when
there was nothing to do.
Question. Where have you resided since that time?
Answer. In Brooklyn.
Question. How frequently have you been in the navy yard or about
it since your discharge?
Answer. Very seldom.
Question. Who was the master workman of the blacksmiths' department when you left?
Answer. Mr. Merrifield.
Question. Is he master workman there now?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the mode of obtaining supplies in the smiths'
department while you were there?
Answer. Every year we generally made an estimate of what we
would require, and then contracts were advertised for, and we received
the articles under these contracts as they were required. It was not
binding upon us, so far as I understood, to take all that we estimated
for; but when we required anything the contractor was to furnish the
article at the price agreed upon in the contract.
Question. When you wanted an article not embraced in a contract
how did you then obtain it?
Answer. We would try to get it of some one at the cheapest
rate we could.
Question. How was it generally got?
Answer. Before Mr. Merrifield's time the way we used to do was
this: Commodore Renshaw was there, and the master used to send
me to different places to buy what was wanted.
Question. After Mr. Merrifield came there how was it?
Answer. We used to get everything on open purchase from George
Glazier. I do not know how it has been since I left.
Question. Were the articles purchased by open purchase at higher
or lower rates than those purchased by contract?
Answer. Always at a tremendous rate higher.
Question. What was the rate at which you usually purchased iron
on contract?
Answer. It was 3- cents a pound in 1853.
Question. What was paid for it by open purchase?
Answer. We paid 5} cents a pound, so I have given.
Question. Do you. know of cases where iron was bought on open
purchase at five and a quarter cents a pound similar to iron furnished
by contract at three and a half cents a pound?
Answer. Yes, sir, I know of that.
Question. Were' bellows" included in the contract for articles
for the smiths' department?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know of any cases where bellows were purchased
at a much higher than a fair and reasonable rate?




84                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. Yes, sir; we have bought them and paid for them double
the amount they could have been bought for.
Question. How much was charged for them at open purchase?
Answer. Seventy-five dollars each; or one hundred and fifty dollars
for two of them.
Question. What could they have been bought for?
Answer. Another manufacturer offered to furnish them for $65one of them for $30 and the other $35-making a difference of the
balance between $65 and $150.
Question. Was the contract you made for iron ever evaded in any
way?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How could that be done?
Answer. It is very easy to call for a size that is not in the contract,
say one-sixteenth of an inch different in some way, which amounts to
very little in regard to the strength of the work. The contract is
made for different sizes of the best American iron. If there is anything called for that is not down in this contract, that differs from it
to the smallest extent, then it can be bought at open purchase. The
master mechanic is at liberty to call for whatever size he pleases, as
he is supposed to be better able to judge of the size and strength of
iron desired than any one else about the yard can be.
Question. If the contractor agrees to furnish iron, say three inches
wide and five-eighths of an inch thick, any difference, of the sixteenth
of an inch, in the width or in the thickness of the iron would throw
it out of the contract, and then it could be bought on open purchase.
Is that what you mean?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know of cases where a slight change has been
made just for the purpose of getting out of the contract?
Answer. I know where such changes have been made, but I could
not swear that it was intended for that special purpose.
Question. Do you know of any case where a slight variation in the
dimensions was made, thus requiring the material to be furnished by
open purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir; there were 2,000 pounds of iron required for
hooping the spars of the frigate Congress; of this amount 1,835 pounds
were bought on open purchase.
Question. What was the contract price for iron at that time?
Answer. It was 31 cents per pound.
Question. What was paid for these 1,835 pounds?
Answer. Five and a quarter cents per pound.
Question. From whom were these purchases on open purchase made
after Mr. Merrifield came in?
Answer. From George Glazier.
Question. What business was he engaged in?
Answer. He kept a hardware store-what we call a ship chandlery.
Question. Were any purchases made of any one else on open purchase?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     85
Answer. No, sir; not that I know of. I was not long there after
that.
Question. Is Mr. Glazier now in that business?
Answer. No, sir; the last time I saw him he was in the custom-house.
Question. Do you know of any other mode of evading contracts
practiced in the navy yards?
Answer. There is no other way I know of except to call for that
not included in the contract when that which is included will do just
as well.
Question. You said that you would pay higher for articles bought
on open purchase than you would pay under contract; would you pay
higher than would be charged to private citizens?
Answer. That I cannot tell.
Question. Do you know whether or not there was a habit in the
navy yard of drawing pay for time when men were not at work?
Answer. I know nothing of that myself.
Question. Do you know of any cases where the property of the
government has been taken for private use?
Answer. Not to my own knowledge.
Question. Do you know whether any of the workmen or of the
officers in the navy yard had any interest in these purchases by open
purchase?
Answer. I could not swear to that, because they would not let me
into that secret, of course.
Question. What were the relations subsisting between Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Glazier?
Answer. 1 do not know, except that they lived close together, and
Mr. Glazier helped to get Mr. Merrifield into the navy yard, so Mr.
Merrifield told me, and he also said that he was determined to do all
he could to help Mr. Glazier while he was in there.
Question. When were the appointments of master workmen first
made by the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The first time I ever knew was by Secretary Henshaw.
Question. Previous to that time who appointed them?
Answer. I think the commandant of the yard recommended them
to the Board of Naval Commissioners.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Were they appointed by the department before that time?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is there any officer in the yard whose duty it is to inspect
articles bought by open purchase, to see whether they are good, and
exceed in price the same kind of articles elsewhere?
Answer. I believe there is, because Lieutenant Glenn, who is now
reinstated, told me that while he was inspecting officer some bagging
came in to which he objected because it was of bad material, and the
man who furnished it got into loggerheads with him about it, and he
came very near being removed.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Where do you live, and what is your present occupation?




86                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I live in Brooklyn; I have no occupation at present; I
have been a bookkeeper in the custom-house, but have been removed.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What are your politics?
Answer. I am a democrat.
Question. Have you always been a democrat?
Answer. Yes, sir; I voted for General Jackson; I have never voted
for any but a democratic President, or for a democratic candidate for
President.
Question. When were you removed from the custom-house?
Answer. On the 7th of August, 1858.
Question. This malpractice that you speak of as having occurred
in the navy yard, did you ever bring it to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. No, sir.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
MICHAEL REILLY recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was any levy made upon the officers of the government
in New York City for election purposes?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much?
Answer. I was taxed $20; Mr. C. C. Contrel was the collector on
the part of the democratic committee to obtain these assessments.
Question. How much was your salary?
Answer. It was $1,100 a year.
Question. Have you the paper making the levy on you for this tax?
Answer. I furnished it to a member of this committee. (See appendix
"A" to this deposition.)
Question. Did you pay this tax?
Answer. I refused to pay it, and did not pay it.
Question. What was the result?
Answer. I was removed; from what cause I cannot tell.
Question. Were any accusations made against you?
Answer. No, sir; I had certificates of good character given to me
by the collector, &c.
Question. Is this paper the ordinary form of a requisition? (See
appendix "B" to this deposition.)
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. State which of the articles on this requisition were to be
purchased upon open contract?
Answer. Eight dozen were to be by open purchase, and five dozen
by contract.
Question. This requisition is for files from 9 to 14 inches in length?
Answer. Yes, sir. This is merely to show the manner in which
contracts can be evaded by calling for articles not embraced in the
contracts.
Question. Were the articles called for here by open purchase
obtained in that way?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      87
Answer. No, sir; this requisition was sent back, and we were
directed to make out a requisition for articles in the contract. This
will merely show the manner adopted to evade contracts.
MICHAEL REILLY.
"B.'
No. 739.]                        UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
New York, August 13, 1853.
There is required under the appropriation for contingent for smiths'
departmentBureau of Yards and Docks1 dozen of 14-inch flat bastard files; Ludlam.
1 dozen of 14-inch half round files; Ludlam.
1 dozen of 13-inch half round files; 12-inch.
1 dozen of 13-inch flat round files; 12-inch.
1 dozen of 12-inch flat round files; Ludlam.
1 dozen of 12-inch half round files; Ludlam.
1 dozen of 11-inch half round files; 10-inch.
1 dozen of 11-inch flat files; 10-inch.
1 dozen of 9-inch flat files; 8-inch.
1 dozen of 9-inch half round files; 8-inch.
1 dozen of 13-inch half smooth files; X.
1 dozen of 13-inch flat smooth files; 12-inch.
1 dozen of 14-inch rat-tail bastard files; Ludlam.
13-inch not on contract.
11-inch not on contract.
9-inch not on contract.
8 dozen not on contract.
5 on contract.
WILLIAM  MERRIFIELD, 1t. B. S.
B. F. DELANO, M. C.
Approved:
CHAS. BOARMAN, Commandant.
Received from Daniel E. Delavan, naval storekeeper, the above
named articles.
N. B. LUDLAM, Contractor.
Figures not open purchase.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN.
BROOKLYN,                1856.
SIR: Your assessment by the above committee for the office of
clerk is twenty dollars.
N. B.-You will at once perceive the necessity of settling the same




88                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
immediately, in order to defray the expenses of printing, &c., preparatory to the coming election.
DAVID  C.. AITKEN, Chairman.
WM. M. IRONSIDES, Secretary.
WM. H. PECK, Ch' man Finance Corn.
JAMES SHARKEY, Sec'y Finance Com.
C. C. CONTRELL, Collector.
Mr. RILEY, W.. Register's Office.
No. 12.-JOSEPH SMITH, NAVY DEPARTMENT.
JANUARY 29, 1859.
JOSEPH SMITH called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your present official position?
Answer. I am chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.
Question. How many bureaus are there in the Navy Department in
Washington?
Answer. There are five.
Question. Will you please name them?
Answer. Bureau of Yards and Docks; Bureau of Construction,
Equipment, and Repairs; Bureau of Ordnance and Hydrography; Bureau of Medicine and Surgery; and Bureau of Provisions and Clothing.
Question. Are you at the head of the Bureau of Yards and Docks?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. When was this organization of the Navy Department
commenced?
Answer. In 1842, I believe, under the law of that year.
Question. Prior to that time what was the organization of the Navy
Department?
Answer. There was a board of naval commissioners, composed of
three captains in the navy, under the law of 1815, I think-the law
of 7th of February, 1815.
Question. What are the functions of the Bureau of Yards and Docks?
Answer. They are placed in charge of all improvements in navy
yards, machinery of the yards, and the rolls of the workmen have been
returned to the Bureau of Yards and Docks since 1846.
Question. What is the amount of estimates for expenditures for the
next fiscal year?
Answer. The amount is $3,273,711; the details of which are given
upon page 211 of the printed estimates for the Navy Department.
These estimates embrace not only improvements of yards and docks,
but improvements for the ordnance department, magazines, &c.; all
relating to ordnance buildings. Because these are located within or
near the yard, the estimates are submitted by the Bureau of Yards and
Docks.
Question. Please furnish a table of the annual expenditures of the
Bureau of Yards and Docks since its organization?
Answer. [See Appendix "A" to this deposition.]
Question. How much of the amount you have stated as the esti



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     89
mates for the next fiscal year is for improvements in yards and docks?
Answer. $2,001,827.
Question. Upon what basis do youmake up the estimates for these
improvements?
Answer. We call upon the authorities of the several yards to state
what they consider to be necessary for the improvement of their respective yards for the next fiscal year. Then the chief of the Bureau
of Yards and Docks examines these items and reduces them down to
what he considers to be absolutely necessary; then he submits it to
the Secretary of the Navy, and he reduces them; then it is submitted
to Congress, and the Committee of Ways and Means reduces them
again.
Question. Upon what pages in the printed estimates are the details
for these estimated improvements to be found?
Answer. On pages 223, 224, 225, and 226.
Question. How is work in yards generally done?  By contract or
by days' work?
Answer. The most of it is by days' work.
Question. Is any of it done by contract?
Answer. Sometimes we lay brick by contract; and we do the filling in with earth, &c., by contract.
Question. What further work do you give out by contract.
Answer. Sometimes if we have a piece of work to do like piling a
piece of ground for a building, we put it out by contract. But the
most of the work is done by days' work.
Question. Please examine the estimates for the New York yard, and
say which of the items in that estimate would probably be done by
days' work and which by contract?
Answer. The filling in of the new purchase would be done by contract; probably the boilers for the new boiler-house would be done by
contract; but they might not be, for if we could do it as well and as
cheaply in the yard we should probably do it there; some of the
machinery, perhaps, would be done by contract, if Congress should
appropriate this money; but in some of the yards we make a considerable part of the machinery used there. I do not see anything else
that it is likely would be done by contract.
Question. The balance would be done by days' work?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who designates what shall be done by contract and
what by days' work?
Answer. The Bureau of Yards and Docks, under the direction of
the Secretary of the Navy, would generally do it.
Question. What contracts have been given out in the New York
navy yard during the last year or two for improvements; say since the
4th of March, 1857?
Answer. I know of but three; one was piling the marine barrack
ground; one for reservoir, and the other was for filling in new purchase; two of these contracts were for material and labor, and one for
labor alone.  I suppose we have made fifty contracts for materials; we
are obliged to advertise for them, and take the lowest bid. In this
matter of filling we also advertised, and took the lowest bidder. And




90                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
this last year, 1858, we also advertised the piling this ground for the
marine barracks, and that was done by contract. I do not think there
was any work done besides that by contract. I do not remember
whether last year I did so, but sometimes I advise the commandant of
the yard to job out work by contract. He may have put out such
work as this, for instance, in building a store, he might say to the
engineer, "you will lay the brick of this building by contract," that
is at so much a thousand; sometimes that is done; sometimes it is
ordered by the bureau; sometimes it may have been done by the commandant of the yard, but I do not now remember any instance that it
was done in that way.
Question. Then, if I understand it, this item we are now speaking
of is simply for improvements, not for the repairing and equipment of
vessels?
Answer. I have nothing to do with the vessels; I have everything
to do with the docks, and all the improvements that belong to the
navy yards, exclusively, such as docks, wharves, stores, shops, ordnance buildings, and preparations for the reception of ordnance and
its protection.
Question. You say that the materials for the navy yards are furnished by contract; is not a portion of them  obtained by open purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir, it is very often the case that emergencies arise in
the navy yards, when you are obliged to buy byopen purchase. You
cannot always foresee all that you may want. All the heavy articles,
such as stone, brick, lumber, iron, and such things, are alwavs advertised and contracted for; and then there are a thousand things in
minutie which I have found it necessary to include under a miscellaneous contract-that is, to contract with certain parties that they shall
furnish, from time to time, certain articles, as they may be called for,
and further provide that they shall deliver an excess of the quantities
stated in the schedule, not exceeding a certain per centage in
quantity.
Question. Still are there not articles which must be obtained upon
open purchase?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is the proportion of articles obtained by open purchase and articles provided under contract?
Answer. I could not tell you, without an examination of bills.
There are a great many articles obtained by open purchase.
Question. I would like to have you furnish me a table in detail,
showing the amount of articles purchased upon open purchase and
the amount upon contract?
Answer. I could not do that without referring to the records and
the bills.
Question. Please prepare a table showing the amount of purchases
under your bureau by contract and by open purchase since March,
1857?
Answer. [See Appendix B to this deposition.]
Question. Do you ever purchase any materials except for improvements in yards and docks?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       91
Answer. No, sir.  Sometimes there will be considerable differences
in different years in the amounts obtained by open purchase. We do
not know always what machinery we may want; for instance, we
undertook to build a new engine for a sloop-of-war at Norfolk, and
found that we wanted machinery that was indispensable, we had to
buy it upon open purchase.
Question. Do you purchase no articles for vessels?
Answer. No, sir; I purchase various articles that come under the
head of contingents; stationery, tools, &c., for yard purposes are all
purchased under the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and used for general
purposes. 
Question. Who makes these purchases at open purchase?
Answer. The navy agent.
Question. Upon a requisition?
Answer. Yes, sir; always upon requisition made.
Question. What is the course pursued when an article is to be
obtained by open purchase?
Answer. The constructing engineer is charged with all improvements in the yard.  When any of the'master workmen under him
requires any material or tool, he makes a requisition for it, and takes
that requisition to the engineer for approval. If he approves it, it is
taken to the officer in command, the commandant of the:'yard, for his
examination and approval. If he approves it he puts his name to it.
It then goes to the naval storekeeper, who is the custodian of all these
articles until they are given out for use. The naval storekeeper then
makes a requisition upon the naval agent for this article, and this
requisition has also to go to the commandant of the yard for his approval. If he approves it, it then receives his signature, and is taken
to the navy agent, who purchases the article called for and sends it to
the yard, and there the article undergoes an inspection. A bill is
then made out, and the person who inspects the article certifies to the
quality of the article. The naval storekeeper then signs a receipt for
the article and receives it into the store. The commandant then approves the bill; it is handed over to the man who sells the article, or
to his agent, and hetakes it to the navy agent, where he is paid.
Question. The navy agent then purchases the article from whom he
chooses?
Answer. If not embraced in a contract, he purchases it under
an order, or he should purchase it under an order, from the Navy
Department, issued by the  Bureau of Yards and Docks, under
the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, to ask the contractor
who deals in the line of the article required what his price would
be for it-any contractor who furnishes articles of the kind required under contract.  For any article not embraced within the
schedule of any contract, the navy agent ought and is directed in
inquire of a contractor his price; also, to inquire of the contractor to
another navy bureau if there is any who deals in the same line; and
then he is required to ask the price of two other parties dealing in the
same line.  These are the instructions given to the navy agent; and
then he is to take the lowest bid of all these dealers and furnish the
article upon that requisition under these instructions.




92                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Do you not know that these orders are habitually disregarded, and that the naval agent buys where he chooses?
Answer. I have heard so. It has been reported to me (as chief of
the Bureau of Yards and Docks) that the naval agent has not observed
instructions in this respect.
Question. Do you know, from your official position, that such has
been done?
Answer. No, sir, I do not know it. I have heard of it, and I have
written to the navy agent in New York upon this subject.
Question. Please give a detailed statement of purchases made by
open purchase by the navy agents in New York and Philadelphia
since March 1, 1857.
[To this question the witness subsequently answered.]
Answer. To this question I am, as yet, unable to give the answer
in detail as required, involving as it does a transcript of every bill on
open purchase at the two navy yards named for the time specified.
The amount of clerical labor required of the bureau is more than it
can perform within some weeks.
Question. By whom were the complaints made that you have spoken
of, against the navy agent in New York?
Answer. I think, as well as I remember, the commandant has
written to the bureau upon the subject.
Question. Is that the present commandant?
Answer. No, sir; not the present one. He has only been there a
short time.
Question. Has Commodore Kearny written about it?
Answer. I think not.
Question. When was that complaint made?
Answer. I do not remember when. I think the amount of the
complaint from the commandant has been that articles appeared to
be charged too high; but all that you will have in the record of copies
of letters called for. I should not like to speak from memory.
Question. Who pays for these open purchases?
Answer. The navy agent makes the purchases.
Question. And the navy agent pays for them?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Can you state about the amount of disbursements in New
York for the year?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know what he pays for the other bureaus.
I could not tell you either the amount for the Bureau of Yards and
Docks, without reference to the record.
Question. Does he make all the payments for the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; for all the purchases, but not for labor.
Question. What would be the aggregate; how many millions, as
near as you could get at it?
Answer. I could not tell; I have not the means of answering that
question.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Does not the book give it?
Answer. No, sir; the bills in the Treasury Department, the Fourth
Auditor's office, show it.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      93
By the Chairman:
Question. Who was the predecessor of the present navy agent; was
it Mr. Swackhamer?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think it was. This order that I spoke of
extends back only a portion of the time of Mr. Swackhamer; I cannot
tell you the date, but when you get the correspondence called for you
Sill get the date.
Question. You do not remember the time, but perhaps you can tell
this: Was that order under the present Secretary or under his predecessor?
Answer. I think it was under his predecessor. It is a suggestion
that I made to the Secretary myself; he told me to give the order,
and I gave it, and he approved it. We always have more or less
complaints from people who are anxious to furnish the government
with articles for the use of the navy. They think one man furnishes
too much; and some will make a complaint on the ground that others
ought to have a chance to furnish, too.
Question. I will ask you whether purchases by open purchase are
not at a higher rate than purchases by contract?
Answer. Yes, sir; they generally are.
Question. How much higher-what per centage?
Answer. I could not tell. I would not like to venture a conjecture.
Question. Have any charges been made of collusion between the
storekeeper or the navy agent, and these venders, or either or any of
them in your department or I will ask you first in relation to the
navy yard at New York?
Answer. I do not remember any now; I do not know but there
may have been. I would not like to speak from memory, as I might
err,
Question. Have there been any in regard to any other navy yards?
Answer. Not that I recollect now; but there have been complaints
that purchases have been made from persons who, under the rule of
the department about furnishing without competition, were not entitled to furnish under this circular that I spoke of.
Question. Such complaints are made?
Answer. They have been made.
Question. Suppose there was an agreement or arrangement between
the vender and the navy agent, is there any mode of detecting it?
Answer. No, sir; there is not.
Question. A contract might subsist between this vender and the
navy agent, then, to give the agent a per centage on the purchases,
and you think it could not be detected?
Answer. I do not know of any way to detect it.
Question. One of the witnesses has stated something about an inquiry being made as to the amount of prices. Do you know anything
about that, when the bills came in afterwards to the storekeeper, of
an inquiry being made by the officer whether the prices were too high
or too low?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have heard that such an inquiry was made.
Question. Is that a part of the regulations or orders of the department?




94                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. The officer commanding I consider to be bound to see that
the prices are correct. I hold that the duty of the commanding officer
of a yard is to examine a bill himself, and not to approve it unless he
knows or believes the price to be a fair price for the article.
Question. Is there any such rule or regulation making it his duty?
Answer. That is understood, I believe.
Question. But do you know whether this is done or not?
Answer. I suppose that the commandant of a yard might have a
large pile of bills brought in to approve, and his attention might be
called off by officers, and his time otherwise taken up, so that he
might approve and sign these bills without scanning them  very
closely.  But sometimes they are inquired into, I know, if the prices
are very high.  This has been a question raised pretty often by
navy agents; it is an old question, as they have contended that the
commandant of a yard had nothing to do with the prices, although
the bill is paid upon his approval, and cannot be paid without it. As
soon as it gets his signature, it passes current; it will pass at the
bank sometimes, as security for a loan, after it receives the commandant's approval.
Question. You say that there has been a controversy upon this subject between commandants and navy agents?
Answer. I do. The question has arisen heretofore, but not lately,
as to the accountability of the commandant with regard to the prices
of articles. The navy agent says that he is appointed to make the
purchase, and he is accountable for the price. But that idea I have
contested, and say that the commandant's signature approves the bill
in all respects; it cannot be paid without it, and therefore he should
examine it himself, and see whether the price is a fair one.
Question. Has there been any division of that question by the Navy
Department?
Answer. I do not know that there has; the question has been
mooted.
Question. Do you not know that in practice it has been understood
that the commandant's certificate only goes to the necessity of the
article and the number of articles, and that the navy agent fixes the
price and makes the purchase? Is not that the practice?
Answer. Certainly.  The commandant approves the bill.  He approves first the requisition, and afterwards, upon that requisition, as
I have told you before the modus operandi of receiving articles, he
approves the bill; the bill having been first certified by the officer
under whom the article is inspected, the engineer, for instance, or the
naval constructor. The master blacksmith, I will suppose, is called
to inspect a piece of iron, and see that it is good iron, on which men's
lives can safely be trusted at sea; for in many cases men have to peril
their lives on spars and rigging in a ship, when their safety depends
en the quality of the iron. The master blacksmith then puts the
iron under inspection, and if he approves it he certifies that the article is good, and then the commandant approves the bill.
Question. Do you know who is the surety of the navy agent in New
York?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     95
Answer. No, sir; I never saw the bond.  I have heard that it was
Mr. Secor.
Question. Can you furnish me with a copy of the bond?
Answer. No, sir; it does not come to me; it goes to the Secretary.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. I don't know that I understood you distinctly upon the
subject of fixing the prices of articles bought in open market. Do you
know who does fix the price of articles bought in open market?
Answer. The man who sells them fixes the price.
Question. Who fixes the price for the government?
Answer. The navy agent.
Question. Do you know that to be the case practically?
Answer. The commandant's signature ought to control the price;
for when he approves it, then the bill passes.
Question. I do not understand what you say in relation to the
subject-matter of approval. When he approves, does he approve the
soundness of the article and the price, or one or the other?
Answer. I consider that he approves the kind and the amount of
article; that he approves of the inspection that the article has been
examined properly; and he approves that the article has been delivered, and he approves the price.
Question. And if the price was too high he ought not to approve it?
Answer. He ought not to. That is my idea of his duty; but, as I
tell you, the question has arisen between commandants and navy
agents on that very point.
By the Chairman:
Question. I want to get you, when you come back and undergo an
additional examination, to be able to state to us when that question
arose, and what has been the decision of the department upon it.
Answer. That I do not believe I could tell you; it is an old question, and has been brought up almost every four years in former
periods.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. When you see the approval of the commandant of the
yard upon a bill, do you consider that in your department a certificate
that the prices in that bill are those that are customary in the New
York market?
Answer. I do not always consider it so, because sometimes I make
inquiries to know if too high a price has not been paid for a thing.
Question. Then you do not consider that a certificate for the price
practically?
Answer. The commandant's signature passes a bill, and you cannot
go behind that.
Question. I want to know what your idea is. Do you consider the
commandant's signature as proof that the price charged is the proper
price?
Answer. Generally so. Sometimes we ask explanations why such
a thing costs so much. Sometimes we get a satisfactory answer, and
sometimes we do not.
Question. I understand you to say that you look upon the com



96                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
mandant'. certificate as a criterion of the proper price on purchases
made by the navy agent?
Answer. I do not look upon the commandant's certificate as conclusive; for I always want to know why such a price is paid by the
navy agent when I consider the price too high. Sometimes the commandant will say that he does not know the price of the article, and
in that way they may approve of things at high prices.  My construction of the duties of a commandant is, that he should satisfy
himself with regard to the prices of the articles before he approves
the bill. I do not think they always do that; for sometimes a large
]ile of bills comes in at once from the various departments, and there
may be twenty people calling upon the commandant on business in
regard to their duties, and in such a case he cannot scan these bills
very closely; and he considers that the navy agent is the one to make
the purchases, and he ought to see that the prices are correct. Now
I believe that they require the navy agent to state upon the bill that
the price is correct.
Question. He makes no examination or inquiry himself in the
market?
Answer. He does not often do that, I believe.
Question. Would it be possible for him to do it?
Answer. It would be very difficult.
Question. Then to ask him to certify that it was the lowest market
price would be asking an impossibility?
Answer. I think it would be asking too much.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You said a moment ago that it was the duty of the commandant to see that the articles were good and the prices correct; and
now you say that it is impossible for him to discharge that duty. How
do you explain that?
Answer. He may not always be sure about it, but he should satisfy
his own mind.
Question. Is the commandant an executive officer, whose duty it is
to look at the prices?
Answer. The commandant is not the executive officer the executive
officer has nothing to do with the prices.
Question. When you spoke of a complaint having been made to your
bureau in relation to misconduct on the part of the navy agent in disregarding instructions given, did you mean that formal complaints
were lodged, or did you mean that rumors had reached you on that
subject?
Answer. There were complaints in writing.
Question. Is it your duty, when such complaints are made, to investigate them?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you investigate these complaints?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. W/hat was the result?
Answer. I investigated them so far as to call upon the navy agent
for an explanation, and he said the prices were fair, and his expla



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      97
nation satisfactory. I required the navy agent to adhere to the direction
contained in the circular.
Question. Did you get any proof to satisfy you that the charges
made were correct?
Answer. No, sir; we never got any proof upon the subject, because
the bills were paid and we could not go behind them, and the explanation of the agent was satisfactory.
Question. Have any charges been made in form against the navy
agent, and been sustained by proof before your department, of misconduct in any respect, or failure to discharge his duties?
Answer. There has been a complaint made by somebody-some contractor-that the navy agent did not call upon contractors, in obedience
to the orders of the department, for their prices for articles in open
purchase.
Question. What was the result of your investigation about that?
Answer. The result was, to direct the navy agent to conform to the
order.
Question. You did not make an investigation of the truth of the
charge, but upon that basis gave new instructions to him?
Answer. I told him that charges and complaints had been made,
and that he must adhere to the order.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did you make any investigation of that charge?
Answer. I made no further investigation of the charge than to
write to the navy agent that complaints had been made that he did
not ask the contractors the prices of articles purchased in open market, according to the instructions of the department.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What are the comparative merits of the open market
system and the contract system of purchase?
Answer. I do not understand the question-merits in what respect?
Question. What benefits accrue to the department from the one
system, and what from the other? Where is there the greatest probability of getting a good article; under the open market system or the
contract system?
Answer. Under the open market system.
Question. How do prices compare under the open market system
and the contract system?
Answer. They are generally higher in open purchase than under
the contract system.
Question. In proportion to the comparative value of the articles,
under which system are prices most reasonable?
Answer. The prices by open purchase are higher, in comparison
with the value of the articles, because the contract requires a contractor to deliver the best article of the kind, such as will pass inspection, and the difficulty is to get a contractor to do it. That is the
great trouble with the system of contracts, that some contractors
seldom or never comply with their contracts, and you may report them
to the solicitor and sue them. That is the great trouble with the contract system, that they bid below the prices at which they can afford
to furnish the articles.
7 D




98                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. You say that they bid at lower prices than they can
furnish the goods. Then I suppose they furnish an inferior article?
Answer. The lowest bidder sometimes actually contracts to furnish
an article below the price at which he can afford to furnish an article
of the best quality.
Question. What is the result; what sort of an article does he furnish?
Answer. He is obliged to furnish an article that will bear inspection; and here is the great trouble. We want an article for immediate use, and he brings an article that will not pass inspection. The
consequence is, as we cannot wait for him to furnish a better article,
we are obliged to go and purchase it in open market; the difference
in price is charged against him, and you may recover it of him if you
can.
Question. What is the practical working of the system?
Answer. That I have stated is the practical working of it. The
contractors very often fail to comply with their contracts; and when
they do so, and you are in immediate want of an article, you must
purchase it in open market, and almost always at a higher price.
Question. From your experience of the two systems, which works
the best for the government in practical operation?
Answer. The contract system is the cheapest.  It furnishes the
articles for a lower price than you can buy them for in open market,
provided the contractors would always comply with their contracts.
My idea how to purchase to the best advantage for the Navy Department —
Question. That is what I want to get at.  What do you consider
the proper system, not in reference to men, but the good of the
country?
Answer. That is what I was going to say.  My idea of the best
manner of making purchases for all the supplies is for the department-the several bureaus-to ask responsible, reliable houses to
make an offer or proposal to the department what they will furnish
a schedule of articles for.  I would send this proposition out to none
but those whom I knew to be responsible, reliable houses; and then,
when they make their offers, I would take the best.  I think it should
be obligatory on the department in such a case to take the lowest
offer.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Would not that open the door to favoritism?  Could
you not send to houses that were favorites of the department or the
administration, and leave out others?
Answer. The public could judge of that.  Those persons are well
known who are responsible and reliable persons, and deal in certain
articles.  Take ship chandlery, machine establishments, and all
establishments of that sort, the government and the community well
know who they are.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Under the operation of this contract system, as you have
explained it-that is to say, it being the case that contractors fre



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      99
quently fail to deliver articles that will bear inspection-is it practicable to get rid of the open market system?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think it is.
Question. When contractors fail to deliver articles that pass inspection according to contract, you have no alternative but to buy in open
market?
Answer. If we want them for immediate use we are obliged to purchase them in open market.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Is it not a very common practice for bidders to be complaining to the department —disappointed bidders I mean  about the
giving out of contracts?
Answer. Not sir; I do not think they complain, because they have
all the bids before them to examine.  They can examine and see who
is the lowest bidder, for the bids are all open to them.  They very
often come to the bureau to examine the scales, and I show them all
the bids.
Question. You made some reference of that kind in your previous
testimony of persons complaining who were contractors, rejected
bidders, did you not?
Answer. No, sir.  What I said was this: I was asked whether
any complaint had been made by persons against the navy agent, and
I said that complaint had been made that the navy agent did not call
upon contractors according to the orders of the department for their
offers for articles furnished in open market; but I do not think I said
that rejected bidders complained. I have had no complaint, so far as I
am concerned, of favoritism in awarding contracts to improper persons,
because the law is strict and direct. Unless I could collude with somebody I could not do that; and, in fact, I could not do it then, because
the bids are all printed, and a man could not very well make a false
return in that respect.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. I wish you to state an instance, if there is one in your
recollection, as to the manner in which the department is sometimes
imposed upon by this mode of giving out contracts to the lowest bidder.
Answer. In illustration of some of the difficulties of the contract
system, I will mention one for stone which was to be delivered at the
navy yard at Norfolk by West & McCulloch.  They offered for the
schedule of stone to be delivered at the Norfolk navy yard, and they
were the lowest bidders; consequently the contract was awarded to
them. After the expiration of the first term for the delivery of the
first portion of the stone under the contract, no stone was delivered.
The authorities at the navy yard wrote to the bureau that the stone
was required, and the bureau wrote to the contractors urging them to
deliver it. None were yet delivered; and after the second term had expired for the delivery of the second portion of the contract-I believe
there were three portions of it-none were delivered then.  The authorities at the navy yard required the stone, and I directed them to
be purchased in open market on the best terms. At the same time I
wrote again, I think, to the contractors. Then a portion of the stone
was purchased in open market at a much higher rate than the contract




100                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
price. After the term had expired for the completion of the contract,
no stone had been delivered. The consequence was, that they were
reported for suit and suit was brought. Then the contractors petitioned
to Congress for relief. Another instance illustrating the contract
system was a case where the schedule required iron, iron nails, &c,
to be delivered at Norfolk. A large portion of the schedule was composed of railroad iron. The lowest bidder was Mr. Caps, or a firm of
which he was a member, merchants at Norfolk.  The railroad iron
was put in at eighty cents per ton, and the other articles of iron were
put in at prices perhaps double what they ought to have been; double
a fair price.  He being the lowest bidder for the schedule, the contract
was awarded to him; and it was a miscellaneous contract under which
articles were to be delivered as required. Seeing that this article of
railroad iron was put down at eighty cents per ton, and the other articles at two or three times their actual value, I directed the authorities at the yard to require all the railroad iron to be delivered at a
certain time, and a portion of the other articles. The authorities required them accordingly; it went through the navy agent. The contractor delivered all the other articles within the time specified,
except the railroad iron, and that he said he never meant to deliver.
Then he applied to the bureau for payment for the other articles
that he had delivered, and I directed the commandant not to pay him
until he had delivered the railroad iron. Well, then he catne back
upon the contract. The contract was made in conformity to law, in
which it states that, provided the contractor does not furnish according
to his contract, he shall forfeit as liquidated damages twice th, amount
of the price of the article that he failed to furnish.  Now he says, fall
back upon your contract and sue me; I am willing to pay $1 60 per
ton for railroad iron (which costs about $70 a ton;) but according
to your contract you must pay me for the articles that I have delivered
according to my contract.  Well, said I, if you can get any of this
money for the articles you have delivered before you deliver the railroad iron, I think you will have to go to Congress; and I have not
paid him to this day.  I supposed the amount of this money retained
for the articles delivered would be about sufficient to meet the excess
in amount that I should have to pay for railroad iron over his contract
price; but I do not think it will do that, quite.
Question. Then he made something off of you anyhow?
Answer. He did not make anything, because he got nothing.  The
government did not make anything either, but lost something. That
is one case out of many that could be mentioned.  Now, having
changed that clause in the contract, the contractor forfeits twice the
amount of the whole class.  The law requires us to schedule everything into classes.  We make the schedule into classes, and the
bidders offer for each class.
By. Mr.Sherinan:
Question. How many master workmen are there in the Brooklyn
navy yard,.,under theBureau of Docks and Yards?
Answer. l-cannot tell you now; I think there are seventeen. I
can tell you when..J I ok at the list.  The committee have made a call




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,                    101
which will give you every person.   I believe there are seventeen or
eighteen, but I cannot tell you precisely.
Question. I wish you to explain one matter about this contract system. I notice that John Wendell is contractor for a great variety of
articles, among which are stone, iron, hardware, and a great many
other things. Where does he live?
Answer. He lives in New York. He is a general contractor. He
bids for almost every class in every one of the yards of the United
States, and he gets a good many contracts, too.
Question. Do you know him?
Answer. I have seen him once.
Question. Is he in business in New York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who are G. W. Delano & Co.?
Answer. I do not know.  They keep a hardware store in New
York, I think.
Question. Do you know the firm?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Who is W. D. Kennedy?
Answer. He is a contractor for paints and oils.
Question. Is this G. W. Delano any connexion of one of the officers
of the Brooklyn navy yard, Benjamin F. Delano?
Answer. No relation that I know of. I do not think that he is.
Question. Do you know whether this John Wendell has a house in
New York?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Does he sub-contract the various articles for which he
makes contracts?
Answer. Perhaps he does. I think he generally furnishes the articles. Perhaps he sub-lets those that are not in his line of business.
Question. Were there any contracts made last summer?
Answer. Oh yes; all the contracts were made last summer.
Question. Is there any document showing the contracts made last
summer?
Answer. The list has been sent to Congress, but, I think, not ordered to be printed. I do not think they will print it. I do not see
why they should print all those bids there; it would make an immense
amount of matter in a document that I cannot see the use of.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. By whom are the master workmen in the navy yard
appointed?
Answer. By the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. Do you know how many changes have been made among
the master workmen in the Brooklyn navy yard during the last year
or two?
Answer. I cannot tell you without referring to the record. There
is a call from the committee for information which will show all that.
Question. How long has it been the practice for the Secretary of the
Navy to appoint these master workmen?
Answer. I think they have always been appointed by his sanction;
either by his direction or his sanction.




102                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Did not the old naval board have something to do with it?
Answer. I do not know. I said that the Secretary appointed them.
The appointments are made by the Bureau of Yards and Docks, under
the direction of the Secretary of the Navy.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you mean that such is the case at the present time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are those appointments made upon recommendations of
members of Congress for political reasons?
Answer. I do not know. I make the appointments under order of
the Secretary of the Navy. I do not always know what his reasons
are for giving the order.
Question. Have you anything to do with the naming of these master workmen 
Answer. No, sir; I only obey orders. I am merely an agent in the
matter of making the appointments.
Question. Then you do not pass upon the merits of these master
workmen?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Nor upon the applications?
Answer. No, sIT'
JOS. SMITH.




A   statement of the expenditures in  the several navy yards under  the different heads of appropriatioi   coming  under the
cognizance  qf the Bureau  of  Yards and  Docks since the  1st of  October,  1842, soon  after  the organisation  of the
bureau, with a general recapitulation.
iANVY YARD, iORTSMOUTHT, N. RH
Pay of superin-  Improvement of  Dry dock, basin,             Magazine.          Contingent.
tendents.            yard.                &c.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 -----                       $5,721 73          $4,325 36  ------------—...                                  9,418 33
For the year ending June 30, 1844. ---------- --           -         5,721 75          32, 369 47  ------       -- ----                             14, 332 79 
Do-           do -.. —- 1845 —,- _~..-.....                    7,653 77           21,468 33  —.... —----—. —----------                       8,282 50 
Do --—.. —do --—.-       1846 -....._   - -                  7,649 99           11,269 80 — --------------------------                       3,301 63
Do         — do ---—.1847...    - -7,049 99                                     9,700 20  -----------                                       3,365 64
Do -------— do —.- -— 1848 —--- --------                      7,606 15           32,126 36  ------—... —---                                 13,618 20
Do —.. —— do —--— 1849                 -------                7.652 46          48, 044 51         $61,044 93  ----------------              127890 
Do --------- do —----— 1850..-..... -----                      7,653 87           51,060 68         251,760 32         -     -    -15,755 52
Do      -........do. —--— 1851 —-----------.7,899 99          18,074 07         186,751 03  -------------                 10,218 19
Do -... -— do - l. —-1852 —----      ------           9,539 98           32,155 55          98,783 30               -— 13,132 13
Do —---   do -----— 1853 ----—....          9,611 71          31,281 28          149,889 91                                18,708 79
Do     ---   do.- 1854 —---  9,430 13                                           70,140 76            2,142 75               -— 20,324 25
Do-...-. —   do...       1855... —-----..-                11,192 55           58,771 95            4,481 82               -— 26,760 75 
Do -.. —-- - do.-.... 1856 --- -.- --—.                12,056 50          38,828 24             2,545 80            $499 17            28,428 69
Do -........do --— 1857    - - -                   12,046 00           25,549 73            2,994 39          19,107 61            17,001 11
Do —-—.. —— do... — 1858............         11,761 33          94,018 94            4,808 59           23,515 61            38,096 91
140,247 90         618,185 23          765,202 84           43,122 39          253,534 53
- 




STATEMENT-Continued,
4JAVY YARD, BOSTON,
Pay of super-  Improvement           Dry dock.       Magazine.          Hospital.      Contingent.
inteadents.       of yard.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 —-.    $10,480 00                        $30 261 31                      ---  -                $5,754 85    $18,028 54
For the year ending June 30, 1844 —........-..... 7,918 56                      44,486 40        -'                   $384 69             63 24      35,202 85
Do —           do,..... 1845. -.-.. —. —.       ]1,180 00         27,762 96        c..^o  17 84                            46 92       34,351 68
Do....        do.-     1846                           11,180 94        32,215 42 -    1                        160 56         2,506 10       29,131 61
Do... —.. —do -----— 1847 -.... —-_         -         11,020 00         40,806 63        mcoQ                  624 86         3,543 77       36,265 62 C
Do -------— do —... —     1848 ---—.. —,         10,700 00         97,226 75  44 83                                      3,592 77       63,843 60    >
Do ---—.....do..-.   1849) —. — --—......            10,700 00         81,556 56        =                     397 80         1,801 95       57,651 93
Do             do. ——.- 1850 —--------------            10,700 00       115,567 93         O S    p              332 49         1,411 81       52,835 07 
Do..-..  -,.  do-  1851. -  --                  --       10,700 00        118,863 19             3  780 86                       1,352 34       56,493 45
Do ——. —-. do-.            1852 —...-..-......         11,000 00         79,637 41                              173  10          703 32       50,768 40
Do. —-.         do ------ 1853.- -.           - -        11,135 01         29,88337                                34 05           65370        43,316 89 
Do. ---    -- do ----- 1854 -------------                 13,220 57         46,689 88            75 705 47                        1,658 95       44,664 02
Do-  --—. do --—.- 1855 -, —---—. —--                  13,722 05         84,962 14       "                      904 23         1,227 29       43,136 52 K
Do — -. —-- do.-__-,-  1856-   ------                     14,477 31        171,007 88 |                        1'  13,165 55      6,019 61     43,494 59 
Do. ----- - do -----— 1857 — ----—. —         -.         14,815 92       211,923 89..  5,650 57   7,922 08       60,976 46    ~
Do.....-. do -... —- 1858-... -. —--—.  14,815 94       394,236 87                            2 2,353 03       11,489 63       52,143 40 
187,766 30   1,607,088 59  ------              -     25,729 93         49,748 33    722,304 63




STATEMENT-Continued.
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK.
Pay of superin-  Improvement    Dry dock.          Magazine.        Hospital.    Contingent.
tendents.       of yard.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 —---       ----   $11,183 36       $31,086 11    -$4,231 20   $24,189 64
For the year ending June 30, 1844~-      ----- -            9,016 94        38,171 83........                                8,154 82      31,150 00
Do —---       do. —---- 1845.. —. - —.-_ -          10,701 38       46,645 29    $123,628 14            $233 41       10,841 67      35,850 00
Do. —... do -----— 1846, —- —.                      10,691 79       50,912 20       159,448 61           170 05       14,210 67      23,755 67    o
Do ----— do -----— 1847 --            ---      -      10,170 20       65,411 75       278,308 74           226 28       23,058 59      14,495 51   ~
Do —-----.do ---—. -1848 ---            -----       10,604 16       46,332 32       289,563 07           919 98       19,187 04      27,210 59 
Do —---— do -----   1849 —-----           --          10,700 00 o363,801 13           297,889 75            97 87       11,474 79      32,648 51    k
Do -------—.do -----— 1850 ------        ----—.   10,699 97        102,615 98       522,948 51           453 32       10,912 04      39,162 81   Z
Do —-----— do -, 1851   ------— 10,699 99                     24,869 70       366,933 61           278 06        1,610 92      35,136 63
Do —-, -.     do. —--- 1852 ------           -       11,000 00       51,191 49        79,961 12            64 02        6,281 62      35,184 80 
Do. ——,. —do —. —-- 1853 —-----— 11,124 92                         179,842 57        14.241 94           548 12       13,093 91      48,085 44 
Do ----       do -.. —-1854 —------------             14,266 14      240,151 34  -------—. —.          2,552 29        32,040 64    46.150 81
Do --------— do ----— 1855 --------- -—..            14.670 00      240,586 81                        24,224 26         2,688 12      48,076 66 
Do --------— do —  --- 1856.. —------------           14,702 67    330,325 80                          63,812 74        11,308 81      68,435 30 
Do ----       do ---—..1857     ------              15,845 27      321,459 36 -----------—.    24,216 30             11,700 21      66,715 12   t
Do -----— do ---—..1858 —------------                16,606 30      391,535 27 ------    35,485 57                     24,223 73      63,526 98
192,683 09  2,524,938 95  2,132,923 49           153,282 21      205,018 78    639,774 47
A The expenditures for improvements at New York in 1849 embrace $285,000 for the cost of additional ground.




STATE MENT-Continued.
NAVY YARD, PHILADELPHIA.
Pay of superin-  Improvement Dry dock, basin,   Magazine.            Hospital.    Contingent.
tendents.        of yard.           &c.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 —.-,-               $, 431 56        $3,810 13                                         $3,448 95       $6,682 60
For the year ending June 30, 1844. —----               -      7,695 87       11,992 90  -------------------                        273 11      14,300 00
-Do ----- -— do --—...1845. ------ -                   7,700 00         4,463 85    —....                                   784 61      12,005 30
Do —------ do ----—.1846  ------                       7,226 49         8,920 97  -- — 4,317 26   0
Do —-- ---— do ---—.- 1847  — _        -----           7,100 00         4,016 55.    -    — 7,865 96 
Do ----— do. —---— 1848-                -.      7,100 00        29,759 96        $6 091 61                                        16,968 64 
Do, -------— do  -—...1849 ----            ---         7,099 92        22,379 76        77,706 56                                        17,342 02
Do —--- -.-do —----— 1850 —---- ---                     8,200 00        55,989 16       353,655 51 -17,490 21 
Do..-.-.-  — do. —--— 1851 —        --------           7,200 00        41,650 43      234,785 82.                                        16,331 89 C
Do --------— do. —-— 1852 —------                      9,700 00        52,969 50       159,600 84                                        13,465 08 
Do -      -do -----— 1853 -------                      10,514 99        34,423 08    --                                    4,636 98        9,421 84
Do —..,....do --—.-.-1854-                11,141 16        32,418 86.......                        14,457 10       13,040 81
Do —--- do -----— 1855 ---   ----                      11,660 00        54,213 94.. —----...                 8,061 95       17,550 66
Do -------— do.. —-1856 -------                      11,360 00        40,303 62                       $16,762 78         4,066 01       17,879 12 
Do ------—, do -----— 1857 -----—,.~.. —.           12,415 99        50,527 43  -_ —-- -               2,918 11         8,900 28      27,171 12 
Do  -—....- do —----- 1858 —--------------            11,606 00        71,519 60  --------— 9,373 76                     12,336 69       28,720 69
142,151 98      519,359 74       831,840 34        29,054 65       56,965 68    240,553 20




STATEMENT-Continued.
NAVY YARD, WASHINGTON.
Pay of superin-  Improvement    Magazine.             Hospital.      Contingent.
tendents.        of yard.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 -—....          -       -----       $9,504 14       $17, 822 79                                         $32,448 18
For the year ending June 30, 1844 —------------                              6,680 00         8,462 32           $47 60                          33,549 70
Do -------— do -----— 1845 ——. —-----             -------              6,680 00        12,914 84            55 13-                         34,269 50 ~
IDo.. —--— do ----— 1846 —-----------------                           6,630 00         9,893 31             70 72  -         -19,979 80    0
Do ----.do ---- 1847 —-----                                            6,770 68        14,042 99           109 07  ---       ----          30,661 39    ~
Do -----—,..do -—. —— 1848 -           -     --                       6,680 00        30,154 29           118 54          $100 00         50,352 22 
Do -------— do --—. 1849.- -             ---------                 12,430 00        29,287 75            163 49            85 64         66,284 06    z
Do. —---— do —----— 1850              ------------------------      13,080 00        38,962 28            183 72             5 25         48,965 10 
Do -----— do --— 1851 ----                --------         ---        12,892 59        45,608 86             92 22            52 63         53,389 60    z
Do —------— do —----— 1852                      ----     -— 13,498 88                   95,163 66           114 55            76 18         56,500 93 
Do ------— do -----— 1853-.. ——. —-—.-.. —--- -.                                                   3. 14,351 00  117,166 03  145 93  106 38  44, 648 02
Do.. —---— do —----— 1854 -----               --                      16,897 83      137.943 94          1,196 49            18 00         51,857 48
Do —------— do —          1855                                        20,050 00       220,150 75          3,857 77                          49, 356 77
Do —------- do ----— 1856 —-----                 --------             20,350 00       142,949 98          6,780 83  ---       ----          73,822 02    d
Do -------— do. —-- 1857 —------                                     20,410 79       179,126 78          6,390 69            77 60         80,501 37   t
Do -------— do -...-.-1858 —-----            -----     -------        20,000 69       185,853 63         22,866 74           228 30         86,430 43
206,906 60   1,285,504 20          42,193 49           749.98       813,019 57
-..




STATEMENT-Continued.
NAVY YARD, NORFOLK.
Pay ofsuperin-  Improvement    Dry dock.             Magazine.        Hospital.      Contingent.
tendents.        of yard.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 —---                  $6, 940 81      $33, 752 70   -----                       ----      $6,976 34    $17,595 00
For the year ending June 30, 1844-_          _ —-     --      12,112 99       22,723 27        O   D           --                  6,857 82      17,075 00
IJo -----     do d —--— 1845 —. —-—.-. —              11,176 30        34,323 40                            $31 50         1,656 47       20,804 00 
Do -------— do -----— 1846 —-             --- -         11,180 00        29,865 41        1                    286 25        2,073 20       15,497 21 
Do -------— do.-,...11847  1,180 00                                     55,640 84       -                      38 13        2,457 73       20,041 05   0
Do ------— do -----— 1848 —                             10,563 34        33,910 12               1 E                         2,928 97       60,251 90 
Do —------— do -----— 1849 --          ---    - -       11,207 87       147,280 80              O           1,148 45            580 97      43,840 72
Do —, -.... do —. —— 1850 —--------------             11,030 00        89,362 54       Z  O                 468 81            510 28      37,300 58 
Do —------— do ----—.1851 —-----                       11,015 10        86,642 49        1" t              1,238 83         3,526 92       54,885 98
Do --—.. —-do -----— 1852 —------                -     11,695 74        64,867 02          ~          - -                   3,995 52       53,770 82 
Do -     _- -.do -----— 1853 —----              ---     12,794 99        67,516 88                      ---  -.              4,417 89       39,153 39'
D)o. —-----— do -----— 1854 -----            -          11,651 30       135,520 89       "n=  M                              7,15061        46,99163 
o ---         do --       1855    ------------          33,986 21       192,627 41                     ------                4,315 62       46,486 68 
)o —------— do —--        1856 ------                   14,876 48       252,33  80                          3 ~a  3,741 80   2,235 89       45,630 92 
Do —-----— do —---— 1857 —-- -----                      15,330 87       324,156 96              U                                                         W4,64959  10,95268  52,89224
Do -----— do —--          1858 ---- -----               15,466 00       396,456 51          -= o           40,253 69        16,47108        80,430 16 
192,308 90   1,971,981 04  ---          ----        51,857 05        77,107 99    652,647 28




STATEMENT-Continued.
NAVY YARD, PENSACOLA.
Pay of superin-   Improvement Dry dock, basin,  Magazine.               Hospital.       Contingent.
tendents.         of yard.             &c.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 -- —,             _      $4,076 27       $15, 625 01 | —|| —------------ —.....                 $779 09         $9, 304 00
For the ytar ending June 30, 1844 —------                         5,750 00          5,033 32  ------            -      ----—.         3,326 1           13,800 00
Do -------— do ----— 1845.-. —---— _.._                     7,250 00        36,352 87 -           --- -—.1....-_         1,298 35          15,305 71
Do --------— do ----—.1846 --            ---      -       10,150 00         61,61)8 04   --...... —.      20 227 63          17,613 45 
Do ------— do -----— 1847 ---------—..-_ _                  8,291 82       100, 905 02   --  -----                              23,519 86           9,593 95 
Do ------— do -----— 1848 -            ----- -               7,296 85       102,563 60         $1,092 03  ----                   20,485 18          33,967 81
Do —------— do -—, —-1849 -----—. -, —---                  8,885 03       202,950 34        109,607 39  ----          ---       7,325 84          31,178 05 
Do ------— do ----— 1850 --------------                      8,977 05       212,607 66        182,581 10  ---       --— 5,177 01                    40,552 48 
Do ----        do ---— 1851. —------ -            -        9,000 00        192,413 70        203,874 89  ------ -                  977 10          25,010 17 
Do -----— do  ----— 1852 ---              ----— 12,300 00                   145,933 20        184,578 90.. —--            3,116 84          26,993 11
Do —-----   do —----— 1853  -------------                   12,299 92       111,368 25        235,997 35.-. —-          11,498 54          27,509 16 
Do -------— do  ----—.1854 -------                  -     13,399 91        146,855 90  ---------------------                    13,793 88          28,550 85
Do --------— o -----— 1855 —--------------                 12,143 86        185, 891 85        11,705 00  3-0, 685 37                               24,107 96,
Do —-----— do-           -- 1856 —------             -     12,321 38        199,240 12         10,000 00    $8,285 97            15,085 36          34,192 51
Doo ------- do —----— 1857 —-----------                     14,986 81       148,427 02  ---- ---                1,050 38         11,280 11          36,386 46    t
Do — (-         o -----—.1858 -----------—.              16,290 33        165,890 66  ---- ----—.-              107 38         9,819 11          48,702 24
163,419 23   2,033,666 56          939,436 66        9, 443 73       178, 405 38        422,767 91
C0D




STATEMENT-Continued. 
NAVY YARD, MIARE ISLAND.........................           BLYTHE       SACICETT'S
ISLAND.      HARBOR.
Pay of superin-  Improvement    Dry dock,          Magazine.   Contingent.
tendents.        of yard.        basin, &c.
From October 1, 1842, to June 30, 1843 —-- -----------—.. —---—.... -....                  -------—.. —---
For the year ending June 30, 1844 —-                                                                               -         -----------
Do  _ —. do ----— 1845 ----- -----------                                                    -------- -                                    $726 46 
Do ----— do- —...1846 —. —-. —------------ ------                                   -       -       -        -       3,394 79 
Do -----— do ------  1847 ---------- -----, ——.-                     - -.  ---------— 465 81    0
Do.- --- do —-  1848.. —--------—.  5,057 88 
Do     -.....do    -...1849.............:..2,093 22    F
Do —------ do ---— 1850-. --------.-                                       --------------------            ---            1,824 14 2
Do ------ do ----— 18 51 —----.. 7 —-— ~ —.   ----------------------------------- ------- -                                                739 83 
Do ------— do —----- 1852 ---- -----                          --------    $247,050 00                 -     ------------ -                1,668 70
)Do - d5 do       183.                    -$103,236 08  338,550 00                                          -----                          131 32 
Do-do...... 1854 —--  $4, 135 35.. —----------
Do -------— do ----— 1855 —.      4,095 58      252,594 89       270.000 00       ------------— 1,972 81 
Do ----—.    do —----- 1856 —-----          13,185 75      443,113 15       304,400 00                   $55,214 14                        271 08
Do ------— do -----— 1857 —---               17,221 20      173,207 68    "290.000 00  $15,798 97    69,266 46               $85 37         708 67   t
Do —----— do, —--— 1858 ——.-               18,117 59      396,990 46        16,576 04    70,068 49   106,666 70 t130,479 48             1,172 02
56,755 47   1,369,142 26  1,466,576 04    85,867 46  231,147 30   130,564 85               21,226 73
" The expenditures for improvements at Mare Island in 1853 include the cost of the site, $83,491.                 t Cost of site, $130,000.




GENERAL RECAPITULATION.
Portmout,   Boton.   New York. Phifadelphia,'Washington    Norfolk.    Pensacola.MrisadBlteld SkttsGndang,
N.. 1-.                                                                                                                  Harbor        gate.
14.      2 440                                                                               790   43..............  I.............      36   53  5
For the year enldi),) June 30; 1844..        74    F666485 59    302188        4,7962        5,79
I~.....do.........]1845..   37, 401 57    73, 359 40   27, 899 89 I24,953 76     53, S19 4 7    67, 991t 67 I60,206 93 I.............
Do..........do........1546.. 2~9'2  4 7 51 94 63   959 ]$8t 99l  20,464 7'2 ]36,573 83    585 9W2 07 [109,609 12 [................... 3~ 394 [.     585,549 57
Do..........~do......... I 47._   20,115 83    99?l 60$88   391,671 07I ]$,9R' 51 ] 1 5F54 1 3    89..357 75I 149,310 65[...................   465 8     806,748 63
Do......... d o......... 1848..   53,350 71   175,407 95   393 817 16I  59 9'20 21I  87 405 05   1lt'2 654 33I 165405 47].....9..............I507                  /,5~17
Do.........do....... 1849...129,531 00   152, 1CS 24   716,612 05I ]24,52826I 105~950 95I 9044958 81   3591'946 6 5......~,.......]203 ~~9~9
Do.......... do......... 1850..  3'26,230 39   180,847130   G86, 79263I 435,334 88I 101 i96 35   138,)672 91I 449, 895 30..............[09 1~824 i 7973' 193908
Do.......... do.......8 5 2 ~2,943 9-8   1588189 84   439, 52g91] 299.968 14I 11'2 035 90[ 157~039 7-956............./.....                             1184514,32 99108
Do.....do.....1852.. ]53,610 96   142'298223   183,683 05] 235'734 92/ ]65:. 73  8320   1343290  372995/94                                          991 00 /86
D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 0322 5$4,8 o..........0 1,7636,633963
d o..........]o...853.. 209,491 69    85,0'-3 02   9-66, 936 90[  5S:996 89, 176",417 36 [123,a83 15[ 398,673 912   441~,786 CS                     1,131 3,62396
Do —.......do......... 1854..  10-~037 89   106,938@89   a35,161'2 [  71,057 93   20   1   4 211   3 22605    ~                      3   5............[13,199
D,....do......... 1855.   101,207 07   14,3,95  23   330.245 79{  91,486 55]  M93415 99I 257,4159'2  264, 534 04/ 5i-6,690 47......1  7   t200901 
Do.......... do........1856]'   82,25@ 40I -,48164 94   488 15853'2 [90,871 53   943,90  83[ 318.818 89] 279,15)534[ 815,913 04......P
[Do.......... do......... 1857../  76,698 84   20 01, 2@8 99-  439~,936 26 [10t,9$'2 93 [  86,510 9't i  407, 982 34   21  1,130 78                          271549 8l,""~7511 37.o.......... do........    /90   S 45088                  3,3'  51                                                             56,9   j        $53         0   7232786
19 @.20 —  292 899 ~592,637 78 5,848,630 99 /1,819,9'~5 09'2, 348,1273 85 29,945,801 36 [37719 4[39988 53 1130564
3,747,39 463,20  48  3  3,  4  321, 226 73  4,483,981 54




112                          BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
SCHEDULE B.
Statement of the amount of purchases, under contract and in open market,e
at the several navy yardsfrom  Maarch 1, 1857, to December 31, 1858,
on account of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.
Navy yards.                        Under contract.  In open market.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire ----------------—...             $88,707 90        $34,497 29
Boston --------- ----------- -                              339,332 78        170,275 03
New York -- ---------                 ---- ---               294,656 84       174,426 41
Philadelphia. —----—. —-.-. —-.-. —----—..    95,426 10                     67,045 30
Washington -— _      ----        - --------                  121,220 71        96,006 30
No folk-.-_-  ------------------—. —---                    169,415 14       217,091 16
Pensacola-                                                   101,841 95        18,159 25
San Francisco ------     ------—. —-—. —-—..             204,888 79        162,344 15
Total --------            - ------          -      1,418,490 21        939,844 89
In the amount of purchases in open market is embraced the cost of coal, (a heavy item.)
as well as large expenditures for heavy tools and machinery, such as lathes, planers,
dredging machines, &c., besides bills of freight, advertising, gas, postage, &c., in short, all
purchases at the several navy yards n)t covered by contract.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                                     113
SCHEDULE C.
Statement of amount of labor expended at the New York navy yardfrom
March  1, 1857, to December 31, 1858, under the following heads of
appropriation, under the cognizance of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.
Years.                    Improvement    Contingent.    Magazine.
of yards.
1857.
March -- —, —-- --- ----                      $13,726 08        $4,333 74       $1,080 66
April —... —------—. —..... —--—.-    16, 276 85     3,286 90          926 72
May —-. ------           -    -- --             23,373 78         3,849 15          761 85
June  ------         -...- --          21.948 25         3,833 76        1,159 39
July —---------—.. — -                         22,475 20         4,478 82           900 87
August ----       -----------                   24,500 22         5,293 53        1,534 37
September -—.. —-... —. —---------             23,123 02         6,186 79          946 57
October —. —... —-.... -—,                   24,831 68         6,219 67        1,882 31
November -   ------ ---- --               -     19,090 73         4, 677 11       2,850 88
December         -------- - —. —-----          10,621 23         2,982 79        1,020 68
199,967 04       45,142 26       13,064 30
1858.
January -      ----           ----- -    9,609 69    2,282 88                        372 47
February      -------- --        ----     -       7,205 39         1,740 71          529 42
March —- -----            --      ------          8,124 58         1,612 59          650 67
April -— 9 —--—,-...                             9,085 68         1,494 11          148 73
May --...... —-   ---------—.....-....        12,218 77         1,646 66          569 36
June..... -. -     --------    --    --        13,795 00          1,500 14          916 34
July -------             --- — 18,466 07                          5,725 63           514 41
August —-------------— 22,066 76                                   6,727 02          153 68
September --------- ----                        21,230 06         4,610 44           585 53
October --------------                          20, 679 30        4,471 01           266 50
November ------           ------          -     21,689 37          4,209 17          227 50
December --         -------      - ----         17,068 23         4,676 05            37 50
181,238 90        44,686 41        4,972 11
RECAPITULATION.
1857 -----           ---------— $199,967 04                     $45,142 26    $13,064 30
1858 -     ------------       - ---            181,238 90        44,686 41        4,972 11
Total                                   381,205 94        89,828 67       18,036 41
NAVY DEPARTMENT, February 8, 1859.
SIR: In compliance with the order of the committee requesting the
Secretary of the Navy to inform the committee " upon what vessels
of the United States repairs have been made at each of the navy yards,
and the amount and character of expenditure upon each, since the 4th
of March, 1857," I have the honor to transmit the accompanying
papers, which furnish the desired information.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN,
Chairman Special Committee, d&c., House of Reps.
8D




j3tatemeM  of the cost'of building and repairing vessels of the United States navy, from  the 1st of March, 1857, to the,
present time. 
NAVY YARDS.
Name of vessel.
Kittery.     Boston.     New York.  Philadelphia. Washington.   Gosport.   Warrington. Mare Island.
Pennsylvania      ----—... —---—.... —--------—.                                                   $6, 716 00 —----------------------
Ohio ------------ — $857 05 ---.. —---—.. —--...                                         ---—.. —--------------------
North Carolina —---------- -----------                         $8 345 06                  -----------------------------------------
Independence        ----— $3,390 15   0
Constitution -                   $255,832 18.... *-...
Cumberland                     ----            161,085 33 —----------------------                                --------      - 
Savannah  --------------------                                320,711 66 —           -----------       ---------------------------- 
Sabine.                58,082 95                                -.
Constellation. —34,11107                                          999 86 -.-...... ----------------—. —---------------------------- 
Macedonian                     ----            168,078 60 -----.............................. -------------------... —--
Saratoga-. 3,942 86Saratoga --    ------------ ------------------------------------                                      41,734 90 —--------------
JohnAdams.......... —-----------.                                         44,617 71 —---------- ---
Vincennes —   120,898 18                                                                                -..
Falinouth-                         11,737 87
Vandalia-                 -        79,330 58 ---                          ------------- -------- --                ----        --      --
St. Louis    --— 130,864 80. —                                                           -       -
Cyane. —--. 64,795 17
Cyane. —                         -        —.   1,495 68                                                  -_
Portsmouth                         78,435 44- 
Plymouth'$4,349 29
Plymouth -               -          -......... -------                              14, 125 95  5,620 67 
St. Mary'sto                        -- -                     -.-... —..41,302 14
Germantown              --—.  — 45,868 20




BMaaridge -— o —--------------. —------ - ---— _ —---  --— _ —------ ------------   -------..85,090 64    -------------
Daleas-^' -_-_ —---- -----                  -                                 - - ---- -                                     --...4 1,549 8-7-.._._
Preble ------------- 173 -----------— 4 —---    0, 34:6 90 -1, 91-2 69.CoPrebleorado —-...                                   12,968 18 —------------
aPreble —--------------—...- ----------------------—. 17,3273 72                                                                           -- ----
Dolphin ---------------          —, 2201 78  -------------------------- -------                                                   --------------
Dolphince —--—,-  51150 71 -----------------------. —---—.  --------
eBainbridge —-------------------------------                                                                         4 ------------------------------------— 40,753 93 —------------
Perry —------------------------ ------------                         --..        --------— 41,414 64ennimore Cooper —--------------------------                -------------------------------------------                               6, 191 76
aRelief s- -- ------------—. —         ----------------— 18,013 58-                                                             ------------ 
Relief —-----------     -.. — -    -.             7, 203 22                  
Relief —------------------------------------------- -     -                  81 61-                                   -       -       -        -
aSupplyn- --------------------------— 12, 442 55 ------------
Supply —----  --------                              ------------        11,719 38  -         -----------                  ------------ ------------
-------------------- 118 22   5,797 10 ---------------
1Release —--—, — - 1698 64: -......   _.   _ 
1Release —-------- 1,112 45 — --                                                                                                      ------
Niagara —----------— 1,062,422 44 —................ — - - --. _ —
Niag5ara —----- --                              -56,572 04 -                  _.................. -— _ —Niagara —----- -                                           -             6,607 07 -_ — _ -.Powhatan —-----------------------------------------— 211,446 08  -------------




STATEMENT-Continued. 
NAVY YARDS.
Name of vessel.                                                                                                                                        ~ 
Kittery.        Boston.        New York.   Philadelphia. Washington.   Gosport.    Warrington. Mare Island.
Saranac ---         ------------           ----    ------------------ -                  $157,025 19   -------    $3,754 97  ----. —........
Fulton....... —-----------------------—...                         --------—.. —-----              -- $14, 698 06        4,483 19  ---.-....-....- __
Water Witch -------------------                                --- --      -. — -—.         --   23,256 90  —.. —.
Water Witch,-      -..........               ---- -----            - -----   --                    ---    4,297 02. —----- - -              —..-... - 
Water Witch —-.....-..... —-—... —-------------—.............. —-..   16,549 38            5,589 50  ---------- -- 
Princeton -......... 18,602 17 -....................................
At Boston --. —         ------- ---               -- $93,955 05-. —. —.-... —-... —..-....... —---—. —. —. —-. —-—.... —At New York-. —-   $42,192 92 ---------   ----- ------- --------- ------
At Philadelphia, No. 1........ —---—.. —-. ---—. —-... —.. ——... 125,751 33  --               --- ---------- ----               - ---- --- 
At Philadelphia, No. 2 —-----     --------                              ---   ---------    11,425 30  ---        --         --- -------- -—.At Kittery -—.-  -. — -                $73,918 43   - --
AtGosport ----..... —-                                   ------ --- --- --. —--                            -_       -- 115,708 70  -------- --------
At Warrington-_-                -        ----       ------------            ---------              ------------------- -                 $25,3336 99  ------------
At Mare Island        -          --------                           --      -----            - -         ------      --------------------------    $9,696 14
And at Washington.                                           t Paid Mr. Westervelt.
The reports of repairs of ships that are not accompanied by details of worl. done are incomplete, and the full accounts of expenditure are not yet
on the files of the bureau,




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      117
No. 15.-TESTIMONY OF LAWRENCE COHANE, NEW YORK.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
LAWRENCE COHANE called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Were you master carpenter in the Brooklyn navy yard at
any time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long were you there, and when were you discharged?
Answer. I was there from the 1st of June, 1857, to the 9th of
June, 1858.
Question. Upon whose recommendation were you appointed?
Answer. Hon. John B. Haskins.
Question. How many men had you under your charge when you
went in?
Answer. I think there were eighty-three when I went in.
Question. How many when you left?
Answer. About twenty, I think.
Question. State whether the number of men was too great for the
work when you went in?
Answer. It was, sir.
Question. Why were you removed?
Answer. I cannot state positively; I can only speak to the best ot
my judgment.
Question. Well, then, state according to the best of your judgment.
Answer. I think it was on account of Mr. Haskins' course on the
Lecompton question.
Question. There were no charges made against you?
Answer. I think not; I was never notified that any were made
against me.
Question. Who was your successor?
Answer. John Ross, of Brooklyn.
Question. What office did he hold at the time he was appointed?
Answer. He was one of the assessors of the eleventh ward in
Brooklyn.
Question. After he was appointed master workman did he continue
to hold that office?
Answer. I think he holds it yet.
Question. He has held it, then, since he was appointed?
Answer. Yes, sir, to the best of my belief.
Question. What were his duties as assessor?
Answer. For three or four months in the year he has to stay at the
Brooklyn City Hall from ten to one o'clock, to receive parties who
complain of over assessments, or anything of that kind, and another
portion of the year he has to go around and assess the property.
Question. What time did he arrive at the navy yard?
Answer. Between twelve and one o'clock, I was told; I was not
there. I have not been there much since I left,
Question. What was his salary as assessor?
Answer. About seven or eight hundred dollars per year,




118                   BROOKLYN NANY YARD.
Question. What is his pay as master workman?
Answer. Three dollars and a half per day.
Question. Upon whose recommendation was he appointed?
Answer. Mr. Taylor's, I believe, sir.
Question. State whether the amount of work done at the navy
yard by the workmen is as great as that done by workmen in other
places?
Answer. It is not, sir.
Question. What is the proportion?
Answer. Not one-half, as a general rule; there are some exceptions.
Question. Why is that?  Why cannot a man do as much work in
the navy yard as when he is at work for a private citizen?
Answer. I do not know; they don't do it.  Perhaps it is because
the poorest workmen are generally backed up the strongest politically,
and the masters dare not discharge them. If they do, they lose their
places themselves.
Question. How  are the workmen appointed; on whose recommendation?
Answer. The master recommends them, and the chief of the department-either the constructing engineer or the naval constructorsigns the master's recommendation, if he approves of it; and then the
recommendation is sent to the commodore of the yard, and he approves of it or not.
Question. Who names the workmen to the master workman?
Answer. Members of Congress generally; they send letters. Sometimes other parties name them, but most generally members of Congress.
Question. Suppose a master workman refuses to appoint those who
are recommended by members of Congress, what is the result?
Answer. If the member insists upon it very strongly, they generally
do it.  I have been threatened to be turned out of the yard if I did
not appoint certain men who I knew were not worth half the money
they would receive.
Question. Who threatened you in this manner?
Answer. Mr. John Cochrane made such a threat to me by letter.
Question. Have you the letter?
Answer. I have it, but not here; it is in New York.
Question. I will ask you to send that letter to me by mail.
Answer. Yes, sir; I will do so.-(See Appendix.)
Question. State other cases of threats, if you know any.
Answer. That is the only case of threats that I know of. He said
that if I did not employ these two men he would make charges
against me, and have me turned out. That threat was made, if I am
not mistaken, before I was a month in the yard.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Did you appoint them?
Answer. Not then, sir. I appointed one of them afterwards. He
insisted upon following the matter up, and I did appoint one of them
some two months afterwards.
By the Chairman:




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,                       119
Question. State whether men were recommended to the master
workman and appointed who were not carpenters.
Answer. Yes, sir; that has been done.
Question. How frequently was that the case?
Answer. It was frequently done when I went into the yard first;
but Captain Rootes checked it after I was there some three or four
months.  There were some eight men enrolled when I went there
who were not carpenters, but they did other duties, such as clerks or
runners for some of the departments.
Question. Were these clerks and runners employed and rated on
the pay-roll as carpenters?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Then they did not perform the duties of carpenters?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Were any men appointed by you detailed on other duty?
Answer. Only one as carpenter's clerk; that is, among those that I
had charge of. Those other men who were rated as carpenters and
employed as clerks I had nothing to do with.
Question. I will ask you whether any contributions were levied
upon the men for any purpose?
Answer. Not upon the carpenters during my time.
Question. Were there upon the other men in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. For what purpose were these contributions levied?
Answer. For watches, sometimes. Mr. Turner told me had a collection made among his men to pay his expenses to Washington at one
time; he told me so himself.
Question. Who were these watches and other testimonials given to?
Answer. Mr. Turner received a watch.
Question. Who else?
Answer. Mr. Merrifield, I believe, received a breastpin.   Mr.
Hogg, the master caulker, also received a breastpin, I think.
Question. Was this a general thing, this practice of receiving
testimonials?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.
Question. Who contributed to them?
Answer. The men under their employ.
Question. You say this was a common thing?
Answer. Yes, sir; the most of the masters had watches, breastpins, or something of that kind presented to them, I believe.
Question. Were there any other contributions for political purposes?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. There were none during your time?
Answer. No, sir, there were not.
Question. You left before the election came off, I believe?
Answer. Yes, sir; before the last fall election.
Question. How  did you obtain materials and supplies for your
department when you needed them?
Answer. Once a year there was a schedule made out of what it was
thought would be required for the year; and if there was anything




120                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
required which was not in the schedule it was got upon open purchase.
Question. In such cases what steps did you take to get articles
upon open purchase?
Answer. I made out a requisition of what I wanted and sent it to
the constructing engineer's office, for I was in his department; he
signed it and sent it to the commodore, and it was then sent to the
navy agent.
Question. And the navy agent purchased the article?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And you received it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did it go into the hands of the storekeeper?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you give receipts for the articles as you received
them?
Answer. No, sir; it was there in the storehouse for us to get as we
needed it; we did not give any receipt for it.
Question. I will ask you from whom the articles were obtained on
open purchase?
Answer. Our requisitions generally went to Mr. Secor.
Question. Do you remember his first name?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.  Requisitions for lumber sometimes
went to Wesley Smith and Wm. Campbell.
Question. Were the persons who furnished on contract the same
who furnished on open purchase?
Answer. Not always. Wesley Smith furnished very little on contract. Mr. Campbell furnished on contract a good deal.
Question. Do you know of any relation existing between Wesley
Smith and the navy agent; whether he was connected with him, either
directly or indirectly, in business?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. Was any public property used for private use?
Answer. Not out of my department.
Question. Was any so used out of any of the departments?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.  I only know of it by hearsay.
Question. I will ask you whether it was not a common practice for
employes of the government to do little jobs for themselves out of the
materials belonging to the government?
Answer. I have understood that it was.
Question. You do not know of it yourself?
Answer. No, sir. I never made a dollar's worth for myself while
I was there.
Question. You do not know anything about this matter except from
hearsay?
Answer. No, sir. I have heard that it was so, and I am satisfied
that it was the case; but I do not know of any specific cases.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                            121
JANUARY 31, 1859'
LAWRENCE COHANE recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. I will ask you whether the officers of the navy yard, the
constructing engineers, &c., were efficient in the performance of their
duties; and if not, what cases of neglect have been brought to your
knowledge?
Answer. The commodore I was not brought much in contact with
-Commodore Kearney.  Captain Rootes was the captain pro tern.
most of the time I was there. He was one of the most efficient officers I ever saw; and if the navy yard and the shops belonged to him,
and everything doing there was by contract, he could not have taken
more interest in it than he did.  Mr. Delano was a very efficient
officer; he is the naval constructor.  Mr. Graham was not as attentive; I mean in comparison to Captain Rootes; he was not there so
many hours in the day as Mr. Delano. But Captain Rootes was extraordinarily attentive.
Question. I want to call your attention particularly to whether you
know of any neglect or remissness of duty by the officers of the
yard.
Answer. No, sir; I do not know of any.  I will state that, in addition to those I have already mentioned, Lieutenant Worden was
also very attentive to his duty. But Captain Rootes was particularly
so.  I could not speak too highly of his attentiveness while in the
yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What time did you leave there?
Answer. On the 9th of June, 1858. I went there on the 1st of
June, 1857.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
LAWRENCE CORANE recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Turner, the
master painter, in regard to a requisition that was made for glass;
and if so, what was the substance of it?
Answer. I had a conversation with him; I was making out a requisition for glass, and he asked me to put in two boxes, 10 by 12, to
send down to his place on Bay Side, where he was putting up a house.
I do not know whether he said it in joke or not.
Question. What reply did you make to him?
Answer. I laughed at him.
Question. What further did he say about it?
Answer. He said that I might do it as well as not.  I replied,
"You are a pretty fellow, ain't you."  That was the very reply I
made.  "You are a pretty fellow, ain't you, to ask me to make out a
requisition for glass to be sent down to your building."
Question. Did you do as he requested?




122                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. No, sir, I did not; I did not think he could be serious
about it.
Question. Would there be any difficulty for a master workman in
the navy yard to make out a requisition for more than was wanted in
his department, and to apply the excess to his own use-any difficulty
according to the present mode of doing business in the navy yard?
Answer. If the man was dishonest, I do not suppose there would
be any difficulty.
Question. If I understand it, the articles obtained on requisition,
after passing through the hands of the storekeeper formally, go into
the possession of the master workman; is that so?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is there any further account kept of them after they go
into his possession?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. If they are then applied to private uses, is there any
way in which that could be detected?
Answer. No, sir, unless it was seen.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How could he apply the excess without difficulty to his
own use?  How could he get it out of the navy yard?
Answer. Of course I mean anything that he could carry out the
gates secretly.
Question. What articles could he take out without difficulty and
apply to his own use?
Answer. There are various things that a man could take outvarious small articles that he could put in his pocket.
Question. Name some of them.
Answer. A man could take out locks and bolts-copper bolts, for
instance. In fact, I know of two cases where men were stopped at
the gates and searched, and copper bolts found in their pockets.
They were stopped by the officer at the gate and locked up for
having copper bolts in their pockets.
Question. Is there any one who has charge of these articles from
the time they go into the navy yard until they are used?
Answer. The naval storekeeper has charge of them before they
are delivered to the master workman.
Question. Well, after that; is there not some one who is directed
to keep his eye upon them?
Answer. The master workman has a clerk, or an assistant who acts
as clerk, who does the writing required in that department, and
keeps the books of the master workman, and he has charge of these
things. He has these things generally in the room or office where he
does his writing, and gives them out as they are required.
Question. How  could that matter be remedied?  What further
checks could be had to prevent the possibility of appropriating things
to their own use than you have shown now?
Answer. They might do so by being required to give an account
to the chief of that department of the material they have on hand and
the material they use, giving this account daily instead of monthly.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        123
Question. They do it monthly now, do they?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do not the accounts show whether all the materials that
have come into their hands have been used in the yard or not?
Answer. I do not know.  These accounts, so far as I know of them,
are hardly ever examined; at least they are not examined very critically.
Question. Whose fault is that?
Answer. I would suppose it was the fault of the chief of that
department.
Question. Whose fault would that be in the case you refer to of the
locks and bolts?
Answer. The constructing engineer has charge of that department.
The copper bolts were taken from the naval constructor's department.
Question. Do you mean to say that he is negligent in the performance of his duties?
Answer. No, sir, I do not mean to say that. But there is a general
looseness throughout the yard, I think, not in his case particularly,
but in the case of the others, also.
Question. Did y"ou testify of your knowing of any property being
applied to private uses?
Answer. I know of nothing except from  hearsay, nothing of any
consequence.
Question. When were you turned out?
Answer. On the 9th of last June.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were you under the naval constructor?
Answer. No, sir; I was under the constructing engineer of the navy
yard.
Question. When you drew any articles from the naval storekeeper,
any materials for use, did the naval constructor examine them?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he never have anything to do with them?
Answer. No, sir. The naval constructor had nothing to do with
them.
Question. Did the constructing engineer, the chief of your depart
ment?
Answer. No, sir. It was the duty of the assistant constructing engineer to price the articles and see whether they were exorbitant.
When the articles came into the storehouse, those which I may have
called for for my department, I would go to the storehouse and would
ask if Mr. Hastings, the assistant constructing engineer, had passed
them; if not, then I would have to hunt around and look him  up,
and get him to come and examine them, and pass them before I could
get them from the naval storekeeper. Sometimes he will have examined and passed them before I go to the store to see if they have
come; and in that case I could take them  right away. Generally
speaking, it was necessary that he should look at these articles and
price them and pass them.
Question. The requisition is first made for these articles?




124                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Does the constructing engineer or the assistant constructing engineer have a general requisition over the work under
him, and the use of the materials under him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Suppose he was an efficient officer, would there be any
opportunity afforded them to squander the materials and misuse them;
or if it was done, would he not be able to detect it?
Answer. He would, generally speaking; but you must recollect,
however, that the works in the yard are very extensive.
Question. Were the constructingineer and his assistant efficient
officers?
Answer. They did their duty so far as circumstances would admit,
so far as my knowledge goes. The constructing engineer urged me to
get along as fast as possible with the work.
Question. You spoke the other day of a letter you received from
Mr. Cochrane; have you that letter with you?
Answer. I think it is in New York; I am satisfied that it is.
Question.. You then stated, I believe, that Mr. Cochrane had written
you a letter, saying that if you did not appoint a particular man he
would have you turned out?
Answer. Yes, sir; that he would have charges made against me,
and have me turned out.
Question. Did you appoint those men?
Answer. Subsequently I appointed one of them. I did not at that
time.
Question. Did you find him to be a competent mechanic?
Answer. No, sir, he was not.
Question. What did you do with him when you found him to be
incompetent?
Answer. I retained him, of course, under the circumstances.
Question. When was it that you appointed him?
Answer. It was in August or September, I think; and I would say
that he was not the only incompetent man I had.
Question. In what year did this take place?
Answer. In 1857.
Question. You did not appoint the other man you was requested
to appoint?
Answer. No, sir, I did not appoint him just then; and I received
some more letters from Mr. Cochrane.
Question. Did you ever make complaint to the commandant of the
yard, or to the Navy Department, that these incompetent men were
forced upon you?
Answer. No, sir, not to the commandant.
Question. Did you complain to any one?
Answer. Yes, sir, I complained to the constructing engineer; he
was the chief of my department, and I communicated it to him.
Question. You reported to the constructing engineer that you had
an incompetent man?
Answer. Yes, sir; I had several of them.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       125
Question. What reply did he make?
Answer. He was not in favor of having these men employed there;
but the inference was that if these men were strongly backed with
political influence they would have to be employed there. That was
the general impression throughout the yard.
Question. Do you know  whether the constructing engineer made
any statement of the matter to the commandant of the yard?
Answer. I do not.
Question. And you do not know whether it was ever reported to the
bureau that there were incompetent men employed?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.
Question. Who is the constructing engineer?
Answer. Mr. Charles K. Graham.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Cochrane did lodge information against you before the department?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Were you ever informed of any charges made by Mr.
Cochrane against you?
Answer. No, sir. I was informed that he went to a certain individual in his district, and got a certificate from this individual that
this workman whom I refused to appoint was a good workman; that
this individual stated that he gave this certificate because he wanted
a favor from Mr. Cochrane, though he knew at the same time that the
man was not a good workman.
Question. Do you know that he made the statement to Mr. Cochrane that the man was incompetent, and that he was giving a false
certificate?
Answer. No, sir; I understood afterwards that he said the man was
incompetent; this was afterwards told me by a friend whom he told.
Question. Do vou know whether you were ever arraigned by the
competent authorities above you upon any charges made by Mr.
Cochrane against you?
Answer. Not that I am aware of.
Question. You were never called upon to answer any?
Answer. No, sir.
Mr. Chairman, there was one question you asked me the other day,
I should like to explain a little further. You asked why there was
not that amount of work done in the yard that was done outside. I
will explain why I think that is so. It is owing to the political influences which govern there, and which is an essential detriment in
getting employment there, instead of ability, mechanical skill, and
meritorious conduct by the performance of duty; these are generally
not recognized in a man.
By the Chairman:
Question. Will good mechanics of either party apply for work in
the navy yard, if they have to ask for these political influences?
Answer. It is very rarely that they will do it. A good workman
will not follow a politician up for a job. It is the poorest who
harass them the most.




126                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you say that the work done in the yard was not so
good as that done outside?
Answer. I did not say that.
Question. What did you say?
Answer. I said that there was not one-half the work done in proportion that there is done outside.
Question. I understood you to say, in the course of your examination, that persons were taken in who were not good mechanics?
Answer. Yes, sir, I said so.
Question. State whether the character of the work done-I am not
now speaking of the amount of work done-is not better than that
done outside?
Answer. No, sir; it is not so good, generally speaking.
Question. Do you say the character of the work is not so good?
Answer. It is not, generally speaking.
Question. You say that a good mechanic will not take a recommendation to the navy-yard?
Answer. No, sir; I do not say that.  I say that, generally speaking,
a good mechanic will not follow up the politicians in order to get employment in the yard.
Question. Were you a good master workman in your department?
Answer. I would prefer to have some one else answer that question.
Question. Did you follow up any politician to get your place?
Answer. I never asked for it; I never sought for it; I never knew
anything about it until the appointment was made.  I am no politician.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. How long were you in the yard?
Answer. From the 1st of June, 1857, to the 9th of June, 1858.
Question. Were any charges made against you before you were
turned out?
Answer. -Not that I am aware of.
Question. Did you ever hear of any being made?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know for what you were turned out?
Answer. As I stated before, I could not state positively; but, to
the best of my judgment, it was on account of Mr. Haskin's course
last session in regard to Lecompton.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Who recommended men to you for employment in your
department?
Answer. Members of Congress.
Question. What members of Congress?
Answer. The New York members.
Question. What members, particularly, of the New York delegation?
Answer. Some of them recommended more than others.
Question. Who recommended the most?
Answer. Mr. Taylor had the largest number of men in my department while I was there.
Question. Were they there when you went in there?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      127
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who made the most recommendations to you to put in
men?
Answer. I think when I first went there I had more men from Mr.
Taylor's district; afterwards I had more men from Mr. Haskin's district. But I had men from all their districts: from Mr. Cochrane,
Mr. Haskin, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Searing, Mr. Horace F. Clark, &c.
There were nine members among whom I intended to divide the appointment of men in my department. It was stated to me that it
was the wish of the department to proportion the men employed
there among the members of Congress.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who stated that to you?
Answer. Several persons stated it to me.
Question. Name some of them.
Answer. The constructing engineer stated it to me.
Question. Did Mr. Clark ever recommend anybody to you, either
in person or by letter?
Answer. Mr. Clark never sent but one letter to me; he troubled
me less with letters than any of the other members.
Question. How many did he recommend to you?
Answer. He sent but one letter to me.
Question. Did he recommend anybody in person?
Answer. He sent one or two men to me by Mr. Alexander Ward.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Where are you now stopping?
Answer. I am doing business in New York City.
LAWRENCE COHANE.
NEW YORK, June 13, 1857.
Mr. COHANE: Mr. Cullen tells me that you are to take men on on
Tuesday; now I ask you to take him on and the others I have asked
you to take on. I will have my proportion of men under you; if you
do not give them I will lodge charges against you. You have turned
away all the men but one from my district already. Of this I have
complained to the Secretary, and now, unless you rectify this injustice, I
will make application that you be turned out. The bearer will bring
me an answer.
Yours, &c.,
JOHN COCHRANE.
No. 17.-TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MERRIFIELD, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD'
JANUARY 31, 1859.
WILLIAM MERRIFIELD called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Mr. Merrifield, what is your present occupation?
Answer. I am a master blacksmith.
Question. In the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long have you been there?




128                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. It will be six years on the 29th of April.
Question. How many men have you usually had under your charge?
Answer. The general average will be about eighty men.
Question. There are smiths, helpers, and laborers in your department?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who selected the men under your department?
Answer. Previous to a year back, I had the selection of them.
Question. During the last year how have they been selected?
Answer. Indirectly, I have not had the selection.
Question. What was the mode of selecting them during the last
year?
Answer. It was by members of Congress recommending them to us.
Question. State whether or not you were compelled to appoint
those named to you by members of Congress?
Answer. I was, sir.
Question. By what means were you compelled to appoint them?
Answer. By threats that if I did not do so I would be discharged.
Question. Who made those threats?
Answer. Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Kelley; the others did not.
Question. State whether any disputes arose between members of
Congress in regard to the division of the patronage in your department?
Answer. I presume there did; there was considerable wrangling,
as I have heard.
Question. Don't you know it to be a fact?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the character of the men recommended by
members of Congress to you?
Answer. Nine out of ten were an inferior class of men.
Question. Men who had been active in political matters?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And recommended on account of their standing or influence in the party?
Answer. It was pretty much so, sir.
Question. What effect had that upon the power of your department
to do effective labor?
Answer. It was very injurious to me, sir; it deprived me of the
power of conducting the work in the manner that I should like to
have conducted it.
Question. State whether or not the men recommended to you were
skilled in the trade of blacksmithing.
Answer. They were not in most cases, but there were some rare
exceptions. In the first place, a good mechanic will not humble
himself enough to go to a politician to seek for a job of work, as his
mechanical qualifications will always recommend him, and he can
always get employment.  But these fifth rate fellows who cannot get
employment outside, will make themselves very influential with poli.
ticians for the purpose of getting employment in the navy yard; and
hat is the class of men that is forced upon us the hardest. I would,




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        129
at any time, thank a member of Congress for recommending a good
workman to me, for it would be a pleasure to employ him.
Question. Were there men sent to you by members of Congress as
smiths who had no experience at all in the trade?
Answer. There were some who had very little experience, if any,
particularly in our line of business. Men have been recommended
to me who were very good carriage smiths and very good horseshoers, but who knew nothing about steam engines or the ironing of
ships. Our work is very heavy, and it requires long practice to learn
it so as to be experienced in it.
Question. Were these difficulties brought to the attention of your
superior officer?
Answer. Yes, sir; I always did so; I reported it to the naval constructor and to Captain Rootes, time and again.
Question. What did the naval constructor say when you reported
it to him?
Answer. He said he was sorry for me, but he could not help it.
Question. Was you informed where these orders emanated from?
Answer. It was reported that they emanated from the Secretary;
it was his order to distribute the patronage of the different departments.
Question. Do you know that?
Answer. I do not know it; I have heard so.
Question. Did the naval constructor say anything to you about
where the orders came from?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. When you made complaint to Captain Rootes, what did
he say?
Answer. He said he saw it, but he could not help it.
Question. Where master workmen refused to appoint these men,
what was the result?
Answer. As I before remarked, we got threatening letters at times;
it was not always so; some members of Congress would not write a
letter of that kind.
Question. Have you letters of that character with you now?
Answer. I have none with me, but I have them at home.
Question. I will ask you to send us some by mail, directed to me,
and I will attach them to your deposition.-(See appendix.)
Answer. I will do so, sir.
Question. I will ask you what amount of work can the laborers you
had employed perform in comparison with well selected and skilled
laborers in that business?
Answer. I have got now some as good men as ever worked at a
smith's forge. I have some men who have been in the yard twentyfive and thirty years, and we keep them there because they are practically experienced in naval matters in ironing off ships, working on
steam engines, &c.; I have increased my force unnecessarily, because
I could not discharge these men to make room for inferior men. I say
I have increased the number for that reason, and could do with less
9D




130                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
if I had my own management of affairs; that is the plain matter of
fact.
Question. What is the comparative value of one of these men
recommended to you by members of Congress with one of your own
laborers?
Answer. About one-third.
Question. Was there any efforxt during September or October last
to increase the number of men in the navy yard, to your knowledge?
Answer. Yes, sir; there was.
Question. How general was that?
Answer. It was pretty extensive.
Question. Who made that effort?
Answer. All the members of Congress in the different districts.
Question. What was the increase of force?
Answer. There was quite an increase throughout the yard. In my
department I increased my force some 25 men.
Question. What motive was urged upon you to increase your force?
Answer. Merely to find places for men who were recommended to
me for political purposes.
Question. Was you compelled to yield to this demand to any
extent?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Can you state about the number of men that, in your
judgment, taking the whole navy yard through-the number of men
was about 2,300 in October, I believe?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Well, can you state how many useless men there were
in the navy yard in October? State as near as you can judge.
Answer. I could safely say that we could have done with one-fourth
less.
Question. Was there the same general increase throughout the
other departments?
Answer. Yes, sir; it was through the whole yard.
Question. I will ask you whether it was not understood that particular master workmen were to administer their patronage for the
benefit of particular members of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir; that was the case.
Question. These divisions of patronage were well known among
the master workmen and among the officers in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. With regard to the division among the master workmen,
can you state the proportions?
Answer. The yard was canvassed about a month ago, and the result
was sent to the Navy Department; they have it on file.
Question. As to the number of appointments in each district?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether any levies or contributions were
ever made upon the men for testimonials or the like.
Answer. None, sir, to my knowledge, unless they were voluntary.
Question. Were there any contributions or levies made for political
objects?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                           131
Answer. There were contributions made, but they were not forced
ones; it was previou to the election, and somebody or other around
the shop raised contributions for ward purposes and divided it around;
it never amounted to any great sum; there was no forced contribution.
Question. A witness by the name of Reilly has testified that in one
case, several years ago, upon a requisition made by you, the navy
agent purchased iron on open contract at 51 cents, when it was furnished to the government on contract at 3.  Do you know anything
about that?
Answer. Yes, sir~;that is a fact.
Question. I will ask you whether you had any control over the
price?
Answer. I had nothing at all to do with it; nothing more than
when the, article was delivered in the yard I was called upon by one
of the storekeeper's clerks to inspect the quality of the iron.  I inspected the quality, and reported it as good.  The price I know
nothing about, only as, in making out our monthly accounts of expenditures, we go to the storekeeper to ascertain the price of the materials that have been expended, so as to govern ourselves thereby.
Question. You did not consider yourself responsible for the price
paid by the navy agent?
Answer. Not at all.
Question. You remember the fact?
Answer. Yes, sir; I[ know who it was that furnished it, and the
man would make an affidavit before the committee that I knew nothing
at all about the price.
Question. That is not necessary. The same witness testified that
in another case, upon a requisition made by you, the navy agent purchased a pair of bellows for $150, when their true value, I think, he
fixed at $80. Do you know anything about that?
Answer. There were two bellows repaired. and they were $75
apiece, amounting to $150. I can state the facts in regardt to. that
case. I made a requisition to have two bellows. At that time we
were blowing hand bellows in the smithery; now we go by bllastilhg.
Well, there were bellows that originally cost $250 —mammoth bellowsthat we used on our heavy work; but the leather had become rotten,
so that they would hold no wind, and we were obliged to have new
bellows or to have these repaired. I reported to the constructor,.
Mr. Delano, that it was necessary to have these repaired, or to have,
new ones in their place, and there was a survey ordered to be heldc
upon them; the result was that the bellows were ordered to be repaired. I made a requisition that there were two bellows in thesmith's department that required repairs. It was approved by the
officers of the yard and sent to the navy agent, and the navy agent
gave his order to a gentleman by the name of Glazier, who was then
a contractor for the yard to furnish goods.  He sent to the yard for
the bellows; they were repaired and returned.  I was called upon to
inspect them and see if they had been repaired satisfactorily; I did
so, and then my duties in connexion with the matter ceased.
Question. You had nothing to do with the price?




132                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. Nothing in the world, sir.
Question. Does the master workman in practice hold himself, or is
he held  by  the officers in  charge, responsible for the prices of
articles bought in open purchase?
Answer. No, sir, he does not. With regard to these bellows, Coin'
modore Boarman was captain of the yard at the time, and he was so
particular about endorsing bills, for fear there would be overcharges,
that he even ordered a board of officers to examine these bellows.
The board consisted of the chief naval constructor, the chief engineer
of the yard, and Lieutenant Boggs, I think-I am not positive about
him, but I think it was him; he was first lieutenant of the yard-and
they reported that the charges were reasonable, and I thought they
were myself.  The idea of paying $75 to repair a bellows might
appear large in the estimation of you gentlemen, but if you could see
the bellows you would form a different opinion. They were tremendous bellows-the largest class of bellows ever used in the smith's
department, and originally cost $250. I discharged that gentleman,
Mr. Reilly, and it was nothing but malice that ever brought him here.
Question.  When was the pressure upon  you and other master
workmen in the navy yard the strongest for appointments?
Answer. Just previous to the State election.
Question. The last November election?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was there any reduction made in the force afterelection?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To what extent was the reduction carried?
Answer. I dare say there was about one-third of the actual force
in the yard dismissed. It might not have been so extensive; it would
be safe to say one-quarter.
Question. I will ask you whether the men employed in the navy
yard do as much work as persons in private employment on the same
wages and the same work?
Answer. No, sir, they do not do as much work; but they do their
work a little better, take a little more pains, and finish it up with a
little nicer taste; consequently, there is not so much done.
Question. What is the proportion?
Answer, I should say two-thirds.
Question. Of the men  recommended  by these members of Congress, what is the proportion of men born in this country and men
born out of the country, as near as you can give it?
Answer. I suppose that two thirds were born out of the country.
Question. Were they native or naturalized citizens?
Answer. Naturalized citizens.
Question. Do you know anything about any materials being taken
from the navy yard?
Answer. I do not, sir,
Question. Do you know anything about public property being used
for private purposes?
Answer. I do not, sir,
Question. Do you know anything about the sale of employment in
the navy yard by any one?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                         133
Answer. No, sir; I have heard a good deal of that, but I have never
known a positive instance of it.
Question. You have never known a case to occur, within your own
knowledge?
Answer. No, sir.  I have always looked upon it in this light-it
would be a perfectly suicidal course, for it must come out. There is
no such thing as preventing such a thing from being exposed in a
short time.
Question. Has not the complaint been general that such a practice
existed?
Answer. Well, sir, I have had offers of that kind often. I have
had men send their wives to me to get their husbands employment,
saying that their husbands would give twenty-five dollars for a situation; but I always refused such offers.
Question. Whether such offers have been accepted by others you
cannot say?
Answer. No, sir; I cannot say.
Question. Was this offer-of money for employment a general thing?
Answer. Well, sir, I was only cognizant of that which took place
in my own department.
Question. Do you think it was a general thing?
Answer. Yes, sir, I should think it was.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was there any great increase in the number of workmen
in the navy yard made before election?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long before?
Answer. About a month before election.
Question. I mean to fix the time between the discharge of Captain
Rootes, which was about two weeks before the election, and the election.  Was there any great increase during this time?
Answer. I do not think there was any great increase in that time;
there was some, but not to any great extent.
Question. When this diminution of the number of men was made
was there any diminution of the work? Had you gotten off any work
in the mean time?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What work?
Answer. There were two or three of these vessels attached to the
Paraguay expedition.
Question. Was the diminution of the number of men proportionate
to the diminution of the work, or did you understand it to be a diminution of the number of men because the election was over?
Answer. Oh, no, sir; that was not the case. It was merely this:
We had an order of the constructor to curtail the number of men in
our different departments-as many as we possibly could, keeping
enough to conduct the work that was then under way; and discharges
were made accordingly.
Question. Have you been cognizant of work done for the govern'




134                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
ment in other departments of business-have you known anything
about the manner in which work is done for the government in other
places besides the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do men in the employ of the government work as much
as men in the employ of private individuals?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How does the amount of work done in the New York
navy yard compare with the amount of work done for the government
in any other department of public work; for instance, the work on
this Capitol, or anything else, within your knowledge?
Answer. I should not think there was much difference; men do not
do as much work in the yard as they do outside for individuals.
Question. Who was the navy agent at the time of the repair of the
bellows that has been alluded to?
Answer. Mr. Swackhamer.
Question. I understood you to say that you discharged Mr. Reilly
from the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Upon what ground did you discharge him?
Answer. Well, sir, when I was an applicant for the situation he
libeled me and abused me in every manner he possibly could. He
was instrumental in getting up a false appointment and had it directed
to me, to get me to report myself to the commander of the yard, under
the supposition that it was a genuine appointment.
Question. I will ask you what you understand to be Mr. Reilly's
general character?
Answer. I can bring the evidence of members of Congress, I can
bring the evidence of some of the best men in New York City, who
say that they would not believe him under oath.
Question. State simply this, whether you know the general character
of Mr. Reilly?
Answer. I do, sir.
Question. What is that general character?
Answer. He is a malicious person.
Question. Would you, from your knowledge of his general character,
believe him upon oath?
Answer. I would not, sir.
WM. MERRIFIELD.
FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
WILLIAM MERRIFIELD recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you state, in your examination the other day, anything about having incompetent men under you in the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you had incompetent men under you there?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How were those men appointed?
Answer. I appointed them.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     135
Question. Upon whose recommendations?
Answer. Upon the recommendations of members of Congress.
Question. What members of Congress?
Answer. Pretty nearly all from that part of the State.
Question. Do you remember any particularly incompetent men, and
by whom they were recommended?
Answer. Yes, sir. Mr. Cochrane recommended some; Mr. Kelly
did in particular.
Question. What did you do when you found the men to be incompetent?
Answer. In two instances I discharged them; and I then received
letters from Mr. Cochrane to the effect that if 1 did not put that man
to work again he would have me discharged; he not knowing at the
time what I discharged him for.
Question. What did you do then?
Answer. Why, I employed them again, as a matter of course.
Question. Who is your superior officer?
Answer. The naval constructor, Mr. Delano.
Question. Did you report this matter to him?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he or you ever report it to the commandant of the
yard?
Answer. No, sir; not that I know of.
Question. Do you know whether anything of this sort ever came to
the knowledge of the bureau?
Answer. I do not think so. I complained to Captain Rootes about
it, as I did also to Mr. Delano, the naval constructor.
Question.  You say that Mr. Cochrane wrote to you that if you
did not put the man back again you would be turned out?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And you put him back again?
Answer. I did.
Question. Were you doing justice to the government in putting
him back again when you knew he was incompetent?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you prefer your office to doing justice to the government?
Answer. In this case it was simply a question whether I would
lose my place or put that man to work, and I preferred to retain my
place.
Question. In how many cases were incompetent men recommended
to you by Mr. Cochrane?
Answer. In two cases particularly.
Question. Did Mr. Clark ever recommend any man to you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many?
Answer. Some four or five.
Question. Did you appoint any of them?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How did they turn out?




136                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. They were about the ordinary run of mechanics that are
recommended there by members of Congress. I would say that in the
first place, a good mechanic will not apply to members of Congress for
any political influences to get a job of work.  He will depend upon
his mechanical merits altogether to get work.
Question. Who recommended you?
Answer. I was recommended by all the. ship builders of New York,
and by George Law particularly. I was appointed under Mr. Dobbin, and at the time I was appointed I was endorsed by all the members of the city and county of New York.
Question. Did you apply to the members of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir; and they all endorsed my application at the
time.
Question. Are you of the opinion that a good mechanic will not
apply to a member of Congress for recommendation?
Answer. It is very rarely that he will.
Question. How many incompetent men did Mr. Kelly recommend
to you?
Answer. I suppose a dozen-perhaps more.
Question. Did you put them all in?
Answer. I employed them  at the time, but I discharged some of
them afterwards.  When I did dismiss any men, I kept the best.
Question. How many cases were there where you retained incompetent men-men whom you knew to be incompetent?
Answer. I suppose, perhaps half a dozen instances; and I wish to
add that I was informed by their members of Congress that if I did
not give them their portion of men they would have me discharged.
Question. What members told you that?
Answer. Mr. Cochrane told me that.
Question. Was he the only one?
Answer. Mr. Kelly did also, some three years ago.
Question. When did Mr. Cochrane make this statement to you?
Answer. I think it was some eight or ten months ago.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What is the character of the work done in the navy
yard?
Answer. It is good work.
Question. Is it better than the generality of work done outside?
Answer. It certainly is. We take more pains to do our work well.
We put none but the best hands on our good work; but the great
difficulty with the men we employ is that they are apt to be disobedient.  They depend upon the political influence of their members of Congress to be retained rather than their own merits or good
behavior; and if I say anything to them they will look upon it with
indifference, and, in some cases, will tell others that if I discharge
them  they will be put back there by my master, meaning the respective members who recommended them.
Question. Are you still employed in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
WM. MERRIFIELD.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          137
No. 20.-TEsrim  NY OF JoHN A. SEARING, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
JOHN A. SEARING called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are you acquainted with the master painter in the
Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Upon whose recommendation was he appointed?
Answer. I do not recollect the names of those who gave him letters.
Question. Did you join in his recommendation?
Answer. I did.
Question. Was he from your congressional district?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was there any understanding between the members of
the New York delegation. as to the division of the patronage of the
Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. I do not know of any.
Question. Upon whose recommendations were the workmen in the
Brooklyn navy yard appointed?
Answer. I suppose ofn members of Congress and their friends. I
signed a number myself.
Question. - Did you not claim of Mr. Turner and others that as he
was appointed upon your recommendation  you had a right to the
patronage of his department?
Answer. No, sir, I never did.
Question. Has Mr. Turner done any work for you since he was
master painter?
Answer. No, sir; nor before.
Question. Has any of his employes or subordinates?
Answer. He has a man now employed who worked for me a couple
of days some time before he was appointed in the yard to his present
position.
Question. What is his name?
Answer. I think it is Craig.
Question. Has he worked for you any since he was appointed?
Answer. Not that I know of. I have not had but four days' painting done for three years past until this winter.
Question. Do you know of any inducements or promises made or
held out to any master workmen in the Brooklyn navy yard to appoint mechanics?
Answer. I do not know that of myself. I have heard these things
talked of.
Question. Do you know of any case in which the master workmen
have received either money, gratuities, or presents?
Answer. I do not know of any. I do not think I have been in that
navy yard, on an average, once a month since I have been in Congress.
When I came into office I found that there was no important appointment from my district there, and I merely went into the yard, at the
suggestion of some workmen from my district, to see if they could not




138                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
get the benefit of a share of the work then carried on; and all the
intercourse I have had with these gentlemen has been at intervals
when I went there to see about these applicants for place.
Question. Did you recommend workmen to these masters?
Answer. I have done that frequently by letters, and sometimes
verbally; but I have told these master workmen that I would not
have them to employ any man from  my district who was not competent to do his work; but that matter must be left to them  as the
judges.
Question. Do you know  of any case in which the government
property was used and applied to private purposes?
Answer. Not one.
Question. Have you had any correspondence with the Secretary of
the Navy in regard to the division of patronage in that yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have been at the Secretary's office several
times.
Question. State the nature and purport of that correspondence?
Answer. I went there to complain of the position of my district
that we had a great many excellent mechanics hard by the yard, and
but few of them were employed there.
Question. Were these complaints made in person?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What orders, if any, did you learn were issued upon
your complaints?
Answer. I never heard of any.
Question. Were those complaints in connexion with the appointment of William Turner, master painter?
Answer. No, sir; he was not appointed until a long time after
that.
Question. At the time Turner was appointed, did you then make
complaint in regard to the distribution of patronage?
Answer. I do not think I did. The applications, recommendations,
and letters of Mr. Turner were lying here a long while before the
Secretary of the Navy acted upon them.
Question. Did you complain to any member of Congress that you
did not have your fair share of the patronage?
Answer. I have done so often, probably.
Question. Did you ever say that, in case this was not rectified and
made right, you would pursue a certain course different from what
you were then pursuing?
Answer. I do not know  as I ever said that.  I thought there
should be an equal division of these matters among the mechanics of
those districts contiguous to the yard.
Question. Did you ever notify or tell any officer in the Navy Department, either the Secretary of the Navy or a subordinate, that in
case Turner was not employed, and you did not receive your share of
the patronage, you would not pursue a certain course?
Answer. I did not, I think; I do not recollect of any such thing.
Question. Did you have any such correspondence with the department?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      139
Answer. I did not; I am certain that I did not send any such
letter as that.
Question. Do you remember the date of Mr. Turner's appointment?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Had you ever in your employ a man of the name of
White, who did painting for you?
Answer. I had a man whose name was Craig, I think; that was
merely a couple of days; I have not had four days' work of that kind
of work done in three years.
Question. Do you remember any arrangement among members of
Congress, or any interview between members of Congress from the
State of New York and the Secret try of the Navy, in which it was
agreed that the patronage of that navy yard should be divided among
the different districts?
Answer. I do not know of any such understanding   It may be
that the Secretary of the Navy felt disposed to let each locality have
a fair representation; but of his asking, or there being an understanding that it should be so, is more than I can tell.
Question. Did you ever sign any paper in regard to that?
Answer. I do not recollect that I did. I know that I was very
anxious for my own district, and wanted to see these favors divided
out upon a fair and equitable basis.
Question. Is there any fact in relation to the organization or the
management of the navy yard at Brooklyn that you desire to state to
the committee?
Answer. I know nothing more about that; I have made application
to have men employed but could not get them in. A portion of my
district has a great number of mechanics; at Green Point the ship
carpenters are the largest interest there. A great many mechanics in
my district during the recent crisis were thrown out of employment,
and have been anxious to get into the navy yard.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did you ever recommend a man to a mechanical department who was not himself a mechanic in that particular line?
Answer. Not that I know of; I have told them a number of times
that if I sent them men who were not mechanics, they were judges of
that, and should not employ them. I have no doubt I have recommended such men, not knowing who they were, but they have been
discharged, I believe.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is the patronage of that yard equally divided among the
several districts?
Answer. I expect that Brooklyn has the largest share; I do not
know.
Question. How many appointees are there from your district, as far
as you know?
Answer. I should think probably thirty or forty; but that is mere
guess work with me.
By the Chairman:
Question. Can you state anything about any mismanagement of the




140                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
yard; any failure of the workmen to do their duty, or of their getting
pay and absenting themselves?
Answer. I know nothing about that  I do not live within twenty
miles of the navy yard, and I only go there when I wish to do an act
of kindness for one of my friends, or have some business with one in
the yard. Indeed, I do not think I know all the bosses in the yard.
There are a number of departments therein which I should not know
those who have charge of them, if I were to go in the yard.
Question. Did you say that these men employed to do this painting
for you were not then employes of the government?
Answer. They were not in the employ of the government then, but
I think that Mr. Craig was soon afterwards appointed foreman
Question. Where did you make the contract with these men to do
this painting?
Answer. At my private residence.  I think that Mr. Craig was
appointed very soon after this to the position formally held by Mr.
Fitzgerald. I think so, but I have not been in the yard for the three
months past, that I know of.
Question. Was the paint used to do this painting some of the
paints of the government?
Answer. No, sir; not one particle of it  I bought it for myself.
Question. Were there any men from the navy yard attending the
congressional conventions in your district?
Answer. Mr. Turner was a delegate to the county convention.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Does it come within  your knowledge that gentlemen
from the navy yard participated in conventions in districts where they
did not then reside?
Answer. I never knew anything of the kind.
JOHN  A. SEARING.
No. 40.-JOHN L. WHITE.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
JOHN L. WHITE called and examined:
By the Chairman:
Question. Where are you employed?
Answer. in the Brooklyn navy yard.
Question. What is your position there?
Answer. Journeyman painter.
Question. Who is your master workman?
Answer. Mr. Turner.
Question. Where is he?
Answer. In New York, I suppose.
Question. Do you remember any occasion in which some white
lead was taken from the navy yard to paint Mr. Turner's house?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you remember any occasion when any paint was
taken away from the yard in a boat?
Answer. I do, sir.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        141
Question. State all that you know about that matter.
Answer. There was a keg of lead taken from there.  At that time
we were at work on what is called the Block, which is a small island
by itself; we were painting inside the shell house, an addition built
to the old shell house; I was at work there, and Mr. Fitzgerald was
then our foreman; he gave me an order to take a keg of lead from
the shop and put it in the boat, and I supposed at the time that it
was for use there at the time; there were some bags there, sume
hammock bags, painted black, and there was an old one there; Mr.
Fitzgerald said, "put this lead in the bag and take it along."  I did
so, as he ordered me, as he was my boss when our boss was not there.
I took it and put it in the boat; there were Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Henry
S. Lightner, and myself, in the boat, and we landed it on a dock in
Williamsburg, opposite this Block, and I do not know what became
of it afterwards.
Question. Did Mr. Turner know anything about this matter?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think he knew anything about it.
Question. Did he ever say anything to you about it?
Answer. No, sir; he never said a word to me about it.
Question. You did what you were told to do?
Answer. I did do it at Mr. Fitzgerald's order, as I would do anything else he would tell me; I would do it if he were to tell me to
take a ton of it.
Question. Did anybody else ever ask you to do anything of the
kind?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you do any work for Mr. Turner out of the yard?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you ever do any for any member of Congress?
Answer. Yes, sir, I have.
Question. For whom?
Answer. For Mr. Searing.
Question. Who paid you for that work?
Answer. Mr. Searing did himself.
Question. At the time that you did this work for Mr. Searing were
you employed in the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.  At the time there was very little work doing
in the yard, and Mr. Searing had some work to do, and I and a man
named Craig did it for him.
Question. Were you paid by the government during that time?
Answer. No, sir; as far as the boss is concerned I never received
the first farthing from him at any time for that time while I was doing
work for Mr. Searing.
Question. In whose district do you belong?
Answer. In the district of Mr. Searing; we belong to his district.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know of any other public property being taken
from the yard at any time?
Answer. I do not; it is something I would scorn to do for myself.
Question. Did Mr. Fitzgerald give any explanation about this matter?




142                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. He only said to me "keep quiet about it."
Question. Where did you get this lead?
Answer. Out of the paint shop.
Question. Had it been drawn by a requisition upon the naval storekeeper?
Answer. I do not know about that. I have nothing to do with that.
I am only a journeyman.
Question. Do you know whether any information of this has ever
been given to the naval constructor, or to the commandant of the
yard?
Answer. I do not think they knew anything about it.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Did you "keep quiet about it," as Mr. Fitzgerald told
you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
JOHN L. WHITE.
No. 44.-RICHARD H. TELLER, MORRISANIA, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 7, 1859.
RICHARD H. TELLER called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. Turner, master painter in
the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you had anything to do with recommending men
to be appointed under him-?
Answer. I once wrote a note, at the request of a Mr. Donelly, asking him to appoint a man whom Mr. Donelly represented to me to be
out of work, with a family in a starving condition. He asked me to
write a note, and I did so, and the man was appointed, and I believe
he was kept there some two weeks.
Question. Upon what consideration did you ask to have this appointment made?
Answer. None.
Question. What argument did you use in your note to get the appointment made?
Answer. I merely wrote a formal note, asking him to appoint this
man.
Question. What inducement did you offer to Mr. Turner to appoint
him?
Answer. None at all; I never saw Mr. Turner but twice before I
saw him in this city yesterday.
Question. Did you offer him any present whatever?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you ever send Mr. Turner a present of any kind?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did anything ever pass between you and Mr. Turner in
the way of money or a donation of any sort?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        143
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was anything said about giving Mr. Turner any liquor
on this occasion.
Answer. I believe that Mr. Edson came to the store and I said to
him, " I see that your friend, Mr. Turner, is appointed, and I think
I will get him to appoint a man for me."  Says he, "Oh, yes; he
will do it, if you will give him five gallons of brandy." I laughed at
him and thought nothing more about it. A little while afterwards he
came to me and said that Turner wanted me to send him five gallons of
brandy; I bought it from W. E. Boram, and sent it over to him.
Question. When was this that you sent it?
Answer. I could not tell you; it was before July, I think.
Question. Was it before or after you recommended this man to
Turner to be appointed?.
Answer. I really could not say; I think it was. I did not see
Mr. Turner but once or twice after that; I think I saw him in October or November, but he was talking with another man, and I did not
interrupt him; but I know that I sent my bill out to him in October
for the brandy, five gallons, at $5 50 a gallon, and a demijohn at 75
cents, making $28 25.
Question. Did he pay you?
Answer. He has not done so yet, but I calculate upon getting my
money.
Question. What reason did he assign for not paying it?
Answer. No reason at all.
Question. What did he say to you?
Answer. I did not see him; I live out of town; I do not have time
before and after my official duties for the day except to come from
and return to my home, and I never see him unless he may come to
my office, which he has done once or twice only; I saw him once with
a friend of mine, Mr. Willis, but he was in conversation with him,.and I did not interrupt the conversation.
Question. When did you send the bill?
Answer. I sent it in October last.
Question. By whom did you send it?
Answer. I enclosed it in a note and sent it by a messenger.
Question. Did you get any message in reply?
Answer. Nothing, except that the messenger said he had delivered
the note.
Question. What induced you to recommend the man for Mr.
Donelly?
Answer. Mr. Donelly said he wanted to get a man appointed under
Mr. Turner, and asked me if I could get one appointed; he said that
this man was in a state of starvation, and asked me to do this as an
act of charity; I sat down and wrote this note, and I believe the man
got the place.
Question. What induced you to think that you could get Mr.
Turner to appoint this man?
Answer. I do not know. I wrote a note stating the circumstances




144                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
as they were stated to me, and supposed that Mr. Turner would
appoint the man as a matter of charity.
Question. Why should Mr. Turner send to you to get liquor for
him?
Answer. He knew I was in a position to get pure brandy.
Question. What position do you occupy?
Answer. I am assistant appraiser for the port of New York and
the articles that come under my care are wines and liquors. I have
been called upon by Mr. Schell, by Mr. Haskin, by Mr. Sickles, by
Senator Gwin, and others, to get wines and liquors for them. And I
would say that Secretary Guthrie also sent to me to get him some
liquor.
Question. When this man was turned out-the one that you recoimended to Mr. Turner-what steps did you take about it?
Answer. I took none.
Question. What steps did Mr. Donelly take; did he come to you
about it?
Answer. I really forget about that.
Question. Did he not complain to you that this man was turned out,
and asked you whether the liquor was sent?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. What was said about sending liquor to Turner, in the
conversation between you and Donelly?
Answer. Nothing that I know of.
Question. Did not the matter come up between you and Mr. Donelly?
Answer. Not that I know of.
Question. Was the man reappointed after being turned out?
Answer. I think Mr. Donelly got him another situation as a carpet
weaver, or a weaver of some kind.  I do not know, in fact, how
that is.
Question. Was he taken back into the navy yard?
Answer. Not to my knowledge. I never spoke to Mr. Turner about
it.  I never saw him but twice since then, perhaps three times, and
then I had no opportunity to speak with him, as he was busy with
other gentlemen.
Question. Did you not claim some right to have this man appointed,
because you had been kind to Turner in sending him this liquor?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you make any allusion to this liquor matter when you
wrote the letter to Mr. Turner?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Then how came Mr. Donelly to know about your purpose
to send him liquor?
Answer. He may have heard me talking about it in the appraiser's
office; he may have heard me jest with Mr. Edson about it when he
asked me to send this liquor to Turner. I may have told him about it.
Question. Did you ever have any other man appointed under Mr.
Turner?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did yon ever recommend any body else to him?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      145
Answer. No, sir; not that I recollect.
Question. Was this five gallons of brandy the only liquor you ever
sent to him?
Answer. Yes, sir. I never spoke to him about it at all. But I shall
do so, after I leave this committee room, as soon as possible, and if
he has got $28 25 about him, I calculate to get it.
Question. Do you know any negligence upon the part of Mr. Turner, or any other person, in the yard?
Answer. I have never been in that yard but once in my life, and
that was twenty-eight years ago, when I was 13 years of age, and I
went over there as an errand boy. I think I know but two persons
in the yard.
Question. Is Mr. Donelly a particular friend of yours?
Answer. I do not know that he is.  He was introduced to me by
Mr. Willis, a friend of mine. I have known him but a short time.
Question. Is he a man of high character and good standing?
Answer. I do not know anything against him. All persons have
their enemies. I heard one person speak against him, but I did not
notice it.
Question. Did you, in trying to get this man appointed by Mr.
Turner, allude to the favor you had done him, and ask him to do this
favor for you in return for sending him that liquor.
Answer. I did not. I will say that when I was requested to send
him that liquor, I understood it, as I did all other requests of the
kind, to be paid for by him.
RICHARD H. TELLER.
No. 46.-LAWRENCE KEARNY, UNITED STATES NAVY.
FEBRUARY 7, 1859.
LAWRENCE KEARNY called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your position in the navy of the United States?
Answer. I am a captain in the navy.
Question. Where were you on duty in the year 1858?
Answer. I was in command of the navy yard at New York, but was
the most part of the time in Washington on court of inquiry duty.
Question. When were you removed from the navy yard at Brooklyn'?
Answer. I was relieved from  command on the 25th of October,
1858, by an order signed "Isaac Toucey."
Question. Have you a copy of that order?
Answer. I have the order itself here.-(See published papers-from
the department.)
Question. Have you a copy of your reply?
Answer. No, sir, I have not; it was simply acknowledging the
receipt of the order.
Question. Please look at the paper now shown, and see if is voue
reply?
Answer. [After reading the paper.] Yes, sir, it is; I was ordered
by the Secretary to report by letter.
10 D




146                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Had you any controversy, or conversation with Mr. Taylor, member of Congress from the Brooklyn district, shortly before
your removal?
Answer. Yes, sir; I had.
Question. State fully that conversation; all about it,
Answer. It commenced by his calling at the housewhere I was
stopping in the yard, the commandant's house, for I was not living
in it at the time, but was only occasionally there; he came to me at
the commandant's house, and spoke to me about whether some men had
been taken on the list at the yard; I told him  yes; the constructing
engineer had represented that certain men were wanted, and they were
accordingly taken on; their services were apparently required. On this
being told him, he seemed to be very much disconcerted and disappointed, and made some remarks which produced a reply from me
that he (Taylor) should attend to his duties in the Congress of the
United States, and I would attend to mine as commandant of the
yard; that was the worst thing that was said; he said something
about laying it before the department; but he did not show me any
list of men, and did not name any men or any class of men whom he
wanted to have put on; that was about all the conversation; heleft
very soon after, and appeared to be agitated a little.
Question. Had he previously applied to you for the appointment of
men in the yard?
Answer. Not for any unusual quantity of men. There were sometimes applications made for one or two; I never particularly noticed
anything extraordinary. He may have done so, but I have no particular recollection about it.
Question. How frequently did he apply for the appointment of men
under the master workmen?
Answer. I have not charged my mind with it sufficiently to say
how many times, but I think very seldom. He appeared to be a good
deal in the yard; but the appointments did not come directly from
me.  The general plan, as I understand it, was, that these applications
went through the master workmen, and  then  around until they
eventually came to the commandant, with the approval of some of the
departments, the constructor, or some of them in the yard; the commandant of the yard was guided by that, and usually approved, but
it does not lie with him.
Question. After' Mr. Taylor went away in the manner you have
described, did you hear anything more from him?
Answer. No, sir; I heard nothing more from him.
Question. How soon after that did you receive this order of suspension?
Answer. It was three or four days; but I learned that ihe had
nothing at all to do with it; he disclaimed anything of the kind.
Question. From whom did you learn that?
Answer. I cannot say; I only understood so.
Question. From whom did you understand it?
Answer. I am  not confident now; it was a matter of very little
importance to me at the time whether he had or had not; but I am




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          147
under t~he impression that it did not result from his application
at all.
Question. Do you know whether he did apply for your removal?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.
Question. What did he say when he left you?
Answer. He said something about making  a statement to the
department.  I told him that was very well if he chose to do it.  I
do not think that he alluded to my removal from command, but to
getting these men in. He may have had such an allusion, but I do
not know whether he had or not.
Question. I will ask you whether you have ever refused to appoint
the men when a list was sent up to you by the master workmen,
and approved by the constructing engineer?
Answer. I have not in such cases. I have in individual cases when
men have been applying to be put on; there were applications of that
kind frequently.
Question. Without applications from the master workmen, have you
ever felt it to be your duty or within your power to appoint them?
Answer. No, sir; I have -not. I considered that a matter perfectly
independent of the commandant of the yard; that has been  the
practice.
Question. Had you any correspondence with regard to the subject?
Answer. I had with Mr. Graham, the constructing engineer; and I
submit to the committee that  ir. Graham be telegraphed to to have
that correspondence sent here.
Question. What is the purport of it?
Answer. It is in relation to the employment of men. There were
some cases where there was difficulty about it, and there was some
correspondence on the subject.
Question. Wko commenced that correspondence?
Answer. It commenced, I think, with Mr. Graham himself. Those
were matters that occurred occasionally, but they did not make much
impression on my mind.
Question. Can you give the substance of that correspondence?
Answer. I have not charged my mind with it; I should prefer to
have it sent on.
Question. In its absence, please give the purport of it?
Answer. It was in relation to the right of appointments in the
yard. There was a little difficulty about the right of making appointments, or something of that kind; but there was nothing that I have
thought it necessary to keep any particular record of. It is on the
files of the navy yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you any knowledge that the conversation between
you and Mr. Taylor ever reached the department at Washington?
Answer. No, sir; I never heard of it afterwards. I had no correspondence with him.  There was an error made in a newspaper ca~led
"The Times" which I thought did me injustice, and I wrote a note
to the editor of the "Journal of Commerce," and amended that.
Question. To what did you understand Mr. Taylor's allusion to the




148                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,
department to refer? Was there nothing connected with that remark
of Mr. Taylor to show what he did mean?
Answer. It was doubtful to me what he did refer to; I could not
tell. I thought it a very singular remark, because it was an interference with the department, and it appeared to be uncalled for. I
could not divine what he meant, nor do I know now what he did
mean.
Question. From what you know, have you any reason to attribute
your discharge from the yard to Mr. Taylor's interference?
Answer. No, sir; there was nothing to lead me to suppose so. It
may not be out of place to say, for I suppose it has been told here
before, that the master workmen of the yard have control of this
matter far above the commandant of the yard, and thus little
difficulties may occur.
L. KEARNY.
No. 39.-JOHN COCHRANE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
JOHN COCHRANE was sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What has been the action of yourself and other members
of Congress in regard to appointments in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. It has been generally understood by all the democratic
members from the city and county of New York and the adjacent districts that the patronage of the Brooklyn navy yard was to be equally
and proportionably distributed among them. This understanding was
not only by them, but was known to the authorities in Washington.
Question. Before you proceed, I will ask you whether any arrangement with regard to this division of that patronage was made here in
Washington from an interview with the Secretary?
Answer. I cannot say it was an arrangement. I would not like to
impose upon it that designation. I should say that the state of facts
was more nearly represented by the word understanding. This understanding was notorious; so generally and well known, not only by
the members, but by their constituents who sought for office, that it
imposed upon each one of the members, to my personal knowledge, a
corresponding obligation of effort to obtain patronage for his constituents. Under such an obligation, so imposed, I have from time to
time endeavored to procure office for my constituents and employment
in the navy yard. Under that understanding by my constituents,
have I been for the last year besieged and beset by hundreds of claimants, at my house and in my office, until now, having been driven
from my office, I am in doubt whether I shall return to New York.
I wish to be understood that in all applications made I have made
them with the sincere desire to procure employment for those in whose
behalf I apply; but never have I applied for a person whom I deemed
unworthy. In every instance of application made I have informed
those to whom the application was made that if the person applying
and successful in procuring work was idle, or in any way unworthy,
he should at once be discharged. I have from time to time written
very sharp letters-I may call' them threatening letters-to different
masters in the yard, complaining that they did not comply with what




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        149
they understood and ought to know was the rule to be observed among
members of Congress regarding their constituencies; and stating that
if they would not comply with that rule I should complain of them
to the department here in Washington. I think that, as compendiously
as possible, represents a full view of New York politics as regards
the navy yard and the position which I, as a delegate from the city
of New York, bear towards it.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you remember a particular instance in which you
wrote one of the letters you refer to?
Answer. Yes, sir. It occurs to my mind now, not from present
reflection but by reason cf having been reminded of it by Mr. Merrifield, who, a day or two since, stated to me that lie had mentioned, in
the committee, the fact that I had written a menacing letter to him.
My answer to him was that I remembered having written to him that
letter; that I afterwards met him, and he explained the reason for
not complying with my wishes, which reason was satisfactory to me.
However, I wish to say, in this connexion, that I stated distinctly to
Mr. Merrifield, upon all occasions, that he should not for one moment
retain a person recommended by me, or give him employment, against
whom there was evidence of unworthiness in any respect.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Mr. Merrifield stated that with regard to two men he
found them incompetent and discharged them; but that you wrote
that if he did not put them back you would complain against him.
What statement do you wish to make with regard to that?
Answer. I recollect no occasion on which he discharged any man
whom I recommended to him  for incompetency.  I am quite certain
that if ever the cause of the discharge of any of my friends was incompetency, had I have known it, I should have assented to it at
once.
Question. Why, then, did you take it amiss that he discharged
them?
Answer. That I was entitled to those men, and that he was wrongfully treating me as one of the democratic delegates.
Question. Has the understanding of the equal distribution of the
number of men been effectuated?  Was it the fact that the number
of men was taken equally from all the different districts?
Answer. I will state that my impression was, before coming here
and until within about two weeks, that it was most unequally distributed, and especially so with reference to myself. I supposed that
Mr. Taylor, of Brooklyn, had a largely disproportionate number.
But within two weeks I have seen a return at the Navy Department,
by which it appears that Mr. Taylor has a large preponderance; that
Mr. M3aclay has the number next to Mr. Taylor, and that the number
from my own district ranks next to Mr. Maclay's. Therefore I am
now of the impression that while the patronage is disproportionately
dispensed, yet the disproportion was not so great as I had supposed.
Question. Was there any reason connected with the location of Mr.
Taylor's district why he should have more than an equal share?
Answer. I think there is a reason why he should have more than




150                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,
other democratic members, and that is his locality. But I have never
supposed -that a reason for so great a disproportion in his favor as I
have supposed him  to possess.  I may say that I have informally
expressed to the Secretary of the Navy the opinion that he should
have a larger share than the ot;hers.
Question. Do you remember writing a letter to Mr. Cohane?
Anjswer. Yes, sir; I have a general recollection of having written a
sharp letter to Mr. Cohane, under some degree of excitement occasioned by the representation that Mr. Cohane would not employ in
his department a single person from my district.
Question. Do you know John Ross, of Brooklyn, now master carpenter in the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know whether he holds any office in the city of
Brooklyn?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.
Question. Do you know whether he is assessor?
Answer. I know him only as I have seen him in the capacity of
master carpenter in the navy yard two or three times.
Question. Was there any effort upon your part, or upon the part
of other members, so far as you know, to have a large number of men
appointed just before the last State election?
Answer. My answer is, no, sir; but I should say, in connexion with
that answer, that as the election approached applications increased;
and it was my case, and I presume it was the case with other members, that there was a corresponding increase of applications upon our
part for positions there, but upon my part, at least, without any
urgency or request that the number of persons in the navy yard
should be increased because of our wants. My applications to the
navy yard for employment for men have always been in reference to
the number of men wanted by the department here.
Question. Do you visit the navy yard often?
Answer. Never, except when driven there by applications from my
constituents.
Question. Are you able to suggest anything about the management
of the yard; any abuses to be reformed, or anything of that kind?
Answer. No, sir; I do not know that I can. I should say that I
have heard reports, and rumors, and charges; but as to the facts constituting the rumor, or report, or charge, I am entirely ignorant.
Question. I understand you to say that you have never asked that
a man should be put in or retained when you have known him to be
incompetent?
Answer. I have not. On the contrary, I repeat, I have always told
every master or person to whom an application of mine might be sent,
that I wished no unworthy or incompetent man appointed; and that
upon the discovery of unworthiness, in any particular, he should be
at once discharged.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What has been the practice in that yard heretofore in
reference to recommendations of members of Congress? Has there
been any such practice; and if so, how long?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        151
Answer. Previous to this Congress, I think there was but one democratic representative from the city of New York. Under the democratic administration of General Pierce, my impression is that nearly
all the patronage of the yard that was bestowed in the city of New
York came through the member, John Kelly.  This I speak from general observation and report, never having had my attention particularly directed towards it at that time.
Question. How was it during Mr. Fillmore's administration?
Answer. I am  entirely ignorant of that.  I paid no attention to it
then.
Question. In regard to these recommendations, did you, yourself,
when you recommended a person to a particular department, make any
inquiry as to his fitness?
Answer. In all cases.  There may have been exceptional cases,
although I do not now recollect them; but if so, they were very few.
In all cases, therefore, with that condition, the persons applying to
me have come recommended by the principal men in my district;
and I have uniformly and  in  every  instance given  my recommendation and request under the impression that the appointee was
a proper man.
Question. Were they appointed politically, or as mechanics?
Answer. Where they were mechanics, they were recommended to
the proper department, but also as democrats.  For instance, if a republican came to me to be recommended I could not recommend him,
and would not recommend him  as a democrat, and would, all things
else equal, prefer a democrat. I should say that in exceptional cases
I have recommended without reference to politics where there was
want and destitution.
Question. Is there not a great surplus of mechanics in each of the
New York districts?
Answer. It is true, more or less of them all. My own district, I
think, has a greater su-rplus of mechanics than any other district in
the city.
Question. Is the navy yard able to get good mechanics in each and
all districts?
Answer. I think it has for the last year. Perhaps I cannot answer
that better than by a general statement that in good and prosperous
times, I am told, and my observation confirms it, that there is very
little application among mechanics for work in the navy yard, the
demand in the city being quite ample to furnish them support and
employment; but during such times as we have had for the last year,
so many have been out of employment that the pressure for employment by regular workmen all over the city has been very great.
Question. As to the class of mechanics who apply, have good mechanics made these applications?
Answer. Generally they have not been the very best of our mechanics, for the reason that they were such as were destitute of work
during the last year on account of the hard times, which allowed continued work only to the best.  I should answer, also, in this connexion, that others besides mechanics have applied.  Laborers also
have applied.




152                      BROOKLYN NAVYYARD.
Question. Was it the practice of all the members from New York
to make these recommendations, and did they all claim their share of
patronage?
Answer. Yes, sir; and at various times all, or nearly all, made it
a point of political grief that they were not gratified.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Does the same rule apply to the executive offices at Washington? Do you all claim your share of patronage?
Answer. Oh, no.
Question. You content yourselves with your home business?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has Mr. Alexander Ward any office now?
Answer. Yes, sir; he had, and I think he has now  a place under
the municipal government of the city of New York.
Question. Did he resign his position in the navy yard to take that?
Answer. So I understood.  Will you allow  me to say that this
obligation consequent upon the distribution of patronage among members from  New York is very irksome, and, if possible, it would be
quite gratifying to me to be relieved from it entirely. I do not think
a representative in Congress from the city of New York should have
cast upon him the obligation of being held responsible to every man
in the district who desires office and be borne down under that obligation.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Why do you consider it an obligation?
Answer. Because of the understanding of which I have spoken;
the understanding by the constituency, by members of Congress, and
by all parties else connected with the patronage.
Question. What do you consider the practical tendency of such
a custom as that upon the purity of elections?
Answer. Very deleterious.
Question. Is it deleterious in its tendency to the Congressman himself, by hampering him in the discharge of his duties?
Answer. Let me answer in this way: To the extent that a person
desiring political gain or political strength can be influenced by considerations conducing to his desires, it must be injurious.
Question. What do you consider its tendency in its effect upon the
people themselves-the mechanics who seek for employment?
Answer. It is injurious, in that it teaches laborers and mechanics
to look to political influence for sustenance and support.
Question. [Has it a tendency to lead them to the commission of
frauds and violence at elections, in order to carry the candidates
to whom they look for future patronage?
Answer. Inasmuch as the party benefited would by the benefit be
wedded to the interests, actively, of his benefactor, such patronage
would, to that extent, lead to disturbances that might be used by the
benefactor for his political advancement.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is this practice, of making the patronage of the navy yard
political spoils to be divided, peculiar to that particular department,
or does it prevail generally?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       153
Answer. It prevails in every department.
Question. When the republican party had the State offices did they
use the patronage in the same way?
Answer. In the same way in which the democratic party does now.
Question. Is there any difference in the extent to which they use
the patronage?
Answer. Under similar circumstances, and with equal facilities, they
use it in the same manner.
JOHN COCHRANE.
No. 41.-JOHN B. HASKIN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 4, 1859.
JOHN B. HASKIN called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are you a member of Congress from the State of New
York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. From what district?
Answer. From  the ninth congressional district, composed of the
counties of Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam, adjoining the city
of New York.
Question. When did your official term commence?
Answer. On the 4th of March, 1857.
Question. At any time after that term commenced did you and the
other members of Congress from  New York city and its immediate
neighborhood, together with the Secretary of the Navy, make any
arrangement in regard to the patronage of the navy yard in Brooklyn?
Answer. At an interview with the Secretary of the Navy, at which,
I think, some six or seven members of Congress from New York were
present, an understanding was had that the Secretary of the Navy
would, if he could do so consistently with a strict performance of his
duty, appoint a master workman in the Brooklyn navy yard for each
one of those gentlemen present. That was about the substance of the
agreement.
Question. What was the occasion of that interview? How came you
to be there together?
Answer. We were actuated by a desire to look out for the interests
of our constituents and to get them appointments.
Question. Was this during the session of Congress, or just after the
incoming of the new administration?
Answer. I think it was just after the inauguration of President
Buchanan.
Question. It was not then during the session?
Answer. I think not; I am confident it was not.
Question. Was any complaint made by any of the gentlemen present, or had there been any complaint in regard to the division of the
patronage in New York?
Answer. Yes, sir; there had been complaints that there were one
or two members of Congress from New York who absorbed nearly all
the patronage connected with the navy yard.




154                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. What was the purpose of these gentlemen in this interview with the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. They were endeavoring to equalize this patronage as well
as they could among the people belonging to the democratic church.
Question. Do you remember the names of the persons present?
Answer. I think that Mr. Sickles, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Taylor, Mr.
Wood, Mr. Searing, Mr. Clark, Mr. Cochrane
sent. My impression is that it was only the city members, myself, and
Mr. Searing, who were present. I do not now remember that they were
all present at any one time; but all these gentlemen whom I have
named did go there in connexion with this subject at different times.
Question. An understanding at last was effected that you were to
each hlave the appointment of a master workman.
Answer. I so understood it.
Question. Was one appointed, in pursuance of this understanding,
upon your recommendation?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who was he?
Answer. Mr. Lawrence Cohane, who resided in Mr. Maclay's district at the time he was appointed.
Question, Was it understood that he was to be your representative
in the navy yard?
Answer. He was to satisfy my wants.
Question. What position was assigned him?
Answer. That of master carpenter.
Question. How long was he retained in that position?
Answer. He was retained there until a short time after I had taken
ground in the House of Representatives against the Kansas policy of
the President.
Question. How soon after that was he removed?
Answer. I do not recollect the precise time.
Question. Had you any notice or intimation of his intended removal?
Answer. I had an intimation that Mr. Taylor, of Brooklyn, had
made an application, or was about to make application to get Cohane
removed, and have some friend of his appointed in his place. This I
understood grew out of my course in relation to the Kansas policy of
the President. I had an interview with the Secretary of the Navy in
relation to it,
Question. State what took place at that interview.
Answer. I think that Mr. Kelly, of the New York delegation, was
with me.  I called upon the Secretary of the Navy and told him what
I had learned in relation to this application of Mr. Taylor for his
friend. I stated that I had trusted that if this man Cohane performed
his duties well and. faithfully he would not be removed in consequence
of my opposition to the administration in relation to Kansas; that I
did not know  whether he was Lecompton or anti-Lecompton, but I
believed lie would-support loyally an administration which kept him
in place, and I trusted he would not be disturbed unless charges were
preferred for neglect of duty or incompetency.  The Secretary of the
Navy said there had been some application to have him removed. But
he volunteered to promise to me that he would not remove him, as he




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                           155
had given entire satisfaction in the discharge of his duties, unless
charges were preferred against him, and then he should have an opportunity (this was upon my suggestion) of having a hearing; and
he, the Secretary, would also notify me if any such charges were preferred, so that fair play would be had in the matter. In a very short
time after this interview Mr. Cohane was removed. No charges were
preferred against him to my knowledge; none were ever preferred to
his knowledge.  I never received any intimation from the department
whiclh induced me to suppose any charges had been preferred against
him.  I had some 5 or 6, 6, I should think, journeymen house carpenters under this man Cohane from my district. The other members
of Congress had their share of the men under him. I did not have
the exclusive control of his patronage, nor did I desire it. These six
journeymen carpenters were all dismissed in a very short time after
the dismissal of Cohane.
Question. Was the understanding to which you have testified continued as to yourself after your course upon the Lecompton question?
Was any further share of the patronage of that yard given to you?
Answer. No, sir; on the contrary, every man who had been appointed there on my recommendation, I think every one of them,
was dismissed and discharged from the yard.   There may have been
an exception or two, but I do not think of any now.
Question. Is there any particular fact pertinent to this inquiry
that you know of                                  h
Answer. I can say this, that I was in the habit of dropping into
the yard occasionally. From what I saw there I could give you an
opinion in relation to the management of the yard. I am satisfied
that, owing to this rule being adopted of allowing members of Congress to gratify their constituents by having men appointed in the
yard, there was an excess of men appointed in the various branches
and occupations there.  I am  satisfied of that from  my personal
knowledge of the masters there and the number of men they had
under them.  I believe that the men employed in the navy yard
should be employed by the commandant of the yard and the naval
constructor, and that members of Congress and others should have
nothing to do with the responsibilities attached to their appointment.
I think that great abuses have grown out of this system of recognizing the claims of us members of Congress, because each of us have
our men to apply to us for places-blacksmiths, carpenters, painters,
&c.-to whom we are under, perhaps, political obligation.  We sit
down and write letters urging the appointment of these men, and the
masters having the power make the appointments for the purpose of
propitiating our favor; and in very many instances, to my knowledge, they have, in doing so, gone beyond the number actually
required to perform the service of the yard.
Question. What would be the inevitable effect of this system, if
continued, upon the men employed in the navy yard immediately
preceding the elections in that neighborhood?
Answer. The men who are employed there, from my observation of
them, I should think did not labor more than one-half as much as




156                    BLOOKLYN NAVY YARD.
they would if they were employed outside of the yard, for they form
political gangs and corps for political purposes.
Question. Would this system necessarily tend to increase the number of men in the yard at the times immediately preceding elections?
Answer. I should say that it would.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How long has this practice prevailed of making appointments in the Brooklyn navy yard from political considerations?
Answer. In the manner which I have stated, for each of us to have
a master, not, I think, until the present Secretary of the Navy came
into office. Previous to that time I think that one or two members
of Congress had their claims recognized-the member from Mr. Taylor's district, and the member from Mr. Maclay's district.
Question. How long, so far as you know, have these appointments
been made upon the recommendations of members of Congress?
Answer. I can only say that it has existed through my term of congressional existence, though I never had over eight or ten appointments altogether in the yard, notwithstanding that there was some
fifty or sixty men employed under this master whose appointment was
given to me.
Question. Was it understood that when each one of you got a
master workman in the yard all the appointments under him were to
come from your respective districts?
Answer. No, sir; but it was a sort of understanding that the lion's
share should be given to the member of Congress upon whose recommendation the master was appointed.
Question. Are you distinct in your recollection that Mr. Clark
entered into this arrangement with the rest of you?
Answer. I am not distinct in that, although I am quite confident
that he acquiesced and had an appointment made in pursuance of that
understanding; I think he had a man by the name of Alexander
Ward appointed.
Question. Did you take pains to satisfy yourself of the competency
of the man you recommended?
Answer. In pursuance of this arrangement I thought I was entitled
to this appointment, and I selected the very best man I knew, one
who had performed properly some difficult work; who had built four
houses for me, and. who I felt satisfied was capable of building such
a building as the city hall of New York, if necessary. It was entirely
with a view to his fitness that I named him. He did not live in my
district at the time, but in Mr. Maclay's district. I had known him
for some time, and I esteemed him as a fit man for the place.
Question. And those other men appointed under him, and afterwards turned out; did you satisfy yourself that they were good
workmen?
Answer. I knew them, in every case, to be so.
Question. After this conversation between you and the Secretary
upon the subject of turning Mr. Cohane out, in which he promised
not to turn him out without giving you notice of it, did your relations
with him and the other members of the administration change any
between that time and the time of the turning out of Cohane?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          157
Answer. Not at all, except that I stated to my colleague, Mr. Clark,
and to others, that I considered that Mr. Toucey was not a gentleman
or a man of truth.
Question. Was this previously or subsequently to the turning out
Cohane?
Answer. Subsequently.
Question. Had there been anything between the conversation with
the Secretary and this turning out of Cohane?
Answer. I had never seen him between that time and the turning
out.  When I called upon him  it was because I understood he was
going to turn out this man Cohane, whom I knew had given more
satisfaction than any other master in the yard, and had this statement
from  the men in charge.there who were not biased by political
opinion.
Question  As the contest grew  warmer upon the Lecompton question did the relations between yourself and the administration become
more cool?
Answer. During that time I never asked any favors of any member
of the administration.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. There was a witness here by the name of Lewis W.
Berry, who said that you interfered with him, wrote him a threatening letter about an appointment, which letter he handed over to Hon.
G-eorge Taylor, asking him what he thought of it; do you know anything about that?
Answer. I do not recollect of having ever written any threatening
letter to this man Berry. My impression is that I wrote him a letter
on one occasion asking the appointment of some man by him as a
journeyman painter, and urging upon him, perhaps in pretty strong
language, that I was entitled to be recognized as a member of Congress in making this appointment. In other respects I did not write
a threatening letter.
Question. Did you address him a letter which, with propriety,
could be regarded as interfering with him in the proper discharge of
his duties?
Answer. No, sir; not at all. I had some statement made to me in
relation to the way in which Berry conducted his business there, which
induced me to think rather unfavorably of him, and I do not know as
I wrote an affectionate letter to him.  But it was by no means a
threatening letter. It was a letter rather claiming as a right to have
a man appointed upon my recommendation. I recollect calling upon
Berry at one time with a gentleman, in the paint business, who wanted
to estimate upon some advertised proposals for such materials; and
having had great experience in testing the quality of paints, this gentleman wished to examine the quality of the paints in Berry's department, before he made up his bids. But on that occasion I did not see
Mr. Berry.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was the arrangement, about the appointments in the
Brooklyn navy yard, suggested by members of Congress to the Secretary of the Navy, or by the Secretary to the members?




158                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. It occurred in a general conversation, but I do not recollect
whither it was first suggested by one of the members, or by the Secretary.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did you call there to obtain such an understanding?
Answer. We called there, not exactly to obtain such an understanding, but to protest against allowing one or two members to absorb
all of this patronage.
JOHN B. HASKIN.
No. 45.-ANSON HERRICK, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 7, 1859.
ANSON HERRICK called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. I am naval storekeeper at the Brooklyn navy yard.
Question. What was your profession or business before that?
Answer. I am  the editor and publisher of a newspaper, the New
York Atlas.
Question. Had you any experience as storekeeper prior to your appointment?
Answer. When I was a boy I used to tend in a grocery store; that
is very much like the duties of a naval storekeeper. A naval storekeeper has to do with everything that is required in fitting out a vessel,
from a paper of pins to a big anchor. Everything that is used in the
sailing and building ofa ship comes within the province of the storekeeper.
Question. What is the salary of the naval storekeeper?
Answer. $1,700.
Question. What are his duties? State briefly and generally.
Answer. He is supposed to be, and is, custodian of the public property in the navy yard belonging to the two bureaus of Yards and
Docks and Construction.
Question. Has he anything to do with making purchases for the
government, and fixing the prices of articles?
Answer. Not the least.
Question. By whom are purchases made for the government?
Answer. When an article is wanted of any kind, whether in fitting
out a ship at the navy yard, or in the construction or repairs of a ship,
or for improvements in the yard, or for any purpose whatever, a requisition is made upon the storekeeper for that article, whatever it may
be-aside from provisions and clothing, which belongs to another
bureau-a requisition is made upon me to supply this article. When
a list of such articles comes in, I go over it, comparing it with our
books; the first article on the list, perhaps, is in the store, and that
we mark as "store." Another article is contracted for, and we mark
that "contractor."   Another article is neither in the store nor is
there any contract for it, and then we mark that "open purchase."
We supply what we have, and then we make a requisition upon the
navy agent for what we have not in the store. If it is contracted for
we name it to the navy agent; we say, for instance, so much timber




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          159
of articular dimensions-such an amount contracted for, and so much
not on contract. It is all purchased, and then it is examined by the
examining officer; and all the duty of the storekeeper is this. After
it is examined and passed the matter comes up to me, and I sign a
receipt that I have received such an article on account of improvements, on account of construction, or whatever the appropriation may
be to which it belongs. We keep all these appropriations under separate heads.
Question. When did your appointment to office commence?
Answer. I was appointed by Mr. Toucey; the appointment was
made in March, 1857, but I did not take the office until the 1st of
May.
Question. Please state the amount of stores on hand at the time
you assumed the office.
Answer. That I cannot do; I have not the books here.
Question. Did you take an inventory of those stores?
Answer. I demanded an inventory before I gave a receipt. There
had been no inventory taken. I gave bonds in $40,000, and I thought
I ought to be informed what was on hand; so I demanded an inventory.  They said it could not be made out; in fact, they said an
inventory could not be taken for fifty thousand dollars. I will explain: For instance, the timber could not be taken out of the sheds,
and it was impossible to take an inventory of that. I insisted that
all the hardware, all the iron, and all the copper should be taken
account of. A captain, purser, clerk, &c., came in there to take an
inventory; they worked at it about a year, but I do not know that it
has ever been completed.
Question. Don't you know that it has not been completed?
Answer. I believe they gave it up as impracticable; however, I am
not certain. I have never been troubled about it; I gave bonds for
what was there. The storekeeper's bonds are out of all proportion to
his salary.
Question. You gave bonds in $40,000?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I will ask you to look at the table now shown you, [see
appendix to this deposition,] and state from that what was the amount
of stores on hand in the Brooklyn navy yard on the 1st of July, 1857.
Answer. It appears from this abstract that there was $1,315,019 03.
Question. What was the amount received during the fiscal year?
Answer. From  the tabular statement before me it appears to be
$556,712 03. I don't know whether this is correctly made out or not.
The books will show. I presume this is correctly copied, and exhibits
everything that purports to be on hand, whether it is there or not.
[The tabular statement, showing the stores on hand in the different
navy yards, is exhibited and made part of this deposition.]
Question. How do you know, and how does the government know'
that there was on hand on the 1st of July, 1857, the amount named
in this statement?
Answer. They can only know it from the storekeeper's books; they
record everything that comes into the yard and everything that goes
out, and we strike a balance and return the account every month,




160                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
That is a great deal of labor, but monthly returns are required of all
that comes into the yard, and of all that goes out, and of all that
remains of every article.
Question. In other words, your books show the amount that ought
to be there, but having made no inventor,               cannot state what
amount is there?
Answer. A large amount is in timber. There has been no inventory
taken of that, and there could not be one taken without the expenditure of an immense amount of money.  To turn out all the timber
that has been there for years, and to have it all surveyed and put into
the sheds again, would be a great deal of labor; that is the reason
they have waived that. The commission that was sent there to take
an inventory I consider a failure. The members of that commission
knew more of sea service than store keeping.  In some things they
got imperfect accounts. I saw that there was a large excess in some
things, and a deficiency in others.
Question. I will ask whether in your judgment the amount of
stores on hand would be equal to the amount stated in this tabular
statement?
Answer. I should think, aside from  the timber, there would be a
large excess.
Question. Excess of what?
Answer. Excess over the statement representedinthebooks   There
are many facts coming to my knowledgewhich strengthenthisopinion.  There never was a survey taken butwhattherewasanexcess
of property; there must be from the manner in which my predecessors
kept the books; I do not keep them in the same manner with my
predecessors. An excess arises in this way: a vessel is fitted out for a
long voyage, with all the stores, copper, iron, &c., everything she is
supposed to want for the cruise; this all goes on the storekeeper's
books as expended; but if the ship comes back with part of those stores
remaining on board, it has been the habit, so I am informed, not to
re-enter what she lands. It has all been turned into the common
stock, and in that way there has been a surplus.
Question. The storekeeper did not charge himself with it?
Answer. My predecessors do not appear to have done it; there is a
large excess of many things which must have accumulated in this
way.  He would mark the things expended, and when the ship returned with part of these things unexpended it would cause an inci ease.
I should think, aside from timber, almost everything that I know
anything about has exceeded; there was a large excess of copper.
Question. In other words the storekeeper took credit when he furnished them to the ship, but did not charge himself when the ships
came back?
Answer. Yes, sir.  My form is that everything as landed goes upon
the books now. My returns show, in fitting out a ship, where everything comes from, and these returns will show that a large expenditure is from surplus. Mr. Lenthall once asked me what I meant by
surplus?  When these requisitions come to me if the article is in
store we know it, even if there is nothing of the kind on the books.
Question. I will ask you this general question: what abuse, if any,




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        161
existed in the management of the naval stores at Brooklyn, at the
time you went into office, or what abuses existed in the mode of keeping the accounts of the storekeeper?
Answer. I know of no other abuse except this, the neglect to enter
stores that were landed from return ships. I think that was an abuse,
for it made an accumulation so that the storekeeper's books did not
represent the actual amount of property. That is all the abuse I
know of.
Question. I wish to ask some questions which you may think rather
personal to yourself, in relation to some things that other witnesses
have testified who have been examined. How much of your time do
you spend in the discharge of your duties in the naval storehouse at
Brooklyn?
Answer. I spend all that is necessary to discharge the duties.
Question. State how much and what duties you perform?
Answer. The duty I perform  is to see that the accounts are kept
correctly, to sign all requisitions and all receipts for goods received,
and to make out monthly statements of the accounts.  I could give
you the whole details of the office, and you would see immediately
that all there is to do could not occupy a man's time a great deal,
only to oversee and to sign his name to receipts and returns prepared
by the clerks. I have given bonds, however, and am responsible for
all the property that goes into the yard; and of everything that goes
in a record is kept by the clerks. The clerical force is too small;
there is not sufficient to do the work promptly.
Question. State what the clerical force is?
Answer. The returns are behind and cannot be written up for
several months.  I had orders last week to make out forthwith the
whole expense of the Paraguay expedition, in detail. The amount
of work is immense for the clerks; there have been a good many ships
there, and the committee can well imagine the labor of making out
the accounts of a whole fleet fitted out with small stores.
Question. How much clerical force have you?
Answer. We are allowed two clerks and two writers, but the pay
is most miserable for the writers.
Question. How many other employes have you, workmen and the
like?
Answer. I believe there are seventeen laboring men. There is the
first clerk at a salary of twelve hundred dollars; there is the second
clerk at a salary of nine hundred, for which, if it was my own business, I would not pay him less than twelve hundred. There are two
writers whose salary is two dollars a day, and I should be ashamed
to give them less than three to work in my own employment. I have
tried to get their pay raised, for I think it is miserable pay for employment that requires them to be accomplished clerks.  Then I have
a foreman, who has the general superintendence, who signs receipts
for all the goods delivered. He is foreman of the receiving store.
Everything has to pass through his hands; it is necessary that he
should be an honest man, and if he is, the storekeeper is safe.
Question. The foreman signs your name to the receipts?
11 D




162                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. He signs for me; he is there at sunrise every morning, and
stays there until the sun sets.
Question. How many men are under him?
Answer. He has the laborers necessary to work in the store.
Question. How many?
Answer. I think there are seventeen laboring men. I did not know
how I was to be questioned, or I would have brought down all these
facts.
Question. Suppose the foreman should sign receipts for goods not
delivered, and should collude with the contractors, have you any
check?
Answer. Then he would involve the storekeeper and his bondsmen.
Question. Is there any other check?
Answer. There is an examining officer. All goods are examined
by one of the naval men, besides the civil department.
Question. Suppose the foreman should sign a paper and receipt for
goods not delivered, is there any other check except the honesty of the
foreman and the responsibility of the storekeeper?
Answer. There are checks all the way through.  They cannot be
delivered only upon requisition.
Question. But suppose they are not delivered?
Answer. There is an inspecting officer, who is a lieutenant of the
yard, and he has to see everything, and inspects it. My foreman does
not pass the goods; he receives them. If the foreman, by collusion,
should sign a receipt and put it on the books, when no goods were
delivered, he could not deceive the examining officer, because the
examining officer is sent to examine every article that comes there.
That is the business of the lieutenants in the yard, and the captains
in the yard, and the masters in the yard; all those men are examining
officers, and the article must be there or they could not certify to it,
and their certificate is on every bill:  II  have examined the above
specified article, and find it to conform to the contract," or I find that
it has been purchased at market prices."
Question. Have you the form of this certificate?
Answer. I have not one; I can get one from the department.
Question. I will ask you to get duplicates and attach them to your
deposition at the time you sign it.
Answer. Yes sir.  [See appendix to this deposition.]
Question. I will now repeat the question, how  many hours a day
have you been in the habit of devoting to this business?
Answer. I could not tell; sometimes more and sometimes less;
sometimes no hours, because there is no business doing. I sign all
the bills myself, and all the requisitions myself.
Question. I understood you to say that the foreman signed them.
Answer. No, sir, he does not sign bills or requisitions; he signs,receipts to the contractor. If a carman comes with a load of goods
-the foreman gives him a receipt for them and signs that; and then the?bill, if paid, goes through this other process. I do not spend but very
little time in the navy yard, for this reason: these papers and documents are brought to me by my chief clerk, who is my son, whom  I
see every day, or by the messenger-one of the laborers being employed




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        163
as a messenger. I appointed my own son first clerk because I could
have confidence in him. All the papers that are necessary for me to
sign, when I am not at the yard, are brought to me, and an account
of all the business that is done in the yard is brought to my house
and reported to me.
Question. Brought to your house by the chief clerk?
Answer. Yes, sir; and therefore I can be sure that all the business
is correctly and properly done. I think I am as much in the storekeeper's office proper as any storekeeper I have known; and I have
known several for at least fifteen or twenty years. There was Captain
Paul R. George, Colonel Craven, Mr. Pentz, Colonel Fuller, and
Colonel Delavan, who all conducted the business just as I do; at least,
I suppose they did. Colonel Fuller told me that he used to go there
once or twice a week. It is not necessary to go every day. I consider the storekeeper's place as one of responsibility; the storekeeper
is not expected to do manual labor, or the work of a clerk.
Question. Has not this office been given for many years, under all
administrations, to editors of papers, or some political person?
Answer. All offices that I know of are given to some political person; they are all politicians, either on one side or the other. Colonel
Fuller was editor of the Mirror; Colonel Delavan was not, I believe,
in any business when he was appointed. He was a politician,
however.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who appointed Colonel Fuller?
Answer. General Taylor or Mr. Fillmore; I am not certain which.
By the Chairman:
Question. Is it expected, in the manner in which that office is filled,
that the storekeeper should attend personally at his office to the discharge of his official business?
Answer. I suppose it is.
Question. Has it been done?
Answer. Not every day. I attend personally there when necessary;
I was there twice last week; probably I should have been there twice
this week; I should have gone again on Saturday, if I had not been
subpoenaed here.
Question. Do you always go twice a week?
Answer. Not always; sometimes but once a week; sometimes not
so often. I go all that seems to be necessary in the discharge of what
I consider my duty. It seems to me that my responsibilities require
me simply to know that the business is correctly done, and that the
accounts are kept properly; and if I am satisfied of that, it is sufficient,
in my judgment.
Question. Have you ever received from a contractor, or any other
person connected with the navy yard, any commission or per centage
on bills?
Answer. Never; no one ever offered me any, and I do not know
why they should. I have only to sign that I have received the goods;
that is a fact that I could not dodge if I desired to. I should think
any contractor would be very foolish, when he had delivered the
goods, to pay a man a per centage to say that he had received them.




164                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
All that I sign is that I have received such an article,   have never
received a commission, and no contractor ever mentioned such a subject to me, nor can I see why he should.
Question. Do you know of the purchase of any piles which were
delivered in the yard?
Answer. I suppose you allude to some piles purchased by the civil
engineer, Murphey.  They were purchased before I was storekeeper.
All I know about it is that I was required to sign a receipt that I had
received them, and they were there. The receipt had never been
signed; for a receipt by a foreman is no receipt in full that binds the
government at'all.  My receipt is put to the bill when it has passed
the examining officer and has been approved.  I sign that I have
received the goods. I know that there were some piles put in by Mr.
John Midmer, and it excited my curiosity, because I knew him, and I
thought he was a queer man to buy timber of. I made some inquiry,
although it was none of my business about prices, for I am merely a
receiving officer and the custodian and keeper of the public property,
to see that it does not go out improperly.
Question. I will ask you whether the prices of those piles were fair
and just, in your judgment?
Answer. I am not a judge of timber.
Question. From the information you could get, was it a fair and
just price?
Answer. I got an experienced timber man to go and look at this
raft of timber only to satisfy myself. I only had to sign that I had
received these five hundred piles. I did find out where the man
bought the piles, but I do not know that it would be proper to have
that published.
Question. I wish to have a history of this matter.
Answer. This matter has nothing to do with my duties whatever.
Question. It is within your knowledge as a witness; that is the
reason the question is asked.
Answer. The bill came to me, and the only thing that excited my
curiosity was that a custom-house officer, who was also a small politician, should be buying timber. I met one of the most extensive
timber dealers riding about in his wagon, and I asked him to go over
and look at that raft of timber, and see what it was worth. I do not
remember what it was worth now, but I made a calculation that the
timber was put in for a good deal more than it was worth at the time.
This was altogether outside of my duty, however.
Question. Did you make any complaint, or mention this matter to
any one?
Answer. I think I mentioned it at the commodore's office, and they
said the bureau had ordered the timber to be received, and all I had
to do was8to sign the receipt.
Question. Was anything said to you about minding your own business?
Answer. There was a good deal said because I hesitated to sign
this bill. They wanted the money; I put the bills up in the pigeonhole; they called two or three times. I only wanted to know about
this, for it was altogether outside of my duty, because I thought I
sdielled a member of Congress-that's all.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          165
Question. You thought there was a member of Congress at the
bottom?
Answer. I thought there seemed to be.  I am pretty well posted.
up in politics in New York city, and I had a little curiosity about that
raft of timber because it came in an out of the way manner. The
requisition was not properly made out, and it had to be compromised
here with the bureau.
Question. Did you finally sign the receipt?
Answer.'Yes, sir; because there was the timber; I went to the raft
and counted it
Question. Was the timber paid for according to the original bill?
Answer. I do not know whether it was or not; I know the bill was
sent to me for signature to the receipt. I suppose it was. There was
some little difficulty about it. The thing has almost all escaped
my memory; that was nearly two years ago.  The matter could not
be settled in the navy yard, on account of the irregularity of the purchase, when Mr. Midmer appealed to the bureau here, and Commodore
Smith investigated it; and under the circumstance that the timber
was purchased without a requisition by the civil engineer upon the
storekeeper and navy agent, the matter was settled by the bureau at
Washington.
Question. Who was Mr. Midmer who furnished the timber?
Answer. He was an inspector in the custom-house.
Question. Inspector of what?
Answer. They have inspectors, weighers, and gaugers; he was
simply an inspector; that was his title, inspector of the customs, I
believe.
Question. Do you know of any fire-brick being bought on open
purchase at any time; and if so, how many, and by whom?
Answer. I cannot recollect now; but so far as those fire-brick and all
these other questionable things were concerned, I went into the commodore's office and called their attention to it.  Ask Captain Rootes
now.  I think I have been a very vigilant officer, for I have called
their attention to several of these things, when my suspicions of
unfair dealing had been excited.
Question. I will ask you how many fire-brick have been bought on
open purchase?
Answer. Those fire-brick struck my attention just in the same way
that the piles did. I knew the man away up town, and thought him
a queer man to buy fire-brick of, and I thought it was queer that
they wanted so many for immediate expenditure.
Question. Who was the man?
Answer. I do not remember his name now.  They were bought on
open purchase, and they were expended when they were bought. I
did not know what those fire-brick were for, and when I inquired, they
said for something about the new store.
Question. How many were there?
Answer. I think. -there were ten thousand. In making out the
annual specification of fire-brick that were required, the amount put
down was five hundred, and they were bid for by Wendell, a contractor, at a very enormous price because there was but five hundred




166                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
required. I think they were put in at $49 per thousand. In the
summer, when a requisition came from the civil engineer, Graham,
for ten thousand fire-brick on open purchase, I wondered why he did
not know he was going to need them when his estimates for the year
were made up  and so put them into the contract.  The contract for
five hundred had been supplied, and consequently these ten thousand
additional had to be bought upon open purchase. I think there were
ten thousand, but there might have been but five thousand; whatever
the number was, however, it struck me that with all the work the
civil engineer was doing, he knew when he made out his estimates in
October or November what would be wanted.
Question. From whom were these fire-brick bought?
Answer. I cannot remember the man's name now.
Question. At what price?
Answer. I think they were bought at $48 50, which was half a
dollar under the contract price for the 500; I had the curiosity to go
to a dealer and ask him what they were worth; he said such bricks
were worth from $32 to $33 per thousand; it was a small affair; I am
not absolutely certain about the quantity; it was one of those unusual
purchases calculated to attract my attention in signing the receipt,
which would not be noticed if it was a hundred gallons of sperm
oil or linseed oil, or something of that kind in constant use; firebricks are something very peculiar, being only used in the smithery
and plumbing shop; and what they wanted with so many bothered me.
Question. Do you know of any other cases where articles were purchased at what you regarded as unusual prices?
Answer. I generally scrutinize the bills, but as I have nothing to
do with the prices it is only my own curiosity that prompts me; they
tell me that I have nothing at all to do with the prices. The commodore passes upon and approves of the prices after I sign the receipt.
I have seen things charged a good deal higher than I would pay for
the same articles, when they were bought on open purchase.
Question. Is it a general rule that articles purchased on open purchase are at exorbitant prices?
Answer. I have a certificate on every article from  the examining
officer that is purchased on open purchase, before I sign it. The certificate of the examining officer is to the effect that the article has
been purchased at a fair market price.
Question. But is it not a fact that the prices are exorbitant.?
Answer. That is my judgment; but I dislike to put my judgment
against that of an expert in this business.
Question. According to your judgment, the articles bought on open
purchase have generally been charged exorbitant prices?
Answer. I do not think it would be just for me to answer that
question, and to set my judgment up against that of an expert in this
business who has to certify everything before I sign it. My judgment
might be that articles purchased at open purchase are bought higher
than fair market prices; I think, as a rule, those who supply the navy
yard with open purchase goods put on as much as their conscience will
allow, and take the chances of its being cut down by the comniodore;
and the commodore generally does not know anything about the market




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                         167
value of these things; I have noticed a good many of Captain Rootes'
contests about prices, and I have been very much amused at the way he
has knocked them down, and made them stand the reduction; of course,
seeing all this I have my opinion, and I think as a general thing, a
man who gets an order to supply a navy yard with anything, puts on
the stiffest kind of a price; if it will go through, all well; if the
commodore cuts it down, he stands it. That has been the habit. That
is my opinion-no, I do not want it given by the reporter as my
opinion, but it must be any man's opinion-it is human nature.
Question. What is done, from any information you may have, or
any opinion or judgment you may have formed, with the excess of
price over the reasonable price for the article?
Answer. That I could not tell.  I have not the least idea.
Question. Who makes these purchases at open purchase?
Answer. The navy agent makes all purchases.
Question. Do you. not know, or have you not been informed, that the
inavy agent, or some person under him, receives a portion of that profit?
Answer. I have no knowledge upon the subject.  I have heard a
great deal of scandal about our public officers-members of Congress,
and others.
Question. State your own opinion, from any information you have.
Answer. No, sir; I have no opinion about it. I only know that
the office of navy agent is one with a small salary, but that the navy
agents make money and get rich. That is all I know about it. This
is the general opinion. I have, held public offices before.
Question. Do you know Mr. Sanders?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has he not been engaged in western speculations at
Leavenworth?
Answer. So I understood.
Question. Is he much absent from New York?
Answer. So I have understood. I go to his office and do not find
him there.
Question. How frequently have you been to his office?
Answer. I do not know that I ever found him there but once. I
have been there a good many times on business.
Question. What is his salary?
Answer. $3,000 or $3,500.
Question. Is it not known publicly that he is absent from his office
and engaged in western speculations?
Answer. I should suppose it was.
Question. Is it not known to the department?
Answer. I do not know what they know. He might go to Kansas
and stay there, build houses and buy lands, and the department might
be unaware of it, for aught I know. He has an office, large and
spacious rooms, and elegant apartments, at a pretty expensive rent.
That has nothing to do with the navy yard.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Is this furnished by the government?
Answer. Yes, sir, the rent is paid by the government; it is in the
old building of the Bank of the State of New York.




168                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. How much rent is paid?
Answer. He must pay a pretty highrent there; but the department
always allowed the rent. The amount is readily ascertained from the
official documents.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is that his office as navy agent?
Answer. Yes, sir; he has no office in the navy yard.
Question. What is your salary?
Answer. $1,700.  Some complaint has been made because I did
not attend at the navy yard every day.  Now, it would be absolute
folly for me to travel over there every day.
Question. Who are your bondsmen?
Answer. The district attorney said that it was the best bond he ever
sent to Washington.  They are BryanMcCahill and James Humes,
two wealthy Irishmen, neither of them office holders but one of them
has been a city councilman.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. I wish you to state more particularly what proportion of
your time is given to your duties as storekeeper?
Answer. I am editor of a newspaper, and I might go over there
and write in the office.  If it is absolutely necessary,
edit my paper over there as anywhere.
work and business of the naval stores; to see that the property is
taken care of; to see that the accounts are properly kept. I have a
faithful young man, who is first clerk. He was educated for the bar;
a young man 23 years old, who graduated at Columbia College with
some distinction, and has studied law. I put him over there because
I could rely upon him as an expert clerk to keep the accounts right.
I supervise and see that all is done right, and every night I know
everything that has transpired there.
Question. Do you suppose you devote as much as one-seventh of
your own individual time to the duties of storekeeper?
Answer. I do not know that I do; but I do all that is required.
If I were there all the time I could not do any more than I do now,
unless I should take hold and help the laborers weigh iron.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Suppose that your son was storekeeper himself, could not
he discharge all the duties of his position and of yours too?
Answer. He could, but it would be excessive labor and responsibility. I do not imagine that a storekeeper, with a salary of $1,700,
is paid mainly for the manual or mental labor he performs, but for the
responsibility he assumes; and I do not think he is half paid for that
responsibility, and no man who understands it would say so. The
salary is contemptible, in consideration of the responsibility. Here
are men employed among goods of all kinds which are liable to be
stolen, and  myself and my bondsmen  are liable for everything.
I think a man might, if he would take the responsibility, perform the
labor of both offices at $1,700; but I do not think you would find any
responsible person to do it.
Question. All that you are re ponsible for is to see that things are
safely kept, is it not?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                            169
Answer. To see that they are not lost or stolen.  Here are these
people keeping a hardware store, a paint store, a dry goods store, an
iron and copper store, a duck and cordage store, all in their appropriate
rooms, and all these things are liable to be stolen.
Question. Are they not all secured by bolts and bars?
Answer. No, sir; in the daytime they are all open.  Take the iron
store, for instance: a great, spacious store, with five laborers in it,
and the head laborer, who is to see to it all, has a salary of $1 50 per
day.  That is not enough to prevent a man from  stealing.  A  piece
of copper, worth two or three dollars, might easily be slipped into the
pocket and taken out of the yard, and I am responsible for it to the
government.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. What is the salary of your clerks?
Answer. That of the first clerk is $1,200; that of the second clerk
is $900.  The labor is immense.  They work night and day, and
sometimes Sundays, and yet they cannot keep up the accounts, and
the department will not give me more clerical help.  They sent the
other day for the expenses of the Paraguay expedition to be forwarded
immediately, and there is more work in that than those men could
do in three weeks.
Question. Is not that an extraordinary requisition?
Answer. It may be; but the last year there has been twice as much
done in the naval storekeeper's department as in any year before, so
far as I can learn from the books.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Who was the agent at the time of the purchase of the
fire-brick?
Answer. Mr. Saunders, I think.
Question. What was his authority in making that purchase?
Answer. I can illustrate that by this paper.-[See Appendix attached to this deposition.]   A requisition was first made upon  me
that they wanted so much timber.  Not having it on hand, I made a
requisition upon the navy agent to obtain it of the contractor or by open
purchase.  This was for white pine timber.  White pine dimension
timber had been contracted for by Mr. Campbell at $25 per thousand;
but he contended that this did not come within his contract, and he
would not put it at the contract price.  After a long controversy the
navy agent had to pay forty-odd dollars per thousand for it.  The
words " to be used in place of timber not required in contract," have
been interpolated since this requisition left the storekeeper's office.
Although that looks very much like the handwriting of my son, it is
not his handwriting.
Question. Where are all those requisitions recorded?
Answer. They are all recorded in my office. That is the labor of
the storekeeper. It is performed by one of the writers.
Question. Do you take a receipt for everything given out?
Answer. Yes, sir; vouchers are signed for everything I give out.
The blacksmith signs for the iron he has; the plumber for all the
goods he has; the carpenter for all his materials and all his tools
for the naval storekeeper's stock embraces all sorts of tools, and all




170                       BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
sorts of fitting out, and it requires something of a storekeeper to attend
to it. The hardware man is a man who has been there for I don't
know  how  long, and if he should be removed, and an order should
come to fit out a vessel, I don't believe we could get a man to do it.
Question. Is there any mode to obtain additional profit or receipts
to eke out your salary?
Answer. Not that I know of.
Question. Have you ever received, in connexion with this office,
any other compensation than your salary?
Answer. Never; not one single cent.
Question. Have you ever furnished the government with any articles,
either by open purchase or by contract?
Answer. Never a thing.
Question. In former days, or at any time?
Answer. I think  that in the Tyler times I had a requisition for
some printing; and  I think I did some printing for the navy yard
in 1843 or 1844; otherwise, I have never had any dealings whatever
with the navy yard until I went there to take charge of my present
office, and I think my business has been pretty well done. I think
the duties are done, although my presence has not been there every
day.  Indeed, I could not afford to go over there for the pay.
Question. Is it not the duty of the naval storekeeper to see that the
seventeen men under him are at their work?
Answer. Yes, sir; he is responsible for that.  I have a foreman
there who attends to that.
Question. Suppose that the foreman should be faithless.
Answer. I take care to have a faithful man, one that I can trust.
APPENDIX.
Abstract statement showing receipts and expenditures during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1858, and the value of all stores on hand at the various
navy yards on the 1st July, 1858.
Navy yards.      On hand July    Received.      Expended.   On hand July
1, 1857.                                    1, 1858.
Portsmouth.-           $751,685 50   $161,962 43   $182,681 32    $730,966 61
Boston.. —---         1,530,800 39    862,247 22    764,882 62   1,628,164 99
New York              1,315,019 03    556,712 03    457,578 38   1,414,152 68
Philadelphia —-------   526,426 93    295,800 90    293,002 44        529,225 39
Washington...-.. —--    528,115 43    475,634 58    545,267 91       458,482 10
Gosport ---------. 1,565,958 28    446,883 38    473,015 06   1,539,826 60
Warrington.. —----      341, 346 80     61,819 26      70,320 22      332,845 84
Total ——. —--- 6,5599352 36  2,861,059 80  2,786,747 95   6,633,664 21




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       171
No. 431.                 UNITED STATES NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,
August 15, 1857.
SIR: There is required, under the appropriation for improvements,
Bureau of Yards and Docks, "dredging channel," constructing engineer's department8 pieces of white pine timber 40 feet long-12 x 12.
8 pieces of white pine timber 40 feet long- 6 x 12.
8 pieces of white pine timber 151 feet long- 8 x 15.
24 pieces of white pine timber 40 feet long- 4 x 12.
16 pieces of white pine timber 35 feet long -3 x 14.
16 pieces of white pine timber 14 feet long~-3  x 14.
And 14,500 board feet of 3-inch-white pine plank, to be 15 feet long,
and from 12 to 16 inches wide, clear of sap and knots, to be used in
place of timber not required on contract; 1,300 Secor & Co. 7-inch
hand spikes.
W. W. CAMPBELL,
Contractor.
Approved.
THOMAS R. ROOTES,
Commandant.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
ANSON HERRICK,
TU. S. Naval Storekeeper.
The NAVY AGENT.
FEBRUARY 8, 1859.
ANSON HERRICK recalled.
By the Chairman:
Question. Do you know whether the names of any men were ever
put upon the pay-roll of the Brooklyn navy yard who did no labor
or service there beyond answering to their names at roll-call?
Answer. None in my department; I do not know as to the other
departments; I never inquired about it, and I know knothing more
about it than do the gentlemen of this committee; it is not my business to know.
Question. Are not politicians-what they call "primary men" of
New York city-put to work in the yard upon the recommendation
of members of Congress, without reference to the necessities of the
service, in order that they may be paid for political services?
Answer. I do not know that they are; I should not suppose that a
master workman would put men to work if he had no work for them
to do; I do not know in what fear they stand of members of Congress;
I know that they stand in considerable fear of them, supposing them to
have considerable power; it is supposed, I know, that the patronage




172                    BROOKLYN NATVY YARD.
of the navy yard belongs to members of Congress; they dispense it;
if any man wants to get work there, he must get a letter from a member of Congress recommending him; that is the rule there in dispensing the government patronage in the navy yard.
Question. Do you not know, so far as your observation extends,
that master workmen do employ incompetent men to work in the navy
yard; men who are employed there because of their political influence?
Answer. I do not know that; I know the process of getting men
to work in the navy yard; I have seen members of Congress once
there, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Sickles, or some others, and have spoken to a
master workman about putting on workmen; these master workmen
will send word to members of Congress when they are about employing
additional men: I am about to employ so many men, and I will put
on so many from your district if you will send me their names; when
it gets to be about election time most of the Congressmen are about
the navy yard as busy as men can be, getting their friends employed
there; I will say this, that I never saw the representative from my
district, Mr. Horace F. Clark, in the navy yard; I think, however,
that I have seen every other city and county member there.
Question. Have you not recognized among the laboring men in the
navy yard well known "shoulder-hitters" and criminals of the city
of New York?
Answer. I do not know  exactly what you mean by "shoulderhitters."
Question. That is a term  generally recognized in your city, is it
not?
Answer. I do not know that there are any professional pugilists
employed in the navy yard. I have no knowledge of any in the navy
yard. They get employment rather under our city government than
in the navy yard.  The class of people who are employed in the navy
yard are worthy mechanics.  These fighting men, these "shoulderhitters" as they are called, are not apt to be mechanics. I think the
navy yard is more exempt from that class of people than any other
department; more exempt than the custom-house, our city government,
or our State government.  I think that the mechanics in the navy
yard are, as a general thing, somewhat of a reputable class of citizens.
I have been importuned to get employment for men in the navy yard,
and I have gone over there myself and asked the masters if they could
not give this or that man a place, as he was a poor man with a family to
support. They have said: I have not work for him now, but when I
have it, I will do so if I can.
Question. Did you ever know of any man being appointed under a
master workman except his political relations were what are considered
of the right kind?
Answer. I do not know.  To be candid with you, I never recommended a man to a place there unless I knew he was a democrat. I
never was a member of Congress, but I have been a candidate; and I
have tried to get men employed in the navy yard, and I did as others
do, endeavor to use my influence for those of my own political opinions.
You have your own predilections, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, and I




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                           173
suppose that none but your political friends would come to you for
your recommendations to office and preferment.
Question. Is not the effect of the administration of the patronage in
the navy such that a man cannot get the humblest employment there
unless he is known to be an active partisan? Is not that the tendency
of this mode of the administration of the patronage in the navy yard?
Answer. I do not know but what that is the effect of the system.
Yet I think that there are some masters in the yard who, if they could
not get competent workmen of their own political faith, would take
those of the other parties. In the matter of ship building, for instance,
it requires mechanical genius to execute the necessary work, and mechanics must be had to do it. We should have queer ships and buildings
in the navy yard if we did not have mechanics, but politicians, to do
the work upon them.  I do not expect that our members of Congress
would recommend there other than their own political friends.  I
apprehend that our democratic members of Congress would not send
a republican mechanic over there to get work. I should blame them
if they did. So, upon the other hand, when the other party was in
power no democrat could get work there under them.
Question. Do you not know that an unnecessary number of laborers
and mechanics are often set to work in the navy yard?
Answer. I do not know it of my own observation. I have seen large
gangs of men there at work, but I presumed the master workmen
were the best judges of what was required. I know that they are
very reluctant, and do not want to employ more men than they can
avoid employing.  I know that I have visited the master painter
when I knew he had a job of work on hand, the painting of a vessel,
for instance, and requested and urged him to appoint some poor
painter from my neighborhood, and he has told me that he could not
do it; that there was not room for another one to work there; and
that there were more now there than he really wanted, crowded upon
him  by members of Congress.  I think the masters are pretty conscientious, and fight off the members of Congress with a great deal of
resolution sometimes, ani refuse positively to put on any more men.
Question. Then you are of the opinion that there are more laborers
employed there than there is a necessity for?
Answer. I think there is. I think it is so in all the departments,
too.  I think we have more clerks here in Washington to do our
work here than there is any necessity for.  I think it is so, too, in
our city government in New York.
Question. And the tendency of that is manifest in the navy yard,
is it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. You say that members of Congress go into the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir, to see that their friends are put at work there.
All the men there are employed upon the recommendation of members
of Congress; and as that is the rule, these members go over there and
ask the master workmen to put this man at work; or the friends of
some man will go in there and ask to have some poor man put at work,
and the master will say, " Go and get a letter from Mr. Sickles, Mr.
Maclay, Mr. Cochrane," &c., "and I will set you at work."




174                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Is it usual in New York to use money in your elections?
Answer. Well, I cannot conceive how an election can be carried on
very well without money. I have just gone through an election, and
I know it cost me some money.
Question. Are contributions for electioneering purposes levied upon
the officers and men employed in the navy yard?
Answer. No, sir; not in my department.  I paid my own expenses
for the election I have just gone through.
Question. I do not mean for your own election expenses, but for
general election expenses; how is that?
Answer. I would not permit any such thing in my department. I
considered that the men employed there were paid too little, anyway,
for the work they are obliged to perform. Those contributions for
election and political purposes are generally extorted from the customhouse employes, &c.
Question. Do not you levy upon officers in the navy department,
employes, &c.?
Answer. I have not done so.
Question. Did they not levy upon you?
Answer. There was never any levy upon me, and I would not have
paid it if there had been.
Question. Did you contribute towards elections in your State?
Answer. I have not contributed since I have been in the navy
department one cent, except for conducting my own canvass. I am
somewhat of a political man; I have been a candidate for Congress;
I have been an alderman for three or four years, and I have had a
great deal to do with New  York politics, and I say that it costs
money.  I guess it cost my competitor last fall a little money to be
re-elected, and I know it cost me a great deal to try to beat him.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You have stated that it is the practice to expend money,
raised by contributions, to carry on elections. Is it not notorious that
the republicans contribute much more largely than do the democrats?
Answer. Very much so.  I am  a member of the Tammany Hall
general committee, and have been connected with it a good many
years. We have to raise money to carry on our party organization,
and we expect it to come from our party office-holders. I do not know
who else is to pay it.  We have many expenses to pay, such as printing, &c. Our printing bill alone amounts to $7,000 or $8,000.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. You have stated that it is general to use money for elections in New York; state whether or not this money is used to influence and buy votes?
Answer. Not that I know of; it is used to carry on and pay legitimate election expenses, such as printing, &c.
Question. Is it the money of private individuals or is it public money
that is used?
Answer. Individual money, I suppose.
Question. What produces the necessity for the use of money in that
way?
Answer. The getting up of public meetings, making public demon



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          175
strations, paying for bands of music, for processions, banners, transparencies, printinog show bills, printing tickets, advertising in the
newspapers, &c.
Question. You do not exactly comprehend my meaning. I want to
know if money is used by one party in elections because it has been
used by another party for the same purpose. Is it because a particular
class or party use it that another class or party are prompted to use
Answer. In opening an election campaign both parties go in to
raise the money to carry on its operations, making great displays,
getting up public meetings, firing guns, and providing all the parapharnalia of a New York election. The whole thing is expensive.
I have been a member of a general committee when its expenditures
for the organization have been $12,000 a year-what are called the
necessary expenses of an election.
Question. D~o you know whether individuals are prompted to use
money in elections and counteract either the use or the supposed use
of government patronage in the election?
Answer. I do not know how government patronage can be used to
influence elections, except the mere part of members of the party holding offices.
Question. I do not assert that it is used, but I want to know whether
individuals are prompted to use money because they suppose that government patronage is used in that way?
Answer. That I could not tell.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. How long have you been acquainted with the management of the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Since I went there.
Question. Not before?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. When did you go there?
Answer. I was appointed to the office I now hold at the commencement of this administration.
Question. Did you know before that time whether appointments
were made there upon political grounds?
Answer. I always supposed they were.
Question. You do not know anything about it.?
Answer. I know I have been  instrumental in  getting men appointed there whom I recommended upon political grounds.
Question. How long have appointments been made there upon political grounds?
Answer. Ever since there has been a navy yard there, I suppose;
the civil appointments I mean.
Question. State whether you applied to Mr. Horace F. Clarkin this
city for the purpose of getting him to intercede with the department
to have an inventory taken of the government property in the navy
yard in Brooklyn. Did you not write a letter to him upon the subject?
An wer. I might have done so, but I do not recollect it.  I was
talking with Mr. Clark about it this morning, and he says I did write




176                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
to him about it. I have no recollection of writing to him upon that
subject  In my testimony of yesterday is the statement that I applied for an inventory, and I then stated the difficulties of making
it.
Question. Did you state, in connexion with that application, that
you were unwilling to become responsible for the property in the navy
yard without an inventory being taken?
Answer. Yes, sir, I said so.
Question. Did you not also state that all the property of the government which ought to be there was not there?
Answer. I was apprehensive that it was not. I could not know
that it was; but I was apprehensive that it was not, and that was the
reason of my anxiety to have an inventory taken, in order that I should
not be responsible for more than was put in my hands.
Question. Do you know whether an inventory or schedule has been
kept there of all the government property?
Answer. It has always been kept there by the naval storekeeper.
Question. Was it a complete list of all the property of the government there, or was there property omitted?
Answer. As I stated when I was examined before, the list was not
complete, and the surplus grew up in the way I suggested, being returned from vessels and not entered upon the books.
Question. Do you or do you not know that there has been government property in the navy yard which might be abstracted without
the government being able to recover it, in consequence of there being
nothing to show that it belonged to the government?
Answer. I think that there is such property there, and, as illustrations, I will state two circumstances which occurred since I was there
of property being abstracted. [After a short pause,] I do not know
exactly how to commence my statement.  When I entered upon the
duties of the office of storekeeper in May, 1857, I continued the former
chief clerk until the 1st of June, when I notified him that I would
not require him after the 1st of July, as I had resolved to make a
change in the office of chief clerk. He had been there for nineteen
years, and I made up my mind that he had been there long enough.
About the middle of the month of June he wrote me a note, stating
that upon going to the office one day he had found that one of the
drawers in his private desk, where he kept comparing watches, had
been picked, and some eight or nine comparing watches taken out.
I thought I was in for that certain. I supposed I should be responsible for it, at any rate. I investigated the matter on my own hook, got
an expert police detector to go there and examine all the clerks and the
messenger about the office; but he could find no trace of the watches.
I advertised, at my own expense, in the newspapers; I employed a
policeman at my own expense, and tried my best to find the watches.
I could not find any trace of them.  I then examined the books to see
how many watches were on the books, and that was what first drew
my attention to the subject. I found that there were only two watches
down on the book. Yet although they had stolen some seven of them
there were enough left to cover all upon the books. There had been
some fifteen or sixteen in the drawer, yet there were only two which




BROORLYN NAVY YARD.                          177
were recorded as returned to the government. So that, after seven
had been stolen, there were still some seven or eight left, sufficient to
cover the number represented to be on hand.  This was the first thing
that excited my attention about this matter.  I found that if unreorded property was stolen, it did not necessarily involve me in any
responsibility, as it was not down on the books.  In this case I was
ready to settle vwith the government, deliver over to it the two watches
that the books called for, and then I would have some four or five
left.  That resulted from this same process of returning the articles
-and not entering them upon the books.
Question. What kind of watches were these?
Answer. They were English watches, patent lever watches, which
were given to the forward officers to compare with the time.  When
they came back into port they returned these watches, but they had
n~ot been put upon the books again.  I was as vigilant as I could be
about these watches, and worked as hard to try to recover them  as
though they had been my own property.
Question. What were these- watches worth?
Answer. They were rated at $25 on the books, but I do not think
they were worth that much.  The other crcumstance was this: some
six or eight months ago I had intimation that this man, who had been
discharged from the office of chief clerk, and had been out of employment for a year, had a marine timepiece in his house that belonged
to the United States government. I hardly knew what to do about
the matter.  This man was a respectable man and a man of family;
but still there was the information which came to me that he had
a clock belonging to the government which he had taken out of the
yard some year or two ago.  I went to Mr. Sedgwick, the United
States district attorney, and asked him what I should do in the matter.
He said if I knew of any government property being out in that way
I ought to take steps to recover it. He advised me to commence
a replevin su-it against the man for the clock.  I did so, and sent an
officer down to his house, who took it and brought it to my office in
the navy yard.  Those are two cases I know of where property of the
government was abstracted. The watches were lost; the clock was,
recovered.
Question. Was that clock down in any inventory, so that you could
identify it?
Answer. Every instrument belonging to the government, down to,
these ships' comparing watches, have their marks and numbers and.
makers' names, &c., registered; so that if I could find out where theyJ
were, so as to get their numbers and marks, I could tell whether they
belonged to the government. After this, I myself instituted regula,..
tions that everything landed from the vessels and returned should go
upon the books. It is in relation to this matter that I want to qualify
what I said yesterday. I do not want to swear that my immediatepredecessor was the only man that neglected to have these returned
articles entered upon the book. I think that they all did as he did.
These instances I have mentioned show what can be done unless the,
parties are detected. At one time some laborers were detected carrying
off some copper bolts.  The marines on duty in the navy yard are al!
12 D




178                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
the time detecting this stealing, this petty larceny, that is going on
there.
Subsequently the witness made the following statement:
In the report of my testimony as submitted to me, I deem  it
important to make the explanations and qualifications herewith submitted,
In relation to the surplus goods on hand, I mean to say that my
predecessors in office, not particularly Colonel Delavan, my immediate
predecessor alone, have been in the practice of not entering upon the
books all the goods landed from return ships. I mean that the fact
of an existing surplus proves that such entries have not been generally
made before my time.
In reference to there being a surplus of almost everything except
timber, it is proper to say that I believe there was a small deficiency
in iron.
In reference to my own duties, I should state that I in person
supervise the accounts, examine and sign the monthly returns and
the elaborate statements of goods received and expended, sign all
requisitions upon the navy agent and the receipts attached to all bills
for goods and supplies furnished the yard, conduct the correspondence
of the office with the navy agent, the contractors, the department at
Washington, and with the commodore of the yard, between whom
and the storekeeper there is much intercourse in relation to the fitting
out of ships and furnishing of supplies, all of which is conducted in
writing.  The number of requisitions I am required to sign amounts
to thousands in a year; and many hundreds are the official letters
written by the storekeeper. I forgot to mention that I have much
important business to do in the way of shipping supplies to our foreign
naval stations and vessels abroad, and to the other navy yards in the
United States. I mean further to say that the clerical force allowed
me by the department is not adequate for the work imposed upon my
office, and that I am obliged to make clerks, at times, of men rated as
laborers at 112 cents a day, in order to get through with the writing.
In relation to the signing of official papers, when I am not personally
present in the navy yard, I mean to say, that when my signature is
required the papers are either brought to me after office hours by my
first clerk, or sent over to my office, which is but a short distance
from the ferry, by the messenger, in which capacity one of the laborers
is employed. If my presence is required or needed the messenger
notifies me, and I respond by my appearance at the yard promptly.
I alm always sent for when wanted, and I have no knowledge of any
embarrassment having taken place in the public business in consequence of my not being in the yard.  My private office is within,fifteen or twenty minutes walk of the yard.
The several stores in my charge are located in different parts of the
yard, some of them  quite remote from  others, and all separate from
the building where the storekeeper keeps his accounts and his immediate office.
In relation to the timber (piles) furnished by Mr. Midmer, the
whole facts are, in short, that Mr Murphy, then the constructing
engineer, purchased it without first making a requisition. It was the




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      179
irregularity in making the purchase that created the difficulty; and
in consequence of that irregularity there was no power in the officers
of the yard to settle the bill. Hence the appeal to the bureau, and
the settlement of the affair by the superior powers. The informality
was waived; the timber was received and paid for. The certificate of
the timber inspector was appended that the price charged was the fair
market value of the timber before my signature was appended.
ANSON HERRICK.
No. 55.-EDWARD A. BARNET, PHILADELPHIA, U. S. N.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
EDWARD A. BARNET called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. I am a lieutenant in the navy.
Question. Where were you stationed in the summer of 1858?
Answer. At the navy yard in New York.
Question. When were you removed?
Answer. I was removed in September, 1858, to go in the Niagara,
very suddenly.
Question. From  whom was you first notified of your removal or
intended removal?
Answer. There was a man by the name of Lynch, who threatened
to have me turned out of the yard. I had previously threatened to
kick him  out of the yard for some threats which he made against
Colonel Harris; he was very abusive, and cursed me, and I laid it to
him at first; it was currently believed that I had been removed through
his influence, but since then I have changed my mind about it; I do
not think that Secretary Toucey would have anything to do with such
a contemptible scoundrel as he is.
Question. Who is this Mr. Lynch?
Answer. I do not know anything about him; he is represented to
be a pot-house politician.
Question. Where?
Answer. About New York.
Question. Is that the same Mr. Lynch who is about here in Washington?
Answer. Yes, sir, the same man; he has been here since, and
asked what I was doing, and said he would be damned if I should go
back into that navy yard any way.  He threatened to shoot me in
the yard, in the commandant's office.
Question. I will ask you if you recollect an accumulation of liveoak belonging to Mr. Swift, in the yard at Brooklyn?.
Answer. No, sir; my duties were not in connexion with that at
all; I was the inspecting officer; purchases made in open purchase
came through me; I had to inspect and see that the price was correct,
as near as I could.
Question. How did the prices of articles purchased upon open




180                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
purchase generally rate-were they higher or lower than market
prices?
Answer. They were generally higher. I got at the market prices
as near as I eould; it was very difficult for a man in my position, as
the prices varied so much. I rejected a good many articles, and I
thought that made me somewhat unpopular.
Question. When you rejected articles what was the general result?
Answer. They were taken away immediately.
Question. State whether or not they were returned at lower prices.
Answer. Of course they were furnished at lower prices.
Question. Who furnished articles for the navy yard upon open
purchase?
Answer. There was one peculiarity about open purchase; I can
only exemplify it by an illustration: Suppose there was a horse
required; I would send word to the navy agent, and, instead of
letting the messenger or some person o and buy one, he would send
to a ship chandler by the name of Secor, and let him buy it. The
result is obvious.
Question. Was that the uniform habit?
Answer. It was, unless I went myself and insisted upon it. For
instance, if we wanted to buy some oilcloth to put down in a ship's
cabin, where there was some.ittle taste required, I would go myself
in order to get a peculiar pattern, and then I suppose he considered
it a favor.
Question. How  frequently was Mr. Saunders, the navy agent, in
his office?
Answer. I more often found him out than in.
Question. Was he not absent from the city a great part of the time?
Answer. That I do not know.
Question. How did it happen that he got Mr. Secor to make these
purchases?
Answer. That I do not know, sir, at all.
Question. Do you know whether there was any arrangement between Mr. Saunders and Mr. Secor?
Answer. I do not know.  When the new contracts came out there
was a man by the name of Kennedy who had had a great many contracts
there, told me I had better be careful; he had not got many of them,
and he said the bids were so -very low that he could not possibly take
those articles, so that I had better look out or I would be cheated.
He mentioned one article particularly, white lead, because they had
contracted to furnish it at a lower price than they could buy it.
They could not do it, and so were shoving spufious articles on the
government.  I have forgotten the name of the new contractor.
Question. What was the business of Mr. Secor?.Answer. I think he was a ship chandler. I never went to his office
at all. I would not have gone there. If they had sent me I should
have declined to go.
Question. What part of the city did he live in?
Answer. I do not know, sir.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                            181
Question. What connexion had he with Mr. Saunders in the way
of business1?
Answer. I do not know of any.  Messengers that I would send
after things would come back and say it was no use for them  to go
over there, after anything, because he would always send them to Mr.
Secor.  In fact, all the articles in the receiving store are in bad condition, and the storekeeper is never there. I do not think I saw him
three times in five months, and at the same time he was complaining
of a want of clerical force.  If I had any business to transact in the
store I had to do it with an understrapper-his son. The store is a
disgrace in its present condition. I would have liked to have arranged
it, and put the affair in order, but I had no authority and could not
do it.
Question. What other abuses have you observed in the navy yard?
Answer.'I think there is one that exists in relation to taking in
laborers.  It would be particularly the province of the officers to
select these men.  They are, many of them, physically incapable.
In one instance, in dismasting the St. Louis, I could scarcely get the
masts out of her.  I could not get the men to work; in fact, they
were not strong enough.  If they had been sailors I could have done
well enough, but these were men who had been, apparently, broken
down by whiskey, and besides that they were old —very old-so that
they were unable to perform the labor required of them. If I would
set theim to whitewashing, I had to watch them to see that they did
not stop.  I reported this thing to Captain Rootes, but he said he
had no authority to discharge them and take in better men, although
I believe he took it upon himself to do it pretty violently upon one
or two occasions, when he got angry and turned them out of the yard
by neck and beels.
Question. Do you know of any other abuses? If so, describe them
-abuses which yp  saw in any department of the public service?
Answer. No, sir, I do not know of any others in particular. An
officer of the yard could give no order at all to have anything done
in the department of the naval constructor without going to the naval
constructor himself.
Question. It was your special duty to inspect the articles as they
were sent in?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I will ask you to name, as near as you can, the aggregate
amount procured on open purchases, per annum, in the Brooklyn
navy yard?
Answer. I could not specify it in figures, but it was very large.
Question. Was it a million of dollars, or how much?
Answer. I could not tell.
Question. What was it in proportion to the amount purchased by
contract?
Answer. I do not think it was near so large.
Question. Were any complaints made about the navy agent neglecting his duty?
Answer. No, sir, I did not hear of any, except that hel put us to a




182'BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
good deal of trouble.  I remember one instance when some gold leaf
had been required at open purchase, and a painter in the yard went
over and got it, I think it cost $8 50 per package, and when he
brought it to me he represented that if he had been ordered to go and
buy it himself he could have got it in Brooklyn for $7, being a dollar
and a half less per package than was paid for it. The reason that we
had to use things sometimes when the prices were too high was
because we wanted them  immediately.  They wanted this gold leaf
to put on a ship that was going away.  Sometimes circumstances
rendered it impossible for me to reject the articles when I knew the
prices were too high; but I did reject them whenever I could. I
never let such a thing slip if I could possibly help it.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. As inspector, did you determine upon the reasonableness
of the price, as well as the quality of the article?
Answer. Yes, sir. It was my business to find out the market prices
as well as I could.  I used to send a messenger over to get the market
prices.
Question. How often did you find it incumbent upon you to reject
articles in consequence of excessive prices-was it a common thing?
Answer. No, sir, it was not a common thing.
Question. You say that upon some occasions, when articles were
rejected for excessive prices and sent back, they were returned at
lower prices; do you mean that the same article was returned, or an
article of similar description?
Answer. No, sir, not the same article; they would send back other
articles.
Question. Do you know  whether complaint has ever been made
to the Navy Department that the navy agent was inefficient or
inattentive?
Answer. No, sir, I do not.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Lynch ever made any complaint about yourself?
Answer. Nothing but what he said himself, this braggadocio,what
he would do. I never believed that he did make complaint against
me, or if he did, that it had any effect. In fact when I went to sea
the service was hard pressed for officers, and had not any to send to
sea.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you not think that the lieutenants are over-worked?
Answer.  Our lieutenants worked very hard.  I know I am suffering now from the effects of my last cruise; this is the sixth time I
have had the inflammatory rheumatism.  I have been at sea six years
since 1850.
Question. The exigencies of the service required lieutenants to be
constantly upon duty?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You spoke of abuses in the yard. Is it so or not, that
in a yard of that sort, where so much work is done and so many men




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                         183
are required to do it, from time to time there will necessarily be
some abuses?  I wish you would specify those which you think can
be easily and certainly corrected. Do you suppose it would be possible, for instance, to run that navy yard, (if I may use such an expression as that.) with the number of men required from time to time,
according to the exigencies of the service, do you suppose it would
be possible to run it, full manned, without abuses?
Answer. No, sir, I think not.
Question. What I want you to do is, if you can, to designate those
particular abuses which you think could be certainly remedied.
Answer. I think if the officers were given some power in the yard
that would rectify one of the abuses that exists. Now they have
not got sufficient power; they are mere automatons about the yard.
I could not order anything done there without going to some one to
enforce it.
Question. Your great objection is that the officers have not sufficient authority?
Answer. They have not; they cannot discharge a man at all in the
yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know anything of an order that has been issued
since you left there, on the 11th of December, from the Navy Department in relation to this subject?
Answer. No, sir, I do not.  Now as to laborers, I had a good deal
to do with them; they were working under my orders, but they were
selected by another person.  I could not select them; I saw their inefficiency; they were physically incapable, many of them, to do the
duty; they were not strong enough, they were old men, instead of
being active, energetic fellows.
The witness made the following statement previous to signing his
testimony:
I find the following question and answer recorded in my testimony:
"Question. State whether or not they (rejected articles) were returned at lower prices?                                 /
"Answer. Of course they were furnished at lower prices."
What I wish to state in explanation is that when articles were rejected on account of being inferior in quality, better articles were
returned to the yard, and though at the same prices, they were in
reality cheaper than the other and inferior articles would have been.
EDWARD A. BARNET,
Lieut. U. S. Navy.




184                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 63.-CHARLES HASTINGS, BROOKLYN.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
CHARLES HASTINGS called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Assistant constructing engineer.
Question. What has the constructing engineer the charge of in that
yard?
Answer. He has charge of all the improvements of the yard, such
as docks, roads, walls, wharves, buildings, &c.
Question. Who is the engineer?
Answer. Charles K. Graham.
Question. What was his occupation prior to his appointment?
Answer. iHe was appointed from the assay office. I was told that
he was a clerk there. I was not acquainted with him before he came
into the yard.
Question. State what his qualifications were as constructing engineer?
Answer. I never saw him do anything myself. I never knew any
lans made by him. Further than that, I am not able to judge.
Question. Who performs the duties of constructing engineer in the
yard?
Answer. The draughtsman, Mr. Leigh.
Question. What duties does Mr. Graham perform?
Answer. He appoints and discharges the men, and signs papers,
attends to the correspondence, and visits the works occasionally.
Question. You say he prepares no draughts?
Answer. He does not himself. I judge so from the business that
has been between him and me. I have never received any instructions
from him with regard to the mode of doing work, and I never knew
one who has.
Question. Has he ever been engaged in any other employment outside of the navy yard, and outside the line of his duty, since his
appointment?
Answer. I do not know that he has.
Question. Has he had anything to do with opening streets in the
city of New York, or with the Park, or anything of that kind?
Answer. There were plans made in his office something more than
a year ago for the widening of Duane street; there were one or two
plans and a title page made by one of his draughtsmen. There was
a sort of sketch made of Central Park-copies of plans; and about a
year since there was an exhibition plan made and colored by his
draughtsman, which I saw in his office.
Question. Is the draughtsman paid by salary?
Answer. He is now.  He has been since last July.  Before that he
was paid by the day.
Question. Was he paid by the government for the time spent in
making these drawings for the Park and Duane street?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                         185
Answer. I have been informed so.  I was told so by the clerk of
the yard.
Question. Have you been constructing launching ways in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. They have been constructing there.
Question. Where was the work commenced?
Answer. It was commenced inside the building by driving piles and
excavating.
Question. What is your experience as an engineer?
Answer. It has been somewhat varied. It is about nineteen or
twenty years since I first commenced the study in Boston, with Captain Alexander Parris.
Question. Have you been an engineer ever since then?
Answer. Yes, sir; in different branches of the profession, both
mechanical and civil.
Question. Was the mode and manner in which the launching ways
in the Brooklyn navy yard were constructed a proper mode and a
scientific and skilful mode of executing that work; and if not, in
what particular?
Answer. I think, as far as the work finished in the ship-house has
been done, it has been done very well; perhaps too well. It is not of
much consequence, any more than the expenditure of money is concerned; but the work outside, I think, has been very improperly
carried on, that is, the work in deep water; the work above water has
been carried on very well.
Question. How much time did Mr. Graham spend in the navy yard
in the discharge of his duties?
Answer. I think he was there from ten to three, or sometimes from
eleven to two; about four or five hours a day, perhaps.
Question. Is he there daily?.Answer. Yes, sir, the majority of the time; perhaps five days in
the week, unless he is unwell. He has not been very well a part of
the time.
Question. Please to state whether the constructing engineer could
draw the plans for a building or structure in the navy yard?
Answer. I cannot tell.
Question. What is your judgment about it?
Answer. That would be only derived from hearsay. I have heard
that he could not.  I never saw him do anything from which to form
a judgment.
Question. Do you know whether he has ever done so or attempted
to do so?
Answer. I do not think he has; I never have seen him do so.  If
he has I think I should be likely to have seen him, from my connexion
with him.
Question. What part has Mr. Graham taken in the appointment of
men in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. He has appointed them  himself.  He has selected the
men in part. When men were to be taken on, the master workman
would prepare a list, and Mr. Graham would dissent in part, and add
men of his own, with recommendations.




186                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. How many men were appointed under his department of
service altogether?
Answer. I cannot tell, sir.
Question. How many master workmen are there under him?
Answer. There are five of them in all.
Question. How many men are employed under these master workmen, as near as you can get at it?
Answer. In the busy season, I should think there were five hundred men.
Question. How many of the workmen did he claim the right to
appoint?
Answer. There was no particular number; I should think he put
on one-third of the men.
Question. Were these men selected for their qualifications; and if
not, what influenced their selection?
Answer. I do not know that they were selected for their qualifications. Some of them are good workmen and some are not. I do not
know that the men whom he selected vary from the others.
Question. I will ask you whether politics had anything to do with
the appointment of men in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. The members of Congress always recommend men to be
employed there; they have always done it.
Question. Who recommended the men appointed by Mr. Graham
generally?
Answer. That I do not know.
Question. Do you know upon whose recommendation Mr. Graham
was appointed?
Answer. On that of Mr. Sickles.
Question. For whom and for whose benefit was the drawing of the
plans for Duane street and the Park done?
Answer. The plans for Duane street were marked " Office of Graham & Bagley, civil engineers, New York."  Mr. Graham is engineer
of the yard, and Mr. Bagley is his partner. Previous to coming into
the yard they had an office in New York, and the plans were so
marked.
Question. How was it about the plan for opening the Central Park?
Answer. I do not know for whose benefit that was done. I presume
it was for the benefit of the draughtsman.
Question. Does Mr. Graham still keep that office in New York, in
partnership with anybody?
Answer. I do not know that he does.
Question. When did that partnership cease, so far as your knowledge goes?
Answer. I do not know that it has ceased; I do not know but that
he is still in business with Mr. Bagley.
Question. Did Mr. Graham, or any one under his supervision, make
any survey of land on Long Island for private individuals?
Answer. There was a survey and a small plan made a year ago, in
August or September, along in the fall of the year, by Mr. Leigh,
and a person employed there by the name of Wilson, who is now ab



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                           187
sent. The survey and plan, I should think, might have taken three
or four days to make.
Question. By whonm was this done?
Answer. Mr. Leigh was the principal, and Mr. Wilson assisted him.
Mr. Wilson was emnployedin the yard.
Question. Was Mr. Leigh employed by the government?
Answer. Mr. Leigh is a draughtsman with Mr. Graham-the same
one that I spoke of before.
Question. For whose benefit was this work done?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. Was it for the government or for private individuals?
Answer. It was for private individuals.
Question. Who paid Mr. Leigh during the time this work was
done?
Answer. He was on the roll of the yard and employed by the government.
Question. How long a period did it take Mr. Leigh to prepare the
draughts, &c., of the Central Park?
Answer. The work was in the office five or six weeks, but he was
not at work on it by any means all the time.
Question. State whether at that time, while this draughting was
going on, any draughting was needed for the navy yard.
Answer. All that I know  about that is from  hearsay from  the
master workmen.
Question. Were you there at the time?
Answer. Yes, sir, I was there, but I have not had much to do with
the work for the last year. All I know about it is what I heard from
the master workmen.
Question. Do you know anything about some sills and lintels that
were condemned and afterwards used by Mr. Graham?
Answer. There were some sills that came from  a contractor for
stone that were bad and were condemned, and they were afterwards
used in the store.
Question. By whom were they directed to be used?
Answer. By the master mason.
Question. What had Mr. Graham to do with it, if anything?
Answer. All that work comes under the constructing engineer; it
was his business to know.
Question. What became of the inspector who condemned the work?
Answer. I do not know anything about that.
Question. Do you know whether any materials, lumber, &c., were
paid for which did not go into the yard?
Answer. No, sir, I do not.
Question, Do you know whether any men who were rated in any of
the departments under the constructing engineer were rated for work
which they never did?
Answer. I know that men were rated as dock builders and masons
who did not and could not do that work.
Question. To what extent?
Answer. There were six or seven of those men about a year ago.
Question. By whom were those men appointed and selected?




188                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. They were appointed by Mr. Graham; I do not know who
selected them.
Question. What became of them?
Answer. They were discharged in February, 1858, by an order from
the bureau here.
Question. Why were they so rated and employed; what did they
do?
Answer. They did nothing, some of them. One was a draughtsman, and he was rated as a machinist. I do not know why they were
so rated at all.
Question. Is there an officer in the yard called the chief diver?
Answer. There is a man with that title. He is nominally under
my charge, and has been rated as such,
Question. I will ask you whether he is so employed?
Answer. No, sir; he never went down in the divin-bell but once.
During last summer he was employed upon the barrack ground as a sort
of superintendent or inspector part of the time.  This winter he
attends in the office.
Question. What is his pay?
Answer. $2 50 per day.
Question. How much of the time does he work?  How many days
in the week, and how many hours of each day?
Answer. I never saw him doing anythingintheofficeofanyaccount.
While upon the barrack ground, I judge from observation, he was on
the work, or supposed to be on duty there, during seven or eight hours
a day, while the piles were being driven. Since that work has been
stopped he has not been much employed.
Question. You say that he never went down but once as a diver?
Answer. He was never in the diving-bell but once.  He knew
nothing about the work of diving. At my suggestion he went down
once, and has never been down since. He had charge ot the divingbell at that time.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you report the diver as being inefficient?
Answer. No, sir; I did not, because he was appointed by Mr.
Graham.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is Mr. Graham's salary?
Answer. $2,500.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You speak of some sills as being condemned and afterwards used; was there an urgent necesSity for them  when used?
Was it proper that they should be used when they were used?
Answer. In outside practice they would have been used.  The
stones were merely deficient in form and beauty. They were as
strong as any, but not handsome, not true.
Question. Was there any impropriety in it?
Answer. The only impropriety was in the price; in paying for
them as good sills when they were not first class work. It was a
matter of little account. There were but few of them.
CHAS. HASTINGS.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          189
No. 72.-WILLIAM  D. KENNEDY, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
WM. D. KENNEDY called and examined.
By the (Chairman:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In New York city.
ue n.   hat is your occupation?
Answer. My occupation is that of a merchant.
Question. Have you had any contract with the government to supply
materials; and if so, what materials?
Answer. I have had.  I will preface by saying this, that I observed
an attack upon me in the New York Times, and feeling myself that
it was unjust, and afterwards hearing some rumors to the effect that
my name has come, in connexion with navy yard matters, before this
committee, I thought it best to volunteer to come on here and present
myself for examination.
Question. What do you know about inferior paints being furnished
to the navy agent in New York?  If that has been done, by whom
and under what circumstances has it been done?
Answer. The only thing I know about inferior paints being furnised is this: There are at all times paints being furnished which
are rejected from  this simple fact: the contractor is very rarely a
manufacturer, but merely a dealer, and he buys his articles of the
manufacturers, and they send them to the yard directly.  In reference
to the paint which I think is referred to here, I know it was not furnished by me; and if there has been any testimony here which says
that I did furnish any inferior paint I should like to see it.
Question. State now whether you furnished any paints of an inferior
quality to the government?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Who furnished the paint to the government during the
last summer?
Answer. Mr. John Wendell furnished for the Bureau of Construction, and I furnished some for the Bureau of Yards and Docks; but
no paints of mine during the last fiscal year have been rejected.
Question. What abuses or frauds, if any, do you know to exist in
the mode of purchasing articles upon open contract for the use of the
navy yard?
Answer. The system of open purchase is supposed to be through
the navy agent, but during the time that Mr. Saunders has been in
office abuses of this character have crept in; instead of the navy
agent making the purchases himself, the masters of the yard buy
articles, and after they are brought there the requisitions are made
out upon the navy agent. In other cases requisitions are sent to the
navy agent, and when the parties whom he calls upon to furnish the
article go to the navy yard with it they find that it has been supplied
by other parties, under the orders of the master workmen. One of the
greatest abuses of open purchase in the navy yard is that after the
navy agent has bought the articles they are taken to the yard, where




190                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
they are subject to the inspection of the navy officers, who not being
acquainted themselves with the articles have to depend upon the
master mechanic or the man who has to use them, who states his
opinion as to whether the article is good, or charged at too high a
price; if he says the article is too extravagant in price, then it is
rejected; but if these articles come fiom a friend of the one examining,
or from a person in whom he is interested, he will be sure to take
them, no matter what the quality or the price may be; if they do not
come from a friend then he rejects them. The navy agent has nothing
whatever to do with the inspection of the quality or the price of the
goods. Nominally he is considered to be the purchasing agent, but
really he is not.
Question. What do you know about master workmen  purchasing
articles upon their own requisitions?
Answer. I know that Mr King makes it an invariable practice to
price every article himself.
Question. Who is Mr. King?
Answer. He is an engineer in the yard; I know that he is in the
habit of buying things directly himself, sending the bills for payment
to the navy agent, in many cases no requisition having been made.
Question. I only ask you for what you know; can you state anything of your own knowledge?
Answer. I am speaking now of what I know.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. How do you know that Mr. King does that?
Answer. Because I have received orders from the navy agent upon
a requisition, and upon going to the yard have found that the articles
have been supplied.
By the Chairman:
Question. Are there any other cases that you know of?
Answer. I cannot call to mind any other cases; I know that is the
system of the yard; but I cannot particularize any cases now.
Question. What portion of the time is Mr. Saunders in his office in
the discharge of his duties?
Anwer. Mr. Saunders has been away a good deal; he has been in
Kansas, I think; he has been gone several weeks at a time.
Question. Who attends to the business for him?
Answer. In the early part of Mr. Saunders' term, Charles A. Secor
was acting navy agent; latterly, Geo. J. Forest has attended to it.
Question. Who makes the purchases for him now in his absence?
Answer. The acting navy agent, I suppose.
Question. From whom are the purchases made?
Answer. They are made from different parties; I do not suppose he
buys all the articles from one party.
Question, Is there any other fact within your knowledge of any
frauds being practiced upon the government in the purchase of articles
for the navy yard?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You have been called upon to particularize one case where
the purchases have been made directly by the masters in the yard;




BROOKLYN  NAVY  YARD.                            191
you have mentioned the case of King; do you say that you know of
another case?
Answer. II cannot particularize any; if you give me a little time,
I could name to you many cases, but I cannot think of them  now.
Question. You say that you. know that to be the practice or the system  of the yard; how do you know that?
Answer. Because I have heard it many times; I have gone over
there, I have heard it from the navy agent and seen the bills come in
to the navy agent, that had never been authorized by him.
Question. Why can you not particularize more than one case?
Answer. I only know by seeing the bills, and hearing them  talking
about it; it must have occurred, or they would not have said so, and
these bills would not have been there.
Question. You have referred to Charles A. Secor as acting nau-y
agent; did he supply many of the materials purchased?
Answer. He is not Mr. Secor the security; Francis Secor is the
Secor & Co., who sell the goods; Charles A. Secor is his son; Zeno
Secor is another son, and is security now.
Question. Have you any idea of the amount of these articles which
Secor & Co. supply for the yard?
Answer. I have not.
Question. Is it large or small?
Answer. It is large. I suppose they get the great bulk of the open
purchases.
Question. What is the amount of open purchases?
Answer. I think the navy agent (my impression is) buys about
130,000 a year.
Question. Have you any opportunity of coming to a correct estimate?
Answer. The only opportunity I have is to see the bills at Saunders'
office.
Question. Are not the open purchases more than from $30,000 to
$35,000?
Answer. I do not know; that is my impression.
Question. You think that Secor & Co. get the larger amount of
hese articles by purchase?
Answer. I think they have bad it at times. Then, again, they do
not receive any oiders. Once in a while a circular comes from the bureau to Mr. Saunders, directing him to let the contractors bid for the
articles.
By the Chairman:
Question, What are the instructions from the department to the
navy agent?
Answer. The circular issued by Commodore Smith states that when
articles are to be bought in open market the navy agent shall send
circulars to the contractors of articles in that line, (not less than three
of them, I think,) and then that the preference shall be given to a
contractor if he proposes to furnish at lower prices than other parties.
He can send out as many circulars as he thinks proper.
Question. Were these instructions complied with?
Answer. I should think not altogether. They have been complied




192                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
with to a certain extent, however, for some articles, because I have
received the circulars myself; but how far these instructions have been
complied with I am not able to say; and it would be difficult for any
other person to say, unless he is in the navy agent's office.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have articles been bought from you in open market?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How much?
Answer. About- 1,500 worth in the course of the present fiscal
year, perhaps.
Question. What price have you put the articles at that you sold?
Answer. The same as when I sold to merchants.
Question. Are you a contractor to supply articles to the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; and when I sell these articles upon open purchase I charge the government at the same price as I would charge
merchants.
Question. How came the articles to be purchased of you?
Answer. Because I was a contractor, and in most cases I agreed to
furnish them lower than other persons, and under the circulars sent
out by the agent, in pursuance of the instructions of the bureau, I
would receive the preference. In some cases requisitions were sent
to me without a circular.
Question. From whom did you receive the requisition?
Answer. From the navy agent.
Question. You have spoken of an engineer making outside purchases
for himself. You speak of one case only. Is it necessary in order
to enable the navy agent to buy articles in open market to have a
requisition signed by the commandant of the yard?
Answer. Certainly.
Question. How then was it that the engineer bought the articles
you spoke of?
Answer. He bought the article himself, and after he bought it the
bill would pass through and go to the navy agent's office for approval.
Question. Does it go to the commandant of the yard for approval?
Answer. Yes, sir; it goes then from the commandant of the yard
to the navy agent.
Question. You mean to say then that the article is bought and the
requisition is made out afterwards?
Answer. Sometimes no requisition is made at all.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How does the bill, get through the commandant's office
then?
Answer. I suppose he would  sign  bills when  presented to him
without his knowing whether there had been a requisition made or
not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are the bills all presented to the commandant of the
yard?
Answer, The bills are all signed by the commandant.
Question. Before they go to the navy agent?
Answer, Yes, sir; the bills are signed by the storekeeper, by the




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          193
specting officer, and. by the commandannt.  He signs bills as well as
requisitions.
Question. Then before the money is paid by the navy agent, the
transaction has to pass under the supervision of the commandant of
the yard?
Answer. In the first place the requisition is made out and signed
by the storekeeper and the commandant of the yard. The goods are
then delivered in the yard and undergo inspection there. The bills
are then made out by the storekeeper or some other person, and then
they are signed by the commandant, storekeeper, and the inspecting
officer.
Question. Then, if these frauds are perpetrated upon the government, it must be through the neglect of the commandant, the storekeeper, and proper inspecting officer.  Is that not so?
Answer. I think not.  I think that Commodore Breese is a capital
man.  I t-hink that the way frauds are committed, if fraud is committed, is this: Any time you may go through the New York navy
yard you will find a lot of young men going around through the
different workshops to ascertain what articles they may be in need of;
after ascertaining what articles they may be in want of, they may
make application to the navy agent to supply the requisitions when
they were made upon him  from  the storekeeper of the yard.  Now,
all these articles, when they go into the yard, aIter they pass inspection,
go to the workshop; the master workman having examined them,
if there are any frauds, they are committed in that way between the
man who supplies the article and the one who uses it.
Question. Then, how do these parties get the signature of the commandant of the yard and the inspecting officer, to their requisitions
and their bills?
Answer. The requisition has been made out and sent to the navy
agent; in the meantime, in some cases, the article is bought without
a requisition, and the bill passes through and goes to the navy agent
to be paid.
Question. Then, there is a failure upon the part of the commandant
of the yard?
Answer. No, sir; it is a failure upon the part of the storekeeper,
probably.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How can the commandant approve a bill when he was
not sent a requisition beforehand?
Answer. I cannot answer that. I do not know. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, there has never been a gentleman connected
with the navy service, as captain or lieutenant, who has been accused
of any dishonest act, or even suspicioned of it, at least as far as I know
of. I know I have never suspected any one myself; and I never have
heard a suspicion breathed against a naval officer in that respect.
W. D. KENNEDY.
13 D




I I 4                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 49.-H. F. CLARK, HOUSE o  REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 8.
HORACE F. CLARK called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. I am representative in Congress from the 8th congressional
district of the State of New York.
Question. Was your attention called to the mode of dispensig and
distributing patronage of the Brooklyn navy yard about the time your
term of office commenced?
Answer. I was elected to Congress in November, 1856. Prior to that
time I knew nothing of the navy yard. About the time of the incoming
of the present administration my attention was specially called to the
mode in which the patronage of the navy yard was dispensed. My
attention was first attracted to the subject by receiving a very great
number of applications from mechanics and laborers in my district for
my interference to procure for them places in the navy yard. To such
an extent was this demand that it became onerous; indeed, offensive.'My house was run down.  I was addresse  in the street upon the
subject.  When in the lower part of the city on business I would be
pursued.  And I really could find no rest by reason of the great
number of such applications.
Another class of applications was from  men who desired to have
procured for them the situation of quarter-men in the navy yard, at
$2 50 per day. Another class was from men who desired to have procured for them the situation of masters in the navy yard And between
them all I found that more was required of a member of Congress
than I had imagined. It appeared to me that I was expected to find
places for the unemployed, and there were too many of that class in
New York to render it possible that I should voluntarily undertake
that business. Finding the pressure upon me so great as to interfere with my comfort I came to Washington and had an interview
with Mr. Toucey, Secretary of the Navy. This was, I think, in the
summer of 1857, I may also mention that, previously to thi.s time, I
had received applications from individuals who had it in view that I
should interest myself in obtaining jobs in the navy yard, such as
" filling in," and large inducements were occasionally held out to
invite participation in that kind of enterprise; but, of course, I gave
no countenance to such suggestions. My visit to Mr. Toucey was for
the purpose of obtaining some personal relief from this very great
annoyance to which, as a member of Congress, I had been subjected.
I have never visited the Brooklyn navy yard since I was a member of
Congress.  I was there, for the last time, in the month of May, 1853,
to witness the raising of a steamer in the dry dock My acquaintance
with the navy yard and its transactions is therefore derived otherwise than from personal observation.
Question. Proceed, if you please, to state the substance of your interview with the Secretary of the Navy, and the result of it.
Answer. I told Mr. Toucey of the state of things in New York, and




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          195,of the pressure which was brought to bear upon members of Congress.
I nquired about these masterships. I learned that there was a num-'ber of masterships in the Brooklyn navy yard in his power of appointimuent.  The sum and substance of our interview was that I requested,
I think I should say strongly urged, that he should appoint some
person in the navy yard who might there take care of the interests of.my constituency, so far as they were entitled to representation.  I'told Mr. Toucey that I would not suggest the name of any person to
fill any of the mechanical departments; but I named Mr. Alexander
Ward, who resided in my district, for the place of master laborer, as'
it was called.
Question. Before proceeding further, state whether or not that place
was an existing office or place, or a new one?
Answer. I am  informed that it was in fact a new one.  The office
to which I supposed Mr. Ward was to be appointed was an office by
the same title, but which had been previously filled by a person named
by my colleague, Mr. Taylor.  I supposed that Mr. Ward was appointed to the place that Mr. Taylor's nominee, Mr. McLaughlin,
filled. I ascertained my mistake afterwards, and was informed that
the office was a new one.
Question. Proceed to state your conversation with the Secretary of
the Navy?
Answer. He consented to appoint Mr. Ward, and I persuaded Mr.
Ward to accept the place. My whole object was to relieve myself from
the discomfort attending the discharge of what I found was by some
deemed to be a part of my congressional duty.  I complained to 1 r.
Toucey of the state of things in the navy yard, although I did not
attempt to state specific facts touching the administration of affairs
there, having never visited the yard, and not having personal knowledge of the matter. Subsequently to Mr. Ward's appointment, when
accosted anywhere by a man desiring employment as a laborer in the
navy yard, I would write the name of Mr. Ward upon a card and
send the applicant to him.
Question. Without examination into his qualifications or fitness?
Answer. I do not refer to mechanics. Mr. Ward was master laborer.
In respect to mechanics I managed otherwise. Mr. Herrick, who had
a place in the navy yard, suggested to me that he could get mechanics
employed.  And I said to Mr. Herrick that if mechanics from my district could get employment through him, it would be quite acceptable
to me. I think he did in some instances procure the employment in
the navy yard of mechanics from my district. The great number of
applications results from the fact that the impression is abroad that
the pay is large and the labor light. This creates the difficulty. It
was represented to me that the employment could be obtained only
through political influence.  The employments were deemed very
desirable. I think Mr. Toucey, in making the appointment of Mr.
Ward, acted upon my representations as to the personal annoyance
which had resulted to me from this pursuit of place.
Question. Was there no question of propriety raised between youa
and Mr. Toucey as to the creating of a new office for the purpose of
relieving you of this embarrassment?




196                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I thfink the subject of the power of making this appointment was referred to. I was unaware of the regulations of the yard
in that respect, nor am I now well informed as to the authority by
which these offices are created in the yard; but I understood that there
was no defect of power. I will not attempt to give the language of
any person.  I had interviews with Mr. Welsh, with Commodore
Smith of the Bureau of Docks and Yards, and with Mr. Toucey. But
I did not understand that there was any defect of power to make the
appointment.
Question. What check is there practically to the appointment of
any number of offices, without limit?
Answer. I know of none, sir, but the check resulting from a limited
appropriation.
Question. How  many men had Mr. Ward under him?  Did you
learn from him?
Answer. I do not think that I ever made the inquiry. A complaint
came to me very soon after Mr. Ward's appointment that I was in
the habit of sending or recommending to him poor men without regard to their residence in the city, and without reference to their
politics. I never, of course, take pains to ask a poor man, seeking
employment, his opinions upon the political questions of the day 
and finding that I was getting into difficulty, I left the matter entirely
to Mr. Ward.  I afterwards learned from  him  that the number of
men employed was very much restricted, and that Mr. Taylor had the
great mass of laborers in the navy yard. At one period I ascertained
the state of things at the Brooklyn navy yard, and it was the following: Out of 1,200 to 1,500 men employed there were eleven from my
district, which is one of the most populous districts of New York. Of
some forty or fifty quarter-men alleged to be employed there at $2 50 per
day, not one was from my district. Out of eighty carpenters at work,
not one was from my district. I made a representation of these facts to
Mr. Toucey, and complained of the inequality and injustice with which
this patronage was distributed, assuming that the principle of distribution was a just one. That much was assumed.
Question. Did this distribution create strife and contention among
members of Congress failing to get their proportion of patronage?
Answer. It created dissatisfaction.  This whole system  tends, in
the first place, to the demoralization of the laboring classes, to their
serious detriment, and, in my judgment, to the degradation, personal
and political, of members of Congress.
Question. What is the situation of your congressional district relative to the navy yard?
Answer. My district embraces the city of New York north of the
south side of 14th street, excepting the portion on the North river
bounded by 6th Avenue and 40th street.  The navy yard is on the
other side of the East river, below my district.
Question. You are separated by the river from the navy yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; the navy yard is in the bend of the river, opposite Corlear's Hook. The navy yard is probably directly opposite
MIr. Maclay's district.  There are a great many mechanics and
laborers living in my district.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          197
Question. Do you know the rules regulating the employment of
mechanics and laborers in the Brooklyn navy yard further than you
have already stated?
Answer. I have no personal knowledge; but I have ascertained
the rules firom individuals whom I have sent there, or permitted to go
there in  my name to seek employment.  The foundation of the
employment I should consider to be political recommendation, and
without much regard, I should think, to the efficiency of the service.
Question. Or t~he fitness of the applicant?
Answer. I should think so.
Question. You made some allusion a moment ago to jobs, contracts
for fillingo in; to vwhom do you refer?
Answer. I will illustrate what I mean. A gentleman walked into
my office in the summer of 1857, and wished me to go to Washington
to endeavor to induce the Secretary of the Navy to give him a contract
for filling in dirt somewhere in the Brooklyn navy yard. My reply
was that it was not my business.  It was suggested to me that I
could make a thousand dollars in doing it. My reply was that I
would not go. That illustrates the kind of applications which come
to members of Congress, arising from the system existing in the navy
yard.
Question. Do you know who had the contract for filling in the
navy yard?
Answer. I do not, sir, I never made the inquiry.  The whole
subject was one so utterly disgusting that I never prosecuted any
inquiry in relation to the matter.
Question. Are you acquainted with the grounds around the navy
yard?
Answer. I have some general knowledge of the locality.
Question. Is it worth anything to fill in a given place in the
Brooklyn navy yard, or is it considered a privilege to dump the earth
there, so that that would compensate for the filling in?
Answer. I can only speak on that subject from the information of
others. It varies in different localities. For instance, in one particular place a party excavating would have to pay for the privilege
of depositing the earth; in another he might be paid for its deposit.
As to the state of things at the Brooklyn navy yard, I can only
speak from the information of others.
Question. Have you any information now, by way of letters, correspondence, or documents, throwing any light upon the giving ou
of that contract for filling in?
Answer. I never followed the matter up.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you write me a letter in regard to the navy yard
matters?
Answer. I did.
Question. What induced you to address me that letter?.Answer. A sense of public duty; my interest in the community in
which I live induced me to place the suggestions contained in that
letter in the way of some member of the Committee on Naval Affairs,




198                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
in the hope that it might lead to inquiry, and to the correction of
existing abuses.
Question. What is the tendency and effect of this mode of distriluting the patronage, and conducting the affairs and management of
the navy yard in Brooklyn?
Answer. Most destructive all around; demoralizing to the class of
people who seek the places; demoralizing to the general politics of
the city, and detrimental to the public service.
Question. State whether it is commonly known that the chief civil
officers of the navy yard at Brooklyn, habitually neglect their duty?
Answer. I think I do no injustice to that establishment by saying
that it is generally regarded in New York as a sort of political lazar
house. I think that opinion would be corroborated by every gentleman acquainted with the subject.
Question. And so, by almost every official employed in the yard,
would it not?
Answer. I do not know  to what extent they advise you of their
opinions, but I regard it as a scourge to the community in which it
it is located.
Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. George N. Saunders, the
navy agent, in New York?
Answer. I know him.
Question. Where does he spend the most of his time?
Answer. I so rarely meet with him, that I could hardly answer that
question.
Question. Do you know Mr. C. A. Secor?
Answer. I know of Mr. Secor; I can only speak of him fron hib
general reputation. He is, I believe, a very respectable man, and I
think, a man of property.
Question. Who is Mr. D. B. Allen?
Answer. He resides in Richmond county, New York; is connected
with the Allaire Works of New York city, a large establishment
engaged in the manufacture of steam engines and boilers. Mr. Allen
is a brother-in-law of mine.
Question. Is he a man of character and of influence?
Answer. He is a man of very high character and of no inconsiderable influence. There is one particular fact which, perhaps, I ought to
state. Mr. Alexander Ward, who, at my request, had been appointed
to the position of master laborer in the Brooklyn navy yard, resigned
his place, I should think some time about the month of May, 1858,
after the Lecompton, Kansas, question had been disposed of by Congress. I applied to Mr. Toucey to permit me to name some person as
his successor. I was induced to make this application from a remark
made to me by my colleague, Hon. John Kelly, who represented to me
that he had had an interview with Mr. Toucey, which justified him in
making the suggestion.  I called upon Mr. Toucey, and made the
application or suggestion that I should still have some person there
to relieve me from. the great pressure upon me resulting from the
application of persons to me to get them employment. Mr. Toucey
did not comply with my request, but informed me that the place
would be given to a person whose name I have this moment lost. He




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                            129
s a  olitical riend of Mr. John Cochrane.  I ought in justice, to
say that if there be fault in the matter of Mr. Ward's appointment, I
am equally at fault with Mr. Toucey.  I think that he yielded to my
complaints of the unfair distribution of this patronage.
Question. Is there any other fact that you think material to this
inquiry?
Answer. I prefer answering to the inquiries of the members of the
committee.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. In your letter addressed to Mr. Sherman you state: " I
feel confident that the bill (naval appropriation bill) as reported contains appropriations, some of which are altogether unnecessary, and
several of which lead to profligate squandering of the public money;"
to which items do you allude?
Answer. I allude to some items of appropriation estimated. for "filling in the new purchase. ". That matter came before Congress at the
last session, and I then derived the impression that it was unnecessary.
My impression was derived from a statement made to me by my colleague, Mr. Taylor.  To such an extent did he deem  it unnecessary
that at one time he went, as I am informed, before the Committee of
Ways and Means and suggested to them to leave it out of the bill.
Subsequently, however, I believe he changed his views in that respect.
I still acted, however, upon the impression his statement first made
upon my mind.  I observe that in the present bill there is an appropriation for this very matter.  I had no doubt that Mr. Taylor's first
statement to me was correct; that there was no actual necessity for
that "filling in."  And there are several other matters which I think
are unnecessary.  As the Brooklyn navy yard lies upon the water
there is hardly a limit to the " filling in" that can be carried on
there.
Question. Do you know of the uses to which that "I filling in " was
to be applied, the purpose for which the land thus prepared was to be
used?
Answer. It was, I think, for some purpose connected with the navy
yard.  " For filling in new purchase" is the item to which I refer.
I have no personal knowledge of that new purchase. I derived all
my information from  Mr. Taylor and others of my colleagues who
have spoken of it.
Question. Your belief then was founded upon information derived
from Mr. Taylor?
Answer. Yes, sir; Mr. Taylor represented the district contiguous
to the navy yard, and had, as I supposed, superior knowledge of the
necessities of the yard to any one else. If I went astray upon the
subject, he first led me astray. I will also say that I have reason to
believe that in almost every department of that yard the laborers are
over-crowded.  I think  a hundred witnesses could be produced who
would not hesitate to express that opinion.
Question. I want to know your views upon this subject of items of
appropriation for the navy. You say that there are several items in
the naval appropriation bill which will "lead to profligate squandering of the public money."   Now state all you know about the expend



200                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
ing of the money and the management of the navy yard, so as to
explain to what you had reference in that paragraph of the letter.
Answer. I had reference to the information which I had received
as to the new structures going on there, among other things th
launching ways. I have never seen them, and of course I cannot
speak as to them  from personal observation; but from  information
which I received from men at work there I came to the conclusion
which led me to express myself perhaps thus strongly in my letter to
the chairman of your committee.
Question. Then you do not know any thing about that matter of
your own knowledge?
Answer. I have stated that I have not been in the navy yard since
1853. The extent of my hearsay information is of course considera
ble, but-I do not feel at liberty to introduce it here. I received certain information in relation to these launching ways from some of the
masters employed in the Brooklyn navy yard.  Upon reference to
Commander Smith's report from the Bureau of Yards and Docks, I
perceive that he says in relation to these launching ways that the
work upon them has not been judiciously conducted, and he also says
that the work is not satisfactory upon the quay walls.
Question. Tell me, if you have anyknowledge of the fact, do   some
of those master workmen make sale of the privilege of working in the
yard," as you state in your letter to Mr. Sherman? Have you any
knowledge of your own on that point?
Answer. Of course I have never been present at any transactions
of that kind; my knowledge upon the subject is derived from  the
statements of others; the facts which induced me to make that statement in my letter were derived from poor men who represented to me
that they had been levied upon there; I might have qualified my
statement somewhat perhaps; I tock pains to satisfy myself that such
practices did exist to some extent; they assumed various forms; for
instance the form of presents; the form of contributions to pay members of Congress to come to Washington for specific purposes; but
having never been a participant in any such transactions, I cannot
testify myself to the circumstances.
Question. Do you know  of your own knowledge of any abuse of
men answering to their names at roll-call, and afterwards absenting
themselves from duty, and cheating the government by so doing? I
ask you if you know of any such thing of your own knowledge, because mere hearsay testimony we do not wish to put upon record; but
all that you know, all of your actual knowledge in relation to the
subject we wish to have?
Answer. I have no actual personal knowledge upon the subject
which would amount to testimony; and, indeed, it is not improbable
that facts have been discolored in their representation to me.
Question. What, in your opinion, is the great evil in the management of that yard?
Answer. That it is conducted as a political machine.
Question. Through what instrumentality has it become a political
machine? what part of the management of the yard makes it a political machine? So far as your judgment goes, I mean.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                           201
Answer. The appointment of politicians pure, in the civil branch
of the yard.
Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Delano, the naval constructor in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. I am told that he is a man of high standing and character;
I have -never seen him; I do not refer to him, however, in what I
have said; I will illustrate what I mean; a building or a ship is to
be painted; one hundred men can be put on that work when half the
number would do as well; a private individual would, perhaps, employ only ten or twenty men where the government might employ one
hundred.
Question. IDo you know Mr. Graham, the constructing engineer?
Answer. I know Mr. Graham.
Question. Can you speak of his character and qualities as an efficient business man?
Answer. I have never been in the navy yard since 1853, and have
no particular knowledge of Mr. Graham's efficiency. I think that I
united in recommending him for the position. I will say, that I have
reflected a great deal upon this subject, in order to devise some legislation that may reach these abuses, but I have not been able to make
up my mind what it should be.
Question. Who selects the mechanics under the master workmen in
the yard?
Answer. I Nwill answer that questiou by producing this letter, which
I have received from Mr. Toucey.
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
Question. What is the effect of that regulation?
Answer. It is manifest that one politician will employ another,
and he is as likely to employ a politician as to employ a mechanic.
The government needs mechanics, but members of Congress need
politicians.
Question. Did you not insist upon Mr. Ward having the selection
of the men to be employed under him?
Answer. Mr. Ward was not a mechanic, but a master laborer.  I
stated to Mr. Toucey that I was unacquainted with the mechanical
capacity of the great number of men who came to me asking for
employment, and I asked the appointment of a master laborer, as the
men employed under him would be required to understand only the
arts of humble labor.
Question. Did you write a letter to Mr. Toucey asking that Mr.
Ward should have the appointment of the men employed under him?
Answer. I think I did not, but will not be positive about it. Members would apply to each other to sign some paper or other, and I may
have attached my signature to such a letter. I will not speak with
confidence, but I have no recollection of it.
Question. Is it your opinion that government work could be done
without the use of navy yards?
Answer. My opinion is that the great part of the government work
could be done without the use of the navy yards, and at a much!ess
cost. For instance: if the government wants a ship built, it could
have one built as well out of the navy yard as in it, and probably at




202                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
one-third less than the price it now costs. There are some good things
about a navy yard; in the Brooklyn navy yard there is a good dock,
Question. Do they keep in the private yards a sufficient amount of
timber, live oak, &c., for the work the government would be likely to
want done?
Answer. Well, I can say to that, fhe Emperor of  ussia wishing
to have a frigate of the first class built, had it constructed in New
York, in the private yard of one of our ship builders.
Question. But, then, she does not have so much work done as our
government does?
Answer. I have to say that my chief objection to the navy yard, is
the demoralizing influence upon the people, and, I think, that injury
is not compensated by any advantage that may result from the maintenance of these navy yards. I think that the profligate squandering
of the public money in a community, tends to the destruction of
popular liberty.
Question. What can be built out of a navy yard, that is now built
in it?
Answer. I have no sort of doubt but that steam  engines can be
built out of a navy yard, better than in it; and I have no doubt that
the hull of a ship can be built as well out, as in, and I see no more reason  why the government should have establishments specially to
build men-of-war, than to have hatters' shops, or clothing shops, or
shops for the making of boots and shoes.  I think the business of the
government is rather to employ, and fight ships, and not to build
them.
Question. Have you any knowledge of the manner in which work
is done for the government by contract?
Answer. I have no personal knowledge.
Question. Do you know of extensive frauds having been perpetrated
upon the government, in the way of furnishing it with bad materials, &c.?
Answer. I have been informed that frauds are practiced upon the
government; and it is my impression that such is the usage. I believe
so at all events.
Question. I want to know from you if, in your judgment, all the
parties in New York make appointments to places there dependent
upon political considerations?
Answer. I think it is so. I think it is one of the evils of the day. I
never dreamed, until after I was elected to Congress, that politics was
resorted to as a means of livelihood. It is undeniable that men resort
to politics for a livelihood.
Question. That is what you call politicians by trade?
Answer. Yes, sir, they follow it for a living.
Question. When you went to the Secretary of the Navy in relation
to the appointment of Mr. Ward, did you discuss the propriety of
making a new office, either with Mr. Welsh or with the Secretary?
Answer. No, sir, I do not think I did. I applied for a place for him.
as master laborer, and understood that I received it. I never knew,
until afterwards, when Mr. Ward informed me in New York that he
had not got the place I contemplated.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          203
Question. You spealk of suggestions made between Mr. Toucey and
yourself as to the creating of a new office?
Answer. I asked about a number of things. I was informed that
one of my colleagues had twenty-six persons in the navy yard distributing patronage. I mentioned to Mr. Toucey the circumstance,
and inquired if there was any limit. I suggested that the best way
was to take this all away from members of Congress, and relieve us
from this pressure, which, in my judgment, was degrading to members
of Congress, and would render it impossible for respectable men to
hold the position. I made inquiry about this in consequence of the
representation that Mr. Taylor had these twenty-six men in the yard,
and that other members of Congress had representatives there. I did
not look into the law, nor did I know until some month or two afterwards that the office of Mr. Ward was not invested with large patronage.
Question. Can you state the different duties which Mr. Ward had
to perform-the duties of master laborer?
Answer. I have no personal knowledge upon the subject.
Question. Are you sure that Mr. Ward was not master laborer?
Answer. I am sure he was not in the position he expected to be in.
I was told at the Navy Department that Mr. Ward would have the
employment of laborers. Laborers came to me saying that Mr. Ward
could not employ them; that Mr. Taylor's man had the employment
of laborers. I do not know now what it means; it is all complicated.
It seems that there were two master laborers.
Question. Do you know how many Mr. Ward had under him?
Answer. I never instituted the inquiry, sir. I had no idea. I do not
think I ever made particular recommendations to Mr. Ward in a dozen
cases. If a laboring man called upon me, I would say go over to the
navy yard and inquire for Mr. Ward. That was all. I would not take
his name, or make any particular inquiry.
Question. What is the duty of master laborer?  Is it not to look
after the subordinate laborers, and see that they discharge their duties
properly?
Answer. The legitimate duties of a master of mechanical employments is to superintend labor, not politics.
Question. And the legitimate duty of a master laborer is to superintend the work of laborers under him, and see that they work faithfully?
Answer. I should think so. Mr. Ward was entirely competent to
that duty.
Question. How many men can a man properly superintend in tha
way?
Answer. That would depend upon the kind of work to be superintended. I should think that a man could properly superintend 20
masons upon a building.'In other employments, I should think that
a man might properly superintend a gang of men, 50, or 60, or 70,
according to the employment and the kind of labor.
Question. If Mr. Ward -had 150 or 200 men under him, could he
su~perintend them properly? Was there a sufficient amount of business to require a man to superintend them?




204                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. Yes, sir; I have no reason to doub that Mr. Ward discharged properly the duties intrusted to him.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You speak of doing government work, building ships,
&c., by contract; is not that contract system just as much liable to
abuse by political influences as any other sort of work?
Answer. It may be so, but it does not render necessary the permanent establishment of a pest house in a community.
Question. Would it not render necessary its establishment sufficient
to do the labor of the government, at least in one way or other?
Answer. The labor of the government is done by the same men, the
same mechanics and laborers that perform labor in the departments
of civil life, and it is done by the same rules, with the same tools, &c.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know  anything about an arrangement between
the Secretary of the Navy and members from New York city to give
the appointment of a master laborer to each district? Did you have
anything to do with such an arrangement?
Answer. This subject was a matter of frequent conversation  mong
members of Congress when we met.  If I mistake not Mr Taylor
claimed the distribution of the patronage of the navy yard as his prerogative. I was rather disposed, at one time, to favor his view, because my hope was that the Secretary of the Navy would take it all
away, and relieve us of these place-hunters; but that was not consented to by all of us. I think that several of us called upon Mr.
Toucey upon the subject. Mr. Searing also complained that he had
not his share of the patronage. I called, I think with Mr. Searing,
upon the Secretary of the Navy, and expressed the opinion that he
was as much entitled to an appointment as I was.  I thought so.
His district is upon Long Island, and, I think, abuts upon the navy
yard.  After my vote upon the Lecompton question it was alleged
that I was out of the party and out of favor. Some of my colleagues
met to hold an inquest upon my political remains. This mastership
of mine was to be parcelled out among the faithful. A meeting was
called at the room of Mr. Ward, my colleague. Mr. Kelly was invited to attend, but did not go. Mr. Sickles and Mr. Maclay told
me that they did not go.  Mr. Cochrane did not go.  I asked Mr.
Toucey if he sanctioned this proceeding; this was after Mr. Ward's
resignation. He said to me that he had been informed that my colleagues had met and agreed upon the disposition of the place to Mr.
Cochrane. I inquired of my colleagues what the fact was.  Mr.
Cochrane said that he protested against my exclusion. Mr. Ward
said that he did not advocate it. Mr. Kelly said that he protested
against it. Mr. Sickles and Mr. Maclay repudiated it.
Question. But before this vote upon the Kansas question, what was
the arrangement between the members of Congress and the Secretary
of the Navy?  Was it that each member should have the appoinment
of one master in the New York navy yard?
Answer. I do not remember that I was ever present when any
arrangement of that kind was made; but Mr. Toucey informed me,
upon the occasion to which I refer, that an arrangement had been




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          205
made by mly couInaguu by which the place which Mr. Ward held was
appropriated to Mr. Cochrane.
I think that some reformation in this matter is necessary for the
relief of members of Congress.
Question. And for the best interests of the government?
Answer. Yes, sir; most certainly.  I believe that if you degrade
the representative you cannot expect that kind of legislation which the
public interests require; and I think this whole matter of navy yard
and official patronage is calculated to degrade the representative, and
to destroy his character and efficiency.
HORACE F. CLARK.
No. 62. —-GEBORGEB TAYLOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 9, 1859.
GEORGE TAYLOR called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Was there any difference between you and Commodore
Kearny a short time before his removal from  the Brooklyn navy
yard?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was there any interview between you two marked with
any peculiarity, in which there was any feeling manifested? If there
was, give some account of it.
Answer. I will answer that question by stating that there was an
interview  between us, but it was not marked by any peculiarity
further than a disposition on his part to accommodate me at the particular time with an interview.  The circumstances which brought
this interview about will explain itself. The master brick mason
notified me the day before this interview that he was going to take
on some 28 or 30 laboring hands, and he would divide the hands between the different congressional districts.  I asked of Mr. Sturgis,
the master brick mason, how many he could give to my district, and
he said that he could give seven or eight. I then inquired at what
time he would want their names. He said he would want theum the
next day. On the following day, as I was necessarily in the yard, I
looked for Mr. Sturgis, and learned that he had left the yard and
had gone to the marine barracks, or where they were laying or preparing for a foundation; in seeing different parties, I was detained
necessarily somewhat later than usual. About half an hour before I
left the yard, Mr. Sturgis returned and informed me that a list had
been made out and sent in to the commandant's office for approval.
I inquired of him if he had put on any laboring men from my district.
He remarked that he did not know; that the engineer, Mr. Graham,
had made up the list. I then told him that that was not keeping his
promise or faith with me.  He said he could not avoid that; the list
had been made up and he had signed it, and it had been sent in to the
commandant's office by Mr. Graham, and he supposed it was approved.
I told him that if it had been approved I should address myself to the
department by a complaint against him for not observing the orders,
and if it had not been approved I would try to prevent its approval in




206                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
the commandant's office. I immediately proceeded to Captain Rootes
office, and found that he was not there, but had gone to the commodore's office I found him there, and asked him whether he had approved a list of laborers sent in by Mr. Graham. He told me that he
had not, but he presumed that it had been sent to Commodore Kearny. I left him, and then went up to the Commodore's house, and
found him at dinner. I told the messenger, or his servant, that I
desired to see the Commodore for a moment, to ask him a uestion;
I would thank him to let me see him for a moment, as I was compelled to leave the yard. The Commodore very kindly left the table
and came out into the front room. I asked whether he had signed
that list.  He replied that he had.  I remarked, "I am  sorry for it,
Commodore, for it is not right." I thanked him for his courtesy in
leaving the table, and then I left. I believe that was the conversation that took place during the interview,
Question. Did you say anything about appealing to the department
upon the subject?
Answer. I may have said to him, after I had ascertained that he
had approved it  I will not be certain about that-that I would be
compelled to apply to the department for a correction, as the list was
out of his hands. But the application to the department was not intended to apply to the Commodore in any way.
Question. Did you make any complaint to the department upon the
subject?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you have any agency in the removal of Commodore
Kearny or Captain Rootes from the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. I had not, and I was not aware of their removal, and had
no intimation that there was an intention to remove them, and I think it
was the second day after they had been detached that I learned the fact.
Question. Have you made no complaint to the department in relation to Commodore Kearny and Captain Rootes?
Answer. None whatever, sir. After I left Commodore Kearny's
house, I passed down through the lyceum, and at the outer door, or
near the entrance, I met Mr. Graham, the constructing engineer, and
complained to him of his action in the matter. He said that he would
make it right, that he was going to take some more men on the same
work the next day, and he would take the number on that Mr. Sturgis promised me. I said, that is all I have to ask, The next day he
did take on more men-1 do not know how many, but I think eight
from my district. That obviated the necessity of my making any
complaint.
Question. In stating that you would be obliged to appeal to the department, had you any allusion to removing Commodore Kearny or
Captain Rootes?
Answer. No, sir, not at all. On the contrary, I felt somewhat
mortified that I had troubled Commodore Kearny while he was at
the dinner table, and I appreciated his kindness in leaving it to give
me the interview I desired. I have never addressed a line or a word
to the Secretary of the Navy, or to any party connected with the department, suggesting or inviting the removal of either Commodore




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          20'
Kearny or Captain Rootes.  On the contrary, I have repeatedly
stated to Mr. Toucey that Captain Rootes was one of the most efficient,
hard-working, industrious, and faithful men we have ever had in that
navy yard, and so long as the department continued Captain Rootes in
that yard, the Secretary could give Commodore Kearny some indulgences, which his age and infirmities seemed to require, because the
interests of the yard would be secure in the hands of Captain Rootes.
Question. Do you know upon what grounds Commodore Kearny
and Captain Rootes were detached from that yard?
Answer. I have heard some intimations in the department.
Question. From the Secretary of the Navy himself?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What reasons did the Secretary give?
Answer. Secretary Toucey intimated to me-he did not distinctly
state it-that he bad been compelled to detach Commodore Kearny
on account of his age, his infirmities, and his inattention to duty, and
his frequent absences from the yard. He gave no reason for detaching Captain Rootes further than it seemed proper to detach both
when he was detaching one of them.
Question, Did he say that the detachment of Captain Rootes at
that time, together with Commodore Kearny, would make it less
hurtful to the feelings of Commodore Kearny?
Answer. I understood him to intimate that it was more for the
purpose of smoothing over the matter and making it acceptable to
Commodore Kearny than anything else; that he had no objection to
the manner in which Captain Rootes had discharged his duty; on the
contrary, he esteemed him as a most faithful and efficient officer.
Question. Do you know anything about the business capacities of
the successors of Commodore Kearny and Captain Rootes in the
Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer.  I do not know.  I am  not personally acquainted with
Captain Foote, nor have I ever seen him to recognize him. I have
had one interview  with Commodore Breese, and only one.  I was
much pleased with the apparent efficiency and intelligence of Commodore Breese; but I know nothing of the character of those officers,
and very little of their personal history. I had no acquaintance with
them, not even the slightest, before their appointment, nor did I
know  that they were appointed until some days after they were
assigned to that yard.
Question. Are you acquainted with Alexander Ward?
Answer. I have a very slight acquaintance with Mr. Ward.
Question. Do you know anything about the removal of Mr. Ward
from the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. Mr. Ward was not removed; he resigned.
Question. From  whose district was the successor of Mr. Ward
selected?
Answer. From  Mr. Cochrane's district.
Question. Did you have anything to do with the arrangement as to
whose district his successor should come from?
Answer. In filling up some appointments of his at that time, the
Secretary suggested to two or thr-ee members, I think, in my presence,




208                      BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
to myself I know, that he would like very much for us to agree among
ourselves as to the parties to be appointed, selecting the best men, and
he would try to carry out our agreement as far as he could do so consistently with his duty to the service. I wrote on a slip of paper
during the sitting of Congress last winter the appointments which
were then vacant and to be filled, and suggested names from my own
district for certain of those appointments.  I then carried it, I think,
first to Mr. Cochrane, and requested him to carry it to Mr. Kelly. It
was then carried from Mr. Kelly to Mr. Maclay and General Ward.
We suggested different names, and then finally yielded various points
until we came to an agreement, or very nearly to an agreement. The
only thing in which there was not an apparent agreement was the
contest for the master laborer, which seemed to be between General
Ward and Mr. Cochrane.  Before the appointments were made, however, Mr. Maclay, myself, and I think some other member whose
name I do not now recollect, met at the office of the Secretary and had
a conversation there, and certain names seemed to be agreed upon, or
rather not the names so much as that certain appointments were to go
to certain districts.  In the contest between Mr. Cochraneand General Ward for the master laborer, I remarked it was sai  that the
party whom Mr. Cochrane recommended had been dismissed from the
custom-house through some feeling against him, and that it was not
possible for Mr. Cochrane to take care of him in any other way; and
for this reason, in order to gratify and accommodate Mr. Cochrane, I
united with others to give this appointment to his district
Question. How many of the other members agreed that Mr. Cochrane's man should have the appointment?
Answer. I do not know that there was any final agreement about it.
I think the gentlemen present fell into that general arrangement. I
think there were three of us present, and that appeared to be the
arrangement, but there was no distinct agreement. I am not certain
whether General Ward afterwards pressed the appointment of the
party he first suggested. I never heard anything more about it.
Question. The inference was naturally drawn by the Secretary that
most of the New York members acquiesced in these appointments.?
Answer. I presume that was the inference.
Question. Was it a reasonable inference from the circumstances?
Answer. Yes, sir; from what had been said, and the list of names
that I wrote down.
Question. Are you acquainted with Mr. Ross?
Answer. I am.
Question. What does he hold now in the navy yard?
Answer. I believe he is master carpenter now.
Question. Does he hold any office under the city authorities of
Brooklyn?
Answer. I think when he was appointed he was assessor of a ward.
Question. Has he held that office since his appointment in the navy
yard?
Answer. He closed up the last year's business of that office since
his appointment.  He was appointed in the navy yard last summer,!nd I think it required some attention after his appointmmenit.  My




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                            209
recollection is that he was occupied about a week afterwards in disposinog of his business.  His term  expired in the spring, or at least
his duties did. I do not recollect whether his term expired. I think
he was appointed in the navy yard the latter part of May or the first
part of June.  My impression is that his duties as assessor expired the
first of July. The whole of his duty as assessor had been performed
when he received his appointment, except simply attending the board
of assessors to hear any applications that might be made for correction.
The assessment is generally made before the period of his appointment,
and that constitutes the great portion of the labors of the assessors.
Question. Besides what you have mentioned has he discharged any
of the duties of assessor since his appointment in the navy yard?
Answer. I think not.  But this I can only say from my general
knowledge of what is required from his office of assessor.  I recollect
very distinctly, however, that Mr. Ross was called upon to attend the
board of assessors before the close of his official duties, and after his
appointment in the navy yard, and that he got permission from the
officer of the yard to for leave two or three days for that purpose. I
do not recollect the exact time.
Question. Has he been called upon to discharge any of the duties
of assessor since the expiration of his term?
Answer. I think not; but I do not know. Do not understand me
that this was the expiration of his term, but that it was the expiration
of his duties for that year.  His duties as assessor closed at this time,
though he remained in the office until his successor was elected?
Question. When was the successor elected?
Answer. I do not know. Since my election to Congress, and while
I have been engaged in the discharge of my duties here, the charter
of the city of Brooklyn has been changed, and the election of city
officers now comes off in the spring instead of in the fall as before. I
am not certain whether the office of assessor is regarded as one of the
city officers or not. My impression is that it is a county office. But
of this I am entirely ignorant, and I do not know what change has
been made.
Question. Are  you certain  that his term  as assessor has yet
expired?
Answer. I could not state positively that it has; he may have continued for another year, but of this I am ignorant.
Question. When are the assessments made; at what period of the
year?
Answer. During the winter and spring, I think; and the assessment-roll has generally been closed in June or July; generally in
July.
Question. How often are the assessors elected?
Answer. I do not know what provision has been made in the recent
change in the city charter, whether to elect them annually or biennially; and I am not able to state distinctly whether they were elected
annually or biennially before that change. I never gave any attention
to this matter.
14  )




210                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,
By Mr. Groesbeck;
Question. Are you certain that they were not elected for more than
two years?
Answer. I am not certain whether they were previously elected for
one or two years. It has always been considered a very small office.
We have generally selected one substantial citizen; those who knew
something about real estate, property, buildings, &c. They make
an assessment; it takes each one of them a few weeks to go through
his district, and make their reports to the full board. The rolls then
are made public, and the citizens are notified, appear, and apply for
a correction of the rolls when they think it necessary. In wards,
such as the one Mr. Ross assessed, a large portion of the property
would be taken from the books of the assessor of the previous year
unless some new buildings have been put up, or something else had
been done to change the value of the property.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was this assessor known as an active politician, or not?
Answer. Mr. Ross never has been a very active politician. He has
been a builder by trade, a carpenter and builder; and is known among
our respectable citizens as one of our most worthy and respectable
men.  I do not think he has been an active politician; if so, I am
ignorant of it.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. After the assessors meet in a board of equalization, as
it is called with us, to hear appeals and equalize your valuations,
after that board rises, can that assessor, by any possibility, perform
any other official duty during that year?
Answer. That closes his labors for the year. I know of no other
duties he can perform.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Upon whose recommendation was he appointed in the
navy yard?
Answer. Upon mine.
Question. Was anything said to the Secretary about his being an
assessor at the time?
Answer. No, sir; when I recommended him  I was not aware of
that fact myself. I did not know it until some complaints were made
by politicians in Brooklyn that he was appointed in the navy yard,
while he happened to hold the office of assessor.  That was the fi st
knowledge I had of his being an assessor, as I very seldom pay amy
attention to such matters.
Question. Do you know anything about the manner in which he
has discharged his duties in the navy yard?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Have you heard any complaints in regard to him?
Answer. No, sir; only from politicians who wanted him to employ
mechanics whom he considered unfit for employment; they have com-n
plained that he would not accommodate them, and he has given this as
the reason.
Question. Now, about another matter. There was an item in the
appropriation bill of last year, and also of this year, for " filling in




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          211.
new purchase" in t~he Brooklyn navy yard. Is that a matter of utility
for the navy yard, or not?
Answer. It appears to be necessary, inasmuch as it has been decided
to build the marine barracks there, and it has been thought that this
gmarsh would be injurious to the marines.  The city has repeatedly
complained of this marsh as a nuisance.
By the Chairman:
Question. Is there not a great surplusage of earth in that neighborhood, and would not the privilege of dumping that earth there pay
for the filling in of the purchase?
Answer. No, sir; II think there is not a great surplusage of earth
in that vicinity.  The earth all over our city is held at a high price
by those who happen to own it.
Question. Does not the city open streets in that neighborhood, thus
involving the necessity of removing and damping the earth somewhere?
Answer. I think there was a street opened near the city hospital,
which created the necessity for removing quite a quantity of earth.
I understood that dirt was offered at a low price to the contractors to
fill in this new purchase, but it is my impression that it has been
taken up to some extent by speculators to fill in low lots and for other
purposes.  Every year this filling in is postponed, it will cost the
government more to do it on account of the scarcity of earth for that
purpose.
Question. Is this filling in necessary to prevent this ground from
being miasmatic?
Answer. The lot now occupied by the marine barracks has been
flled in.  It was formerly all below the level of the street.  I think
the highest part of it must have been from 6 to 8 and 10 feet below
the level of the street   When the street was made it required a very
heavy filling in, and on the west of the street was the plat which the
government has now filled in.  The plat is now called the "new
pu rchase."
Question. Does the government own the whole of the low lands
there?
Answer. I believe all in the navy yard and about the marine hos.
pital.
Question. Are there any other low lands in the neighborhood belonging to private parties?
Answer. I believe not; although there may be.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. You spoke awhile since of your "necessarily being in the
navy yard."  What was the necessity of your being in the navy yard?
Answer. I went there to see my friends, secure my election, and
give you the benefit of my labor here.
Question. Were you frequently in the navy yard?
Answer. At that particular time I was there 2 or 3 times a week.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is it necessary to pay money to (ill in that location for
the marine barracks, or could they not get persons who are excavat ing




212                      BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD;
in the city, opening streets in the neighborhood, or something of the
kind, to throw their dirt there without pay?
Answer. I think not; I think it would be necessary to pay for the
dirt.
Question. Were you at one time of the opinion that there was fraud
in that matter?
Answer. Yes, sir; I thought that great frauds had been committed
upon the government during the latter part of Mr. Pierce's administration, in the filling of the new purchase, and I am still of that
opinion.
Question. Were you not of the opinion at one time that this filling
in might be discontinued consistently with the interests of the government?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think that I ever was of that opinion.
I was of the opinion that further checks were necessary in execution
of that work, and that unless further checks could be applied, it was
an absolute duty of the government to discontinue the appropriation.
I believed that not more than one-quarter, certainly not more than half
of the work that was paid for was ever done.
Question. How has it been more recently in relation to that subject? Has there been any changes in the manner of executing the
work?
Answer. An entire change.  During the latter part of the last administration, I believe they adopted what was called the ticket system
in doing that work.  They had tickets, one of which was given for
each load of dirt deposited, and then their accounts were made up
from those tickets; the fraud was practiced upon the government by
parties who obtained access to the engineer's office, either legitimately
or illegitimately, and stole these tickets. I have been informed by
parties there that they had seen large quantities of these tickets go
out when no service was performed for them; and in this way fraud
appeared to be committed upon the government. Upon the appointment of Mr. Graham, the present engineer, my recollection is that
he did away with this ticket system altogether, and placed parties on
the ground to superintend the delivery of the dirt and to take a
memorandum of the number of loads furnished or of square yards filled
in, as the contract required, and to report to him. But of the alleged
fraud I had only such knowledge and information as I had obtained
from parties connected with it, or parties about the yard. The facts,
and my decided conviction that frauds had been committed upon the
government, induced me to speak, in a conversation which I had with
Governor Letcher of the House of Representatives, upon that subject. I
said that I understood that these frauds had been committed, and that
something ought to be done to stop them; and.I think that I mentioned in that conversation the abstraction of these tickets; afterwards
Governor J.etcher called me up to him, while Hon. H. Winter Davis,
of Maryland, was present, and asked me about these things, and I reported the same thing to them. It appears that that statement induced
those gentlemen to go into the Commiteee of Ways and Means and
oppose the appropriation for that filling in. I saw them and corrected,
as far as I could, any error into which the general conversation of




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          213
that "kind. might have led. them, by stating that a portion of that filling
in was necessary, as I believed, and that since the change of officers
there I thought it would be cdone properly. I had faith in the character of the officers who had charge of the matter, nor can I say, nor do
I wish to say anything that would reflect upon the officers who had
charge of the matter before. I have no reason to doubt their good
faith and integrity of character. It was rather the system that had
been adopted that had been abused by the parties employed about the
office, and not the fault of the officers themselves.
Question. Is there any general or particular mismanagement in the
Brooklyn navy yard, of which you can give us any account, within your
own knowledge?
Answer. I know nothing of my own knowledge, of any special mismnanagement.  I have had reason to believe that some of the departments were not managed as closely as they should be; and I have
sometimes feared that parties had been appointed to positions through
political influence, who were more or less unfit for the positions to
which they had been appointed.
GEO. TAYLOR.
The witness subsequently requested to add the following to his
deposition:
Question. Do you know anything about the retention of Patrick
Fitzgerald, painter, as foreman under Mr. Turner?
Answer. I do. Mr. Fitzgerald resides in my district, and I believed.
him to be a faithful man and a good mechanic, and urged Mr. Turner
to retain him when he first went into the yard. I understood that
Mr. Turner intended to dismiss him, and I wrote two or three times
to him protesting against it; but I afterwards lost all confidence in
Fitzgerald, and advised Mr. Turner of the fact. I then told him tCI
dismiss him, as I did not consider him worthy of confidence. I saw Mr.
Turner here, and he told me that he had put my letters in evidence,
but that lie had neglected to say that he had discharged Fitzgerald on,
my suggestion.  He afterwards informed me that he had informed
General Bocock, of this committee, of the fact that Fitzgerald had
been dismissed at my suggestion, and that he requested an opportunity
to state that fact under oath. I have since been informed by two of
this committee that such is the fact.
GEORGE TAYLOR.




214                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 69.-R. S. SWACKHAMER, WHITHOUSE, N. J.
FEBRUARY 10, 1859.
R. S. SWACKHAMER called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. At Whitehouse, New Jersey.
Question. Do you now hold, or have you recently held, an official
position under the government?
Answer. Not since the first of last July
Question. What was your official position before that time?
Answer. I was connected with the naval agency at New York as a
clerk.
Question. Did you go out when Mr. Saunders came in?
Answer. No, sir; I remained until about the first of July, just after
his confirmation.
Question. How frequently were requisitions made upon the navy
agent for the purchase of articles on open purchase?
Answer. Almost every day there were some requisitions of that
character.
Question. Upon whom did you call to make the purchases?
Answer. Different individuals.  Mostoftherequisitionsweregiven
to very few persons.
Question. To whom were they usually given?
Answer. The firm of Secor & Co. received a good portion of them.
Question. In what business were Secor & Co. engaged?
Answer. I believe they were reported to be ship chandlers.
Question. Did you know them?
Answer. Yes, sir; I knew them while my brother was navy agent.
Question. Were they called upon to furnish anything out of the
line of ship chandlery?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think they were.
Question. Why were they called upon to furnish things out of their
line?
Answer. I do not know, sir; I have no positive knowledge; I have
nothing more than would be inferential.
Question. What relation, either of business, personal, or other
character, existed between Mr. Secor and the navy agent, Mr.
Saunders?
Answer. I do not know, sir, of anything, except that I believe he
(Charles F. Secor) was one of his sureties.
Question. What arrangement, understanding or agreement, if any,
had been made between Mr. Secor and Mr. Saunders in regard to that
matter?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. Did you hear from either of them?
Answer. No, sir; nothing relative to arrangements. I know the
manner in which the requisitions were disposed of, because I gener



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                           215
ally sent them out myself according to the directions of Mr. Saunders,
or some one acting in his stead during his absence.
Question. In the absence of Mr. Saunders, what instructions did he
leave with you upon that subject?
Answer. During the time that Mr. Secor attended to the office he
directed that they should be submitted to him. I refer now to Mr.
Charles Secor, the father of this young man, of the firm of Secor &
Co., which had the ship chandlery store. Sometimes they were submitted to others.
Question. To whom were the requisitions sent in Saunders' absence?
Answer. Generally to two or three individuals, as I before stated.
Question. Why were they sent to those individuals?
Answer. I do not know positively.
Question. By whose instructions were they sent?
Answer. By the instructions of the navy agent, as I understood it.
At least, when I submitted them to Mr. Saunders they were sent to
those persons by his instructions, and I attended to all the requisitions
during the greater part of the time I remained with him. I know
there was no regard paid to the circular of the Secretary of the Navy
with regard to making these purchases.
Question. Was the attention of Mr. Saunders called to that circular?
Answer. I directed his attention to it myself.
Question. What was the purport of the circular?
Answer. It was that, when purchases were made in open market,
the navy agent should call upon two or three contractors, and one
or two other persons, and see who could furnish the articles at the
lowest rate. But these instructions were not heeded at all, in most
cases.
Question. When you called the attention of Mr. Saunders to it what
did he say?
Answer. I only remember one time. He said he was coming on to
Washington and he would see further about this matter. In the meantime I was to give the requisitions the same directions that they had
had.
Question. Did he come to Washington?
Answer. I do not recollect; he was here very frequently.
Q4estion. Did he ever give you any further instructions about it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Can you state how Mr. Saunders' accounts stood in June
last?
Answer. I do not know  how they stood.  I know how  they were
kept.
Question. How were they kept?
Answer. The statement made to the Secretary of the Navy during
the last months I was there did not represent the finances of the office.
There were generally several bills, amounting to several thousand
dollars, entered as having been paid the last of one month, when they
were really paid early in the following month.
Question. By whom was this done?




216                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. By the chief clerk generally.
Question. What effect would that have upon the statement of this
account; would it enable Mr. Saunders to draw more money?
Answer. Yes, sir; I took that to be the design.  It would present
an incorrect view of the matter to the Secretary of the Navy. He
would not suppose there was so much money in hand as there really
was.
Question. How long did you continue with Saunders?
Answer. Until his office was confirmed; a little over a year after
his appointment.
Question. What amount of bills were returned as paid which were
really unpaid?
Answer. I think about $20,000 or $30,000.
Question. What was the aggregate amount?
Answer. It passed on from  one month to anoth
creasing.  I remember one bill of $8,000 and odd which was reported
as paid in April, which was not paid until some time in May.
Question. Whom were these bills presented by?
Answer. They were generally presented by the contractors. Sometimes they came from the banks.
Question. How were the bills paid; in gold or by check?
Answer. During the first year; or part of the first year, they were
mostly paid by checks upon the bank. The money was kept in the
bank and the bills were paid by checks upon the bank. Afterwards
they were paid by checks upon the treasury, or in gold.
Question. Where was Mr. Saunders during most of this time?
Answer. He was in Kansas a good part of the time.  At least it
was so reported.
Question. How frequently was he at his office in New York?
Answer. I do not think more than one-third of the time while I was
acquainted with that office.
Question. Who did the business in his absence?
Answer. It was mostly done by the clerks of the office, except signing the checks upon the treasury, &c., which was done part of the
time by Mr. Secor. Mr. Blood, however, had large deposits in the
bank in his own name, and he drew upon the bank if necessary.
Question. Did Mr. Saunders leave blank checks.
Answer. Yes, sir; I think he did in some cases.
Question. State how the prices charged for articles bought on
open purchase compared with the fair market value of the same articles?
Answer. In many cases I think they were pretty nearly the same.
They corresponded with the market value pretty nearly.  But in
some cases they were a good deal above. I think some large purchases were made where the amount was probably 100 per cent.
more than the article could have been bought for.
Question. Give us some examples of that kind of business?
Answer. I cannot recollect any at present. I recollect a contractor
coming in one day and saying that a requisition had been sent to
other parties while he had a contract for the same article, and he




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       217
thought he was entitled to supply these articles on open purchase.
He said he could furnish them for 300 per cent. less than they were
furnished; meaning, as I inferred, for one-third the amount.
Question. What was the price of the article according to the contract?
Answer. I do not know; I do not know what article it was now. I
knew at the time, but I did not charge my mind with it.
Question. Can you state about the amount of purchases in the
course of the year on open purchase by the navy agent of New
York?
Answer. No, sir, I could not; even approximately.
Question. Would it approach half a million?
Answer. I do not know; frequently purchases are made amounting
to some thousands of dollars in a day. Not often, however. Generally they are small articles; but sometimes they are large articles.
Timber was one of the heaviest articles purchased.
Question. Where did they purchase their timber?
Answer. Mostly from Wesley Smith, of New York.
Question. What was his business?
Answer. He had a saw mill near Greenpoint, I think.
Question. Were the purchases made through Secor of Smith?
Answer. No, sir; these purchases were made directly from Smith.
The dry goods were not purchased from Secor as a general thing;
they were generally purchased of William  Matthews. Paints and
oils were latterly purchased principally of Mr. Kennedy.
Question. State what information you have in regard to any arrangement, or whether there was any arrangement with any of the
contractors, or any of these persons employed by Mr. Saunders, by
which Mr. Saunders was to receive any portion of the amount of the
sales.
Answer. I could not say as to that. I do not know that it was on
account of purchases made, but I know that he did receive money
for paying the bills of contractors before money had been received,
and receiving percentage upon the payment, while others whose
money had been received at the office were refused payment under
the pretext that their bills were not ready. I think he received a
percentage of one per cent. in one instance.
Question. Do you know of any case in which any money passed
through Secor, or any of these contractors of Mr. Saunders, and a
portion was retained by Mr. Saunders out of the money due to them
on their bills?
Answer. No, sir, except as above stated. I had nothing to do
with that matter.
Question. Who could inform us upon that subject?
Answer. I suppose that Mr. Blood, the chief clerk of the navy
agent, could.
Question. Would he know of such things?
Answer. He ought to know of them, sir.
Question. Do you know whether the master workmen or other




218                       BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD.
persons make terms with these persons in any case to receive commission out of the purchases.
Answer. I have no doubt whatever that the commission is paid
upon purchases. I have no positive evidence of it; but I am as confident of it as of many things where I have positive evidence.
Question. Can you state any facts from which you would infer it?
Answer. There was the greatest precaution taken that the requisitions should go in just such and such directions. Another inference
was that those requisitions were sent without any effort to purchase
at the lowest market price, as a general thing.
Question. State any particular instances that have fallen within
your knowledge of frauds committed upon the government directly
or indirectly, by any officer under the navy agent or by the navy
agent himself.
Answer. I do not know anything further than I have stated   the
manner in which the accounts have been kept, and the manner in
which the purchases have been made.
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
R. S. SWACKHAMER recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are you familiar with the manner in which the navy
agent settles his accounts at the department?
Answer. Yes, sir; I believe I am.
Question. How often is he required to make settlements with the
department here in Washington?
Answer. What are termed the quarterly accounts are made out at
the end of every three months. There are partial renderings every
month.
Question. What is the difference in making  these settlements,
between the monthly statements and the quarterly statements?
Answer. The monthly statement is merely a statement of the moneys
received and of the payments made during the month. The quarterly
statement embraces the three months, with the bills sent to the 4th
Auditor. The bills are generally made out in triplicate. There are
three bills; one of which is sent to Washington to be examined before
the bill is paid; one is retained; and the third is sent to the 4th
Auditor at the quarterly settlement.
Question. As I understand this, one bill is sent here before the
money can be drawn here to pay it?
Answer. Yes, sir; unless it be paid out of other funds.
Question. When the money is paid to the persons who furnish the
articles, their receipts are taken, and at the end of the quarter that
receipt is returned to Washington to show that the money has been
expended?
Answer. Yes, sir; one of the receipts.
Question. Would it be possible, without forgery, for any cheating
to be done or fraud committed in the quarterly settlements of the
accounts of the navy agent?
Answer, The accounts for the quarter are not usually sent to Wash



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       219
ington until about three months after the expiration of the quarter:
and it is sometimes the case that receipts which belong to one quarter
are introduced into another. Receipts which belong to one month
are introduced as being paid in the preceding month, and consequently
they go sometimes into the preceding quarter.
Question. Do not these receipts, by their dates, show when the
money was paid?
Answer. The receipts are generally left blank in these cases. The
contractor when he receives his money signs his name, and afterwards
the date is filled in to correspond with the entry upon the book. For
instance, if a bill is entered as having been paid upon the 30th of
September, when it was paid in October, when the parties have
signed the receipt in blank, the date will be filled in to correspond
with the entry. Sometimes when the contractor fills up the receipt
himself when the money is paid, the date is scratched out and made
to correspond with the date of the entry.
Question. By whom is this done?
Answer. By one of the clerks of the office.
Question. By Saunders' direction?
Answer. I do not know anything about that.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Saunders has had any personal agency in the anticipation of payments?
Answer. I suppose he understood the manner in which it was done.
I do not suppose it would be done without consulting him in reference
to it.
Question. Do you know?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Was that going on as a common practice when you left
the office?
Answer. I do not recollect whether I saw it during the last month.
Question. What was the state of his accounts when you left the
office? Were they pretty square?
Answer. I think they were about the same as they had been.
Question. How had they been?
Answer. I judged that Mr. Saunders had overdrawn considerably
from the fact that he kept his accounts as they were kept.
Question. Did you ever give any intimation to the department in
relation to that?
Answer. Never anything.
Question. Who was the navy agent before Mr. Saunders?
Answer. Mr. Swackhamer, my brother.
Question. Was that practice in existence during his administration
in that office?
Answer. I think it was, sir.
Question. Dating accounts incorrectly?
Answer. I think it was a part of the time.
Question. Do you think your brother knew anything about it?
Answer. I could not say positively whether he did or not. I think
he did before the close of his term.




220                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Did he have the same opportunity to know of such things
that Mr. Saunders has had?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. To what extent did it prevail in his administration?
Answer. I think it probable nearly the same.
Question. Was it the practice, during your brother's administration of that office, to receive any compensation beyond his $3,000, by
way of division of profits, or anything of that sort?
Answer. I do not know whether he received anything, or whether
he did not. All the clerks sometimes received presents.
Question. You do not know of anything of the sort?
Answer. I do not know that he ever received anything. I knew
money to be handed him by some of the clerks in one or two instances,
and he required that it should be refunded.
Question. There is a general idea pervading the country that it is
a common practice for navy agents to give their purchases to particular establishments, upon an understanding with those houses that the
navy agent shall share the profits. Do you know anything of that in
the administration of your brother or of Mr. Saunders?
Answer. Nothing more than I have stated.  My brother directed
that all purchases should be made at the lowest market prices.
Question. Do you know upon what pretext that money was rendered
to your brother?
Answer. I presume it was on account of purchases made. I think
it was so stated.
Question. Were you clerk with your brother?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. During his whole term?
Answer. Yes, sir; during his whole term.
RULIFF S. SWACKHAMEA.
No. 71.-GEORGE N. SANDERS, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 11, 1859.
GEORGE N. SANDERS called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In New York city, 130 west 14th street.
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. Navy agent for the harbor of New York.
Question. How long have you held that position?
Answer. Since April, 1857.
Question. Tell us, as briefly as possible, your duties as navy agent?
Answer. My chief duty is to make requisitions for money for
creditors of the government, and to pay it out to contractors, officers
of' the navy for travelling expenses, and allotments of officers and
sailors at sea.
Question. Does not the purser pay the navy officers?
Answer. Not always.  It is usual, when officers of the navy are
ordered to sea, for the Secretary of the Navy to order the navy agent
to advance them two or three months' pay.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          221
Question. You say your duty is to make requisitions for money and
to pay it out?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Have you no other duties, such as the purchase of articles,
&c.?
Answer. Yes; but that is a subordinate duty. The great duty is
the examination of bills and allotments, and seeing that they are
correct. There are now about three hundred allotments paid in my
office; on the first of every month we have two hundred persons,
mostly seamen, in and about the office at one time drawing their
allotments.  The paying of these allotments is a responsible duty.
We must identify all these parties and see that the money is paid to
the right persons.  If we make a mistake it is our loss; but I am
-happy to say that no mistake of the kind has occurred in the office
since I have been there; nor has government lost a dollar in the dis-'bursement of money through my office.  I say that the government
has not lost anything because I take it that if, while using all proper
care and vigilance, I should pay money to the wrong party the government would not hold an innocent officer responsible; otherwise,
the responsibility of disbursing about $2,500,000 a year would not be
assumed by any one.
Question. What is the amount of the bond which you are required
to give?
Answer. Two sureties of $75,000 each.
Question. Who are your sureties upon that bond?
Answer. At present Zeno Secor and Robert J. Walker.
Question. Who was your surety before Zeno Secor?
Answer. Charles A. Secor.
Question. Who before him?
Answer. He was one of the first sureties. Upon my confirmation
by the Senate I was freshly commissioned, settled up my accounts on
the 23d of June, and renewed my bonds.
Question. How often are you required to settle your accounts?
Answer. I make a statement monthly to the Secretary, and quarterly I send in my vouchers to the Fourth Auditor.
Question. You are required to furnish an abstract monthly?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And once a quarter to settle up with vouchers?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If you were to send improper vouchers what would be the
check?
Answer. The creditors themselves would not be quiet, and would
call the attention of the department to the fact. I could not send in
an improper voucher without it being a forgery, or paid to the wrong
person.
Question. Could you send on a statement of money paid at the end
of one month, when it was not paid until the end of the next month?
Answer. No; the papers will exhibit the fact of the time of payment.  I make my return to the Secretary within three days after the
close of the month, and the quarterly statement to the F ourth Auditor
is but a recapitulation of the monthly to the Secretary; the only differ



222                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
ence is in the vouchers.  I could not make a statement that could not
easily be corrected outside and independent of my office.
Question. What is the nature of the vouchers which  ou send to the
Fourth Auditor?
Answer. I have a pocket full, (drawing a bundle amounting to some
eighty thousand dollars and laying them upon the table for inspection.)
These bills were sent to me from the yard that I might make requisition upon the department for their payment, they are precisely as
received, with the exception of the receipt at the bottom, which is my
voucher for payment. Had I discovered or believed anything to be
wrong in the bills, it would have been my duty not to make requisition
for the money, but to refer the matter, with my objection to the respective bureau for their action. I have no knowledge of these bills
except what any of you might gather from the face of them. The
committee can see from  examining them  the character of the bills
made out. These bills are made out in the navy yard. Here are some
bills of Mr. Secor, and in every instance they are approved by the
inspector and by the commandant of the yard   I have never paid a
dollar upon such bills as these, but upon the credit of the commandant's certificate.  The bills are made out in the yard, and the
articles inspected and received before I ever approve of them.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Do you buy articles for the navy yard?
Answer. I make requisitions upon Mr. Secor, for instance, and
generally he takes the articles over to the yard, and then they fix the
price and the seller brings the bills to mo for approval. The purchases
made by those in the yard, however, are much greater than those made
by me.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Now, right here at this point, I want you to state what
is the extent of your duty and power as purchasing agent.
Answer. That is a debatable point. I will state how far I have
exercised that power; I think I have not exercised any powers that
are questioned.  When I am called upon to purchase any article for
the navy yard I send the order to a merchant who I am satisfied will
not perpetrate a fraud upon the government. The goods are received
by the naval storekeeper; the quality approved and price fixed by the
various inspectors, under the general supervision of the lieutenant and
commandant of the yard, each being responsible for the quality of the
article and the price. The bills are made out at the yard, after these
preliminary steps have been gone through with, and sent to me for
my approval.  Now frauds can only be committed by the merchant
in sending a spurious and inferior article to the yard. An approximation to the price of a top article is easily ascertained, and any extravagant charge can always be detected at the bureau. I have taken care
to give my orders to none but those I believed to be merchants of respectability, who would never think of perpetrating a fraud upon the
government.  I rarely see the articles myself.  The bills are made,
and the price fixed, and the bills approved before they come to me.
If I saw upon its face, (for that is easily seen, except where the article delivered is a spurious or inferior article, or where it has not been




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          223
delivered, at all,) if I see upon the face of the bill that it is all right,
I approve it and send it to the bureau.  They approve, and requisition
is made upon the Secretary of the Navy, and the money is drawn from
the treasury to pay it. tsellers have appealed to.me to protect them
against what they called the tyranny of the inspectors and sometimes
of the commandant; but I have not interposed in their behalf, although
sometimes I have been satisfied that injustice has been done them.
There was one case arose in which it was a question in my own mind
what was my duty, and it is a question with me yet. I gave to Mr.
Joseph G-rice, a contractor himself, and the agent of a contractor for
lumber, an order for some black-walnut timber, which varies very much
in price, according to the difference in the quality. He took the timber to the yard, and charged $80 a thousand feet for it. The inspector,
it appears, knew a western man, not known to my agency or to the
trade, brought to my knowledge only after Mr. Grice had delivered
the lumber, who had a large lot of black-walnut lumber on hand that
he was willing to sell at a lower price, and therefore the inspector
rejects this timber of Mr. Grice on account of the price, and took the
other man's timber.  I had given the order to Mr. Grice because he
was a man of respectability and standing as a contractor and the agent
of a contractor.  The following is a copy of the requisition sent to me
from the yard
No. 1014.]                        U. S. NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,
March 13th, 1858.
SIR: There is required under the appropriation for increase, repairs,
&c.
Bureau of construction, &c.
FRIGATE WABASH, constructor's department.
Furniture.
600 feet black walnut I inch.
To be selected.
Approved: THos. R. ROOTES,
Commander pro tern.
Respectfully your obedient servant,
ANSON HERRIOK,
To the NAVY AGENT.                           U. S. Naval Storekeeper.
The above requisition was awarded to Joseph Green, contractor,
March 15, 1858.  It was, however, purchased of Richard Green by
the yard, who was not a regular dealer, and not known to the office;
he was entirely an outsider. He came from Illinois to the New York
market in the fall of 1857 with a large quantity of black walnut, and
he remained during the winter, and stored the stuff, selling it whenever opportunity occurred at any price. Green went to the yard and
saw the master joiner, and told him he had this stuff. Mr. Grice's
lumber was sent to the yard but not received.  Upon the delivery of
the lumbe  by Mr. Grice, the commodore wrote me the following
letter, and I addressed to him the following replies upon the subject:




224                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Copy of a correspondence between the commandant and navy agent, in
relation to the purchase of black-walnut lumber.
NAVY YARD, New York, April 2, 1858.
SIR: A lot of black-walnut lumber delivered at this yard on requisition, and charged at $80 per 1,000 feet, has been rejected on account
of price.  It is reported to me that the price of such lumber is $50
per 1,000 feet.
Respectfully, your obedient servant.
L. KEARNY, Commander.
GEO. N. SANDERS, ESQ.,
Navy Agent, New York.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, New York, April 8, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 2d inst., in regard to a lot of black-walnut
lumber recently delivered at the yard, has been received.
I have made inquiry, and ascertained that $80 per 1,000 feet, is
considered the fair market price for lumber of the description required.
From application made to six parties, I received the following offers:
A. Durgee, at $80 per 1,000 feet; Ogden &  Co., at $80 per 1,000
feet; Wesley Smith, at $85 per 1,000 feet.
Very respectfully,
GEO. N. SANDERS, Navy Agent,
per GEO. A. BLOOD.
COMMODORE L. KEARNY,
Commandant U. S. Navy Yard, New York.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, New York, May 6, 1858.
SIR: Referring to your requisition of the 15th of March last, for
600 feet black walnut, and which I sent to Mr. Joseph Grice, a dealer,
and also the agent for the contractor of the same article, I was constrained to approve of the price, viz: $80, as upon issuing circulars,
I received the following propositions: Wesley Smith, at $85; A.
Durgee, at $80; Ogden & Co., $80; J. Pickard & Co., at $85.
On giving the order to Mr. Grice, I told him, as I do all others
receiving requisitions, that the very best article must be furnished,
for which, it is but fair that the market price should be paid, and
which was no more than charged in this case, as the above offers will
show. If the lumber is not of the very best quality, it ought not to
have been received.
I presume it was, as no objection has been made to it.
Very respectfully,
GEO. N. SANDERS, Navy Agent.
COMMODORE L. KEARNY,
Commandant U. S. Navy Yard, New York.
That is the extent of my interference in this case, leaving the decision with the commandant.  The only point in my mind was this,
whether I should interfere or not. I had given the order to Mr. Grice
and he had delivered the timber in good faith Now if I was satisfied




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                         225
that he had charged but the fair market price for it, was it not a binding contract upon me, no matter whether or not another man came
forward and offered the timber at less than market price?  They received the lumber proposed to them at the cheaper rate, and I paid the
bill, of which the following is a copy:
In triplicate.
THE UNITED STATES NAVY DEPARTMENT            To RICHARD GREEN, Dr.
Bureau of Construction, &c. appropriation for increase, repairs, &c.
April 17, 1858.  General purposes.
862 S. feet black-walnut boards at $55 per M...................... $47 41
Cartage......................................................................  2   25
$49 66
Having examined the articles above charged, we certify that they are
of good quality, and charged at the market price.
JOHN ORR, Inspector.
B. F. DELANO, Naval Constructor.
APRIL 17, 1858.
Received the above article for increase, repairs, &c.
ANSON HERRICK,
Navy Store Keeper.
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK, April 17, 1858.
The public exigencies required the immediate delivery of the articles
mentioned in this bill, and there not being time to advertise for proposals, the articles were properly obtained by open purchase, and the
same is approved for the sum of forty-nine dollars and sixty-six cents.
$49 66.                              L. KEARNY, Commandant.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, New York, May 5, 1858.
Received of George N. Sanders, agent, forty-nine dollars and sixtysix cents, in full of the above bill, and have signed triplicate receipts.
$49 66.                                      RICHARD GREEN.
I have never interfered or approved of any bills that the quality and
price of the article had not been previously fixed at the yard.
Question. Do you make a requisition and order the articles, and do
they go to the yard before the price is fixed?
Answer. Yes: I cannot fix a price that cannot be reversed by the
inspector and commandant; I rarely fix one.
Question. What are the instructions to you from the department?
Answer. A circular was sent to me of which the following is a copy:
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS, December 29, 1855.
SIR: I am directed by the Secretary of the Navy to issue this circular, which supersedes that of the 8th of June last, and which by his
order is to apply to all the bureaus of the Navy Department.
15 D




226                      BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD.
When articles are required for one of the bureaus of the department
which are not embraced in contracts with that bureau, or which are
to be procured by open purchase, the navy agent will ascertain in
writing from the contractors with all the bureaus dealing in the kind
of articles required, or from their agents, if any, near the place of delivery, the prices at which they will respectively deliver the articles
required.
He will also ascertain from at least two other parties dealing in such
articles, including the one, if any, named in the requisition, the prices
at which they will deliver them as required.
All the parties and their prices are to be noted on the back of the
requisition, and the purchase made from  the lowest bidder subject to
the usual inspection.
The commandant will take care not to approve requisitions for articles to be procured by open purchase, when similar articles under
contract or in store can be made to answer the purpose of those reWhen open purchases are indispensable, let at least a month's supply be included in one requisition unless otherwise specially directed
by either bureau.  When the prices are the same, the contractors are
always to have the preference.
A bill of the articles purchased, with the cost price of each, must,
in all cases, accompany the goods when delivered.
Respectfully, your obedient servant.
JOSEPH SMITH.
To the COMMANDANT OF EACH NAVY YARD..
The following correspondence between me and the department grew
out of this matter.
Copy of a correspondence between the Bureau of Yards and Docks and
navy agent, in regard to open purchases.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DocKs,
May 22, 185w.
SIR: Mr. S. P. Brown, a contractor, informs the- bureau that requisitions had been made, and orders given to others, to furnish white
pine dimension lumber and spruce piles, outside of his contract for
lumber, &c., deliverable at the New York navy yard, without his
knowledge or that of his agent at New York; that they were wanted,
and stating his desire to supply articles of lumber, &c., &c., which
are purchased in open market, provided he can do so as low or lower
than others.
This Mr. Brown is entitled to do under the bureau's circular of
December 29, 1855, to which you are referred for your, guidance
when you have occasion to procure supplies by open purchase. In this
case, however, Mr. Brown is a defaulter, and it is not probable he could
supply forthwith what he has had months to supply under his con



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        227
tract, and failed to do. The piles alluded to are, I presume, those
ordered by the bureau to be purchased.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOS. SMITH.
GEORGE N. SANDERS, Esq.,
Navy Agent, New York.
Extract of a correspondence between the Bureau of Yards and Docks
and the navy agent, in regard to open purchases.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New York, May 27, 1857.
SIR: Your letter of the 22d instant, in reference to white pine
dimension lumber being purchased by me, without calling on Mr. S.
P. Brown for a proposition, has been received.
The requisition to which I suppose the bureau refers, and which is
the subject of Mr. Brown's complaint, came to me marked "to be
selected," and "all to be furnished immediately."  The presumption,
and it is a reasonable one, that the department which required an
article to " be selected," desired it procured in this market, would cut
off Mr. Brown as a competitor, even if the immediate want of it did
not, as Mr. Brown lives in Maine, and it would take a week, possibly
longer, before a supply could be received from him. The agent of
Mr. Brown in this city, Mr. G. W. Simpson, is a commission merchant, as near as I can ascertain, and not the proper person, if the
bureau wishes to purchase from first hands, to fill such orders.
Very respectfully,
GEO. N. SANDERS,
Navy Agent.
Commodore JOSEPH SMITH,
Uhif of Bureau Yards and Docks, Washington.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS,
May 28, 1857.
SIR: I have received your letter of the 27th instant, in reply to that
of the bureau, dated the 22d instant.
The circular in relation to purchases in open market, requires that
all the contractors or their agents be called on for bids for articles in
their line as well as others, it was therefore due to Mr. Brown that.
having an agent in New York, (it matters nob of what occupation,) he
should be asked for prices through that agent, for any articles of
lumber that may be required during the period for which he may be
a contractor for supplying that article; the purchases to be made from
the lowest bidder.
It is not contemplated that deliveries of articles purchased in open
market should be made within a period not reasonable, the time named
in the requisition, copy of which you forward, is too short, the bureau
considers ten days but reasonable in this case. Nor did the bureau
contemplate such purchases so made in open market on the eve of
making new contracts for the year's supply, you will, however, obtain




228                       BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD.
offers to supply this requisition, as directed by the circular; taling
the lowest offer, and allowing ten days fordelivery.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOS. SMITH.
GEORGE N. SANDERS, Esq.,
Navy Agent, New York.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New York, August 17, 1858.
SIR: Your letter of the 14th instant, calling my attention to the
circular of the department of 29th December, 1855, has been received.
I think it proper at this time to present to the bureau a few obstacles
in connexion with this matter, and which if the bureau will remove,
I will be very happy to carry out the circular to the letter. So far as
it has been in my power, I have endeavored to act according to the
spirit of the instructions of the department, always keeping in view
the fact, that the department required nothing but of the very best
quality; and it is admitted at the yard that the articles are the very
best in market, and give the highest satisfaction; for which a fair
market price should be paid, and nothing more, and when I have
thought parties wished to charge exorbitantly, I have refused them
any of the trade of the office. And in a case recently, where purchases
were made on account of Mr. Lesley, contractor, the articles were procured at a much  lower rate than the contract, although they were
afterwards turned over to the contractor, and the bills made in his
name.
Requisitions are often made for so small quantities, for instance,
three spools of cotton, and so indefinite, if for tools or iron, &c., no
size is given, that no merchant could form  an estimate of the price
until the parties at the yard are consulted; this occupies time, and
two or three applications of this kind, if they should fail to receive an
order, the bureau will readily perceive would not only discourage, but
disgust them with the whole working of the department.
It is often the case that articles are not required until the moment
they are wanted for use, and then they are either purchased by the
yard, or if time is taken to go through the form of the circular, hundreds of men are kept idle, waiting, and the government really loses
more than twice the cost of the article, and this cannot be avoided if
the circular is carried out to the letter.  If there is a requisition from
the yard of any large amount, it is invariably the case that it is stated
on the face of it where it is to be bought. I have too amiably yielded
to these suggestions, thereby establishing a bad precedent, as the
inspector should not influence the purchase.
I do not understand the circular to give contractors the monopoly
of supply. Some of the contractors are evidently of this opinion, and
recklessly make bids below the cash value of the best articles of the
class, hoping to make up such losses by excessive charges on articles
ordered by open purchase. If the inspectors do their duty there will
be little profit on the open purchases, even were they all given to a
single house, and it is certainly to the interest of the government that




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                           229
the best house'in the city should do all the miscellaneous business, as
I have shown it is not of sufficient consequence to be much divided.
Very respectfully,
GEO. N. SANDERS,
WNavy Agent.
Coin. JOSEPH SMITH,
Chief of Bureau of Yards and Dock/s, Washington.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS,
August 19, 1858.: I have received your letter of the 17th instant, in reply to that
-of the bureau res pectin~g purchases in open market, of the 14th instant.
The circular of the 29th of December, 1855, embraced the orders
of the Secretary of the Navy, and any deviation from, or violation of
them on complaint of parties' supposing themselves aggrieved would
subject the navy agent, against whom the complaint should be made,
to a call for explanation from the department.
Contractors have no advantage under the circular, other than when
the prices for articles are the sale, they are to have the preference.
The circular directs how the rices shall be ascertained. The persons
named on the face of the requisitions from  the yard, are to derive no
"benefit from their being so named, unless their prices are the lowest.
Respectf ully, your obedient servant,
JOS. SMITH.
GEO. N. SANDERS, Esq.,
Navy Agent, New York.
There was a correspondence between me and Commander Rootes in
relation to the purchase of some horses. I thought that the proper
course was for him to have sent his requisition to me.  But perhaps he
thought I was not competent to select horses. In that, however, he
was mistaken, as the early part of my life was passed on horseback.
He sent me a bill for $792 for three horses purchased for the use of
the yard. I thought the bill was exorbitant and forwarded it to the
bureau for instruction. Correspondence upon that point:
Correspondence between Commandant Bootes, the Bureau, and Navy
agent, in relation to the purchase of three horses.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New  York, August 8, 1857.
SIR: The enclosed bill seems to be for a purchase of horses for the
yard; as I have no knowledge of the transaction, the bill is transmitted for the action of the bureau.
Very respectfully,
Navy Agent.
Commodore JOSEPH SMITH,
Chief of Bureau of Yards and Docks, Washington.




230                     BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
BUREAU OF YARDS ANDDOCKS August 10, 85.
SIR: Your letters of the 1st instant have been received.  I return
the bills for horses purchased for the yard; the price paid seems to be
extravagant; it seems, however, to obtain the approval of the commandant.  In making this purchase the usual and regular forms
should have been followed, that of requisition on the navy agent,
bearing on its face "to be selected " if so desired.  These selections
are sometimes made by experts engaged for that purpose, but in all
cases requisitions should be sent to your agency.
Respectfully your obedient servant,
JOSEPH SMITM.
GEO. N. SANDERS, Esq., Navy Agent, New York.
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK, August 13, 1857.
SIR: The three horses purchased on the 6th instant for the use of
the Yard, were bought with the understanding that they were to be
paid for immediately, and would not have been sold by the owner to
the government without such understanding.  I am  now  informe
that he must wait thirty days for his money. If practicable, you will
confer an obligation by waiving your right to this delay and paying
the bills upon presentation.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
THOS. R. ROOTES,
Commandant pro tern.
GEO. N. SANDERS, Esq., Navy Agent, New York.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New York, August, 13, 1857.
SIR: Your letter of the 13th instant in relation to the bill for three
horses recently purchased for the yard, has been received, and in
reply I have to state that it would afford me pleasure to comply with
your wishes, but I cannot pay the bill until the receipt of funds from
the department for that purpose.
I will make requisition for the amount and as soon as remitted will
pay it over.
Very respectfully,
GEO. N. SANDERS, Navy Agent.
Commandant pro tern. U. S. Navy Yard, New York.
The following is a copy of the bill:
[In triplicate.]
The UNITED STATES NAVY DEPARTMENT to BERNARD McENTEE,   Dr.
Bureau of Yards and Docks.-appropriation for contingent.
1857.-August 6. To three horses for the yard department...... $792




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                          231
Having examined the article above charged, I certify that it is
correct.
HUG-H McLAUGHLIN, M. L.
ANSON HERRICK,
Aucgus-t 7, 1857.                                 Navy Storekeeper.
NAVY YARD, New York, August 7, 1857.
This bill is approved for the sum of seven hundred and ninety-two
dollars.
THOS. R. ROOTES, Commandant.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New York, August 28, 1857.
lReceived of George N. Sanders, agent, seven hundred and ninety-two
dollars, in full of the above bill, and have signed triplicate receipts.
$792.                                   BERNARD  McENTEE.
The mo-ney was paid over the moment it was received.  I understood. that Commander Rootes had some feeling upon the subject.
These bills which I have laid before the committee, I have brought
here for the purpose. of letting you see the certificate of the commandant and the inspector of the articles which I am called upon to
pay. I will also state that were I to go myself and select the articles
and fix the price, it is not presumed that I will go to the yard with
them, and it would therefore be easy to shift and change the article
which I selected for one less valuable, and I am satisfied that the only
security to the government is in having honorable, upright men to
deliver the articles-men who would not impose upon the government.
It depends much upon the officers of the yard, the vigilance and carefulness of the inspectors, and upon the commandant and lieutenant of
the yard.
In my correspondence with the department I alluded to my "too
amiably yielding" to the suggestions from the yard. I meant this:
As I stated in my letter, invariably when an order came from the
yard of any amount, it was suggested upon the face of it where it was
to be bought. Now I saw no good reason why it should go *to the
place indicated, though I have yielded too much in some cases. I
have no doubt the goods were all right, but it would be establishing
a bad precedent. You should never allow the inspectors, unless there
is good reason for it, to indicate where to get articles, and then you
would prevent collusion. I have been in the yard but twice. I have
seen Commander Rootes but twice. I know but few of the inspectors.
I know Mr. Delano, constructing engineer, who was an inspector. I
also know Charles Graham, civil engineer of the yard.  I knew him
just as he retired from office, and I have got acquainted with Mr.
King, his successor, recently. The master painter, Mr. Turner, introduced himself to me outside of this room, while I was waiting to
be called in here. I state this to show that it is not possible for me
to make anything without complicity with the inspectors, commandant, &C., and I am intimate with none, and know only those I have
named, even by sight.




232                       BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD.
Question. The last question I asked you, which was some time ago,
had reference to a circular sent you from Commodore Smith. What
was the occasion of that circular being sent to you?
Answer. The complaints of the contractors, who supposed  that
they should be applied to for all articles to be obtained upon open
purchase.  This they claimed as a right.  I have, in many cases,
conformed to the circular, in important cases, sometimes in unimportant cases, and tried to work it.
Question. I understand that the circular required that when you
had an article to buy on open purchase you should send round a circular, in the form of proposals, to different contractors-at least three.
Have you done so?
Answer. I have done so in many instances, and have failed to do so
in many instances.
Question. How did you feel yourself at liberty to disregard instructions?
Answer. Because of the impossibility of obeying them, as I have
explained in the correspondence here. I have shown how difficult for
this to be done, and Commodore Smith yielded the point.
Question. Did he yield the point?
Answer. Well, this was the last ofthecorrespondence. tfsend these
proposals to contractors sometimes they will not answer them. That
is not what the contractor wants, to be inquired of in regard to the
price. They claim that the articles shall be ordered of them directly.
They do not complain that I did not send the circulars to them but that
I did not send the orders to them.
Question. State briefly the reason that you did not comply with the
circular?
Answer. Because it is impossible to fix the price of the article.
Question. But the circular requires you to send around to the contractors?
Answer. But it cannot be done with my limited knowledge of the
articles wanted. I prefer selecting honorable men to get the articles'
oftentimes contractors.
Question. You do not understand my question yet. It is this: If
you have an article to purchase in open market, the circular requires
you to send around something in the shape of proposals to find out
what the contractors will sell it at, in order to find out the lowest
price; is that so?
Answer. They will not answer the circular. I have sent around
these proposals and found that it is not practicable to get them to give
me an answer. There is another side of the case. Even if I were to
send around my proposals broadcast to persons and inquire their price,
I have no confidence that they would not furnish an inferior article.
I am responsible for furnishing a good article, but I cannot tell what
it will be if an irresponsible party is called upon to furnish it. I must
be sure that an honest man has got the order, at least to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I distinctly told Commander Rootes, in the
only conversation I ever had with him, that if he ever found any man imposing upon the government who had had orders from me, to inform
me, and I would see that lie never got another order from me.




BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD.                             233
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. I thought you stated a moment since that you were not
responsible for the articles?
Answer. I am responsible.
Question. I understood you to say that the responsibility lay upon
the inspector?
Answer. I am responsible, but a responsibility rests also upon them,
I have endeavored to show the inconsistency of the thing.  I am  not
expected to take the article to the yard myself. Then how am I to
swear that the same article goes there and is received, that I bought?
Therefore the price is rarely fixed by me except in some important
matters.  It is impossible, in many cases,, to fix the price until it is
done at the yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You have spoken either in your testimony, or in your
correspondence, of Imiscellaneous articles;" what do you mean by
that?
Answer. I mean articles not included in any contract that it would
be difficult to describe; these are generally selected by the master
workmen, and it is almost impossible to fix a price until the article is
selected,
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. How much did they amount to'lat year?
Answer. TI think my pu-rchases from  April 1, 1857, (th. day I took
possession of' the ageny,) to January 1, 1 859, amounted to $88,399.
This is what I purchased.  The most of the purchasing is done at the
yard.  Here are bills for $80,000, of which I have no knowledge,
except from  being called upon to pay them.  I have bought flour,
pork, coal, sugar, and such like, which I do not call miscellaneous
articles, as their prices are easy to fix.  Buc by miscellaneous articles
I meant those the value of which it is not easy to determine.'
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you make all these miscellaneous purchases of the
same house?
Answer. No; I buy them at various houses, and that is the trouble
with the thing; the purchasing is cut up too much. I think it would
be an advantage to the government if these purchases were confined
to one house; but I have complied with the circular as well as I could.
Question. How many houses have you bought of?
Answer. I began with A. T. Stewart & Co., because I knew he kept
a tip-top article, and had but one fixed price for every thing, and
would deal fairly with  the government.  But the contractors complained.  Mr. Mathews, a general contractor for the army, Indian
department, and navy, assured me that he would furnish the articles
as well as Stewart, and as cheap, and I have since sent most of the
dry goods articles to him.
Question. To whom else have you sent?
Answer. I send to some thirty different persons.
Question. Whom  do you send to principally?
Answer. I send to Secor & Co., perhaps, for a majority of the miscellaneous undescribed articles.   The father is now, I believe, the




234                    BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
head of the house. This h ouse was a heavy contractor in the revenue
service and with the Bureau of Yards and Docks, to supply the navy
yard at San Francisco with almost every variety of miscellaneous
matter, and at a rate considerably below that offered by any one else,
and thereby constituting themselves contractors under the circular.
Question. In what business are they engaged?
Answer. Ship chandlery.
Question. Do you send to them  for articles that ship chandlers do
not generally have for sale?
Answer. That is very difficult to say. Their business is to supply
everything connected with ships, and it is difficult to say what constitutes a ship chandler's business. I do not know as I am sufficiently
posted to say what it precisely is. For hard lumber I sent; when I
first began, to a merchant of the name of Torrence, (a brother-in-law
of Mr. H. F. Clark,) who was engaged in a general commission business. I generally intend to send to some one who I think will not
get me into difficulties about the articles I order of' him. I do not like
to send to a stranger; I want to know the man.  My fear is that the
man may attempt to palm a false or inferior article upon the government.  I do not think there is much danger in anything else.
Question. You have stated that your securities were the Secors;
formerly Charles A. Secor and now Zeno Secor?
Answer. Yes.  Everybody who knows anything about me knows
that I was a man without means.  The bonds I was required to give
were very large.  Charles A. Secor had known me ever since I had
been in New York, and I suppose he had confidence in my integrity.
At any rate, as I was walking down Broadway one morning, I told
him what amount of security I would have to get. He very generously,
without any consideration in the future, without mentioning his son,
who was engaged in business, offered to go my security himself, and
did so almost immediately.  I was appointed in March, and had to go
into office on the first of April, and had not much time to look up
securities. I just took Mr. Secor and Mr. Walker. Mr. Secor imagined
himself then as worth about $300,000, and never supposed it possible
that he should ask any favor of me. But the hard times of last year
came on and every thing I could throw in the way legitimately of his
son, who was in business, he asked me to do. I had confidence in the
integrity of the house. They had too much at stake to attempt to
defraud me or the government.  I think their transactions, at least
so far as I know and believe, are honorable and correct.
Question. Are either of these gentlemen, Charles A. Secor or Zeno
Secor a member of the firm of Secor & Co.?
Answer. They were not at the time C. A. Secor became my security.
Question. Have they been since?
Answer. I think that Zeno Secor at present has an interest in the
house; I am not sure about that. But Charles A. Secor in the first
instance had no interest in the house; at any rate so he informed me.
My impression is that Zeno Secor has now an interest in the house,
but I am not sure whether he has or not; it is very probable that he
has.  But I do not think that was a consideration with him in causing him to go my security; at any rate it was not made one.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                        235
Question. You think, then, that Zeno Secor is a member of the
house?
Answer. He may be.
Question. Was he so when he became your surety?
Answer. He may have been.  If he is now he was then.   I have
not thought about that matter.
Question. Did he ever tell you that he was?
Answer. No, he never did.
Question. Did you ever see him in the store then?
Answer. He is engaged in railroading, he and his brother, Charles
A. Secor, in Illinois.  Ship chandlery is their original business.
Question. Where does he employ himself personally?   To what
business does he devote his individual attention?
Answer. I do not know.  My relations were with his brother,
Charles A.  I am not very intimate with Zeno.  Charles A., from
circumstances connected- with railroading in Illinois, was unable to
renew  the bond, and Zeno, at the solicitation of his brother, (not at
my solicitation, for I knew but very little about him,) came forward
and gave the bonds required.
Question. Your former surety, then, became embarrassed in business?
Answer. He got embarrassed, and I renewed my bond with one
unembarrassed; and it was upon Charles A.'s assurance that there
was no danger that Zeno became my surety. I do not know what he
told him, but he came promptly forward and executed the bond.  He
had no inducement to do so except to stand by his brother's friend.
Question. According to your best judgment what is the amount of
purchases you have made of Secor & Co.?
Answer. My best judgment is what they say about it themselves;
that it is about $13,000 since the 1st of April last.
Question. Will you please append to your deposition tables showing the whole amount of purchases during the last year and from
whom?
Answer. I will do so. [See appendix to this deposition.]
Question. You have spoken of a large amount of purchases being
made in the navy yard of which you know nothing.  Please state
how they are made and by what authority?
Answer. I do not know by what authority they are made.   When
I ask they generally say they are made by order of the bureau.
Question. Are not all the purchases required by law to go through
the same form; that is, for the engineer or other party desiring the
article to make a requisition which must be signed by the storekeeper
and the commandant, and then sent to you?
Answer. I do not like to give an opinion upon the law. I have con -
tended that all the orders, unless otherwise directed by the bureau,
should come to me. I believe that they should; at the same time, the
bureaus direct purchases to be made of which the navy agent knows
nothing.  I think the large majority of the open purchases are made
in the yard, of which I have no knowledge. Now, I have nothing at
all to do with purchases for the medical department there, except to
draw requisitions for the money to pay for them.




236                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. You say that these purchases made for the yard are not
made by requisitions upon you?
Answer. No; not the greater amount of them.
Question. By whom are the purchases made?
Answer. By the heads of the different departments.
Question. Does the constructing engineer buy any?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And the naval constructor.
Answer. Yes.
Question. And who else?
Answer. The engineer of the yard buys some.
Question. Are the articles bought by these gentlemen submitted
to examination and inspection, both as to quality and price, before
they are received and used?
Answer. I presume so; that is what is said.
Question. Who is the inspector in such a case?
Answer. The purchaser oftentimea, under the superviiion of the
lieutenant of the yard and commandant.
Question. Does the same man who purchases the article himself' in
spect it?
Answer. That is what is purported to be done; I can only judge
from the bills sent to me. They read upon their face that it was done
by the order of the bureau. The bureau writes, I suppose, that certain
things can be had at certain prices, at such a place; they are got, and
the bills are approved and sent to me for payment, which is the first
thing I hear of them.  I make requisition for the money to pay these
bills, the bureau passes the requisitions, the money is forwarded to
me, and I pay them. I do not consider myself responsible for anything connected with those purchases, further than if I know that
anything is wrong I would report it to the bureau.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. According to my understanding of the matter, purchases
made in that way are against the established rule?
Answer. I think in any material matter they report to the bureau,
probably, and get permission to make the purchases. There are many
cases in which Commander Rootes thought he could do things in that
respect better than the navy agent could, as he did not seem to have
a very high opinion of the abilities of the navy agent, and he did seem
to have a very high opinion of his own abilities.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is the amount of purchases, to the best of your
knowledge and belief, made in this way in the yard, during the last
year?
Answer.  About $100,000, I should guess.
Question. What check in that case is there upon the man who
makes the purchase?
Answer. The only check is the bureau; I can put no check upon
him.
Question. How can the bureau be a check upon him?  Does he not
purchase the article, and proceed to use it?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     237
Answer. I do not know how it is, I have no knowledge myself,
except such as I get from the bills.
Question. Then all you know is that such bills are approved by the
commandant of the yard?
Answer. Yes sir; I think that most of the open purchases, more
than half of them, perhaps two-thirds of them have been made without my knowledge.
Question. By some officer in the yard?
Answer. Yes sir; it is my impression that they amount to that
much.
Question. [After examining some bills of purchases made in the
yard, and purchases made by the navy agent.] I do not see any
difference between the form of the bills for purchases in the yard, and
the form of the bills of your purchases, is there any difference?
Answer. The blank form of the bill is the same, and they are filled up
the same, with this difference, that upon those thatI purchase is written
"approved, Geo. N. Sanders," while nothing of the kind is written
upon the others.
Question. The vouchers in both cases are the same?
Answer. Yes, sir; only in the one case I send on the bill with my
approval, and the other case I do not approve it, that is, I send them
on to the bureau without comment upon my part.
Question. What difference is there in the form of the receipt for purchases made by you, and purchases made by some officer of the yard?
Answer. Only that in case the purchase is made by an officer of
the yard, I do not approve it, if it is made by myself, I do approve it.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you direct where these purchases shall be made, that
are made by officers in the yard?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Do you direct where they shall be made when you order
the purchases yourself, or when they are made by requisition upon you?
Answer. I do when the requisition simply comes to me. But sometimes the yard undertakes to say in the requisition where the article
can be bought, if they do not say anything about the price at which it
can be bought I do not pay much attention to it. If they mention the
price, and I cannot get it for less, I give it to the parties they
indicate.
Question. As a general rule do you direct where purchases of both
classes shall be made?
Answer. What I buy myself I do; but not those purchases made
by the yard.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You say that when you make the purchase yourself, you
designate the party from whom it is to be obtained?
Answer. Yes.
Question. But when it is made by an officer of the yard you have
nothing to do with designating the party from whom it is to be obtained?
Answer. No; the purchase is made before I know anything about it.
Question. Do you know whether this practice of purchasing in the




238                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
yard, independent of the navy agent, is known to and approved by the
department?
Answer. I only know this: the bills are sent on to the department
without my approval. I say nothing about them, yet the department
orders them to be paid.
Question. Who sends the bills on?
Answer. I send them on; as they are passed by the bureau, I presume they are satisfied with them. They sometimes make purchases
in the yard under order or direction of the bureau; perhaps a majority
of these purchases are by order of the different bureaus at Washington.
Question. Do you know of such being the fact?
Answer. In many cases it is, the bills themselves say so: " by order
of the bureau of &c"  My impression is that when they want to buy
an article they consult the bureau, tell them  the price of it and from
where they can get it, and then the bureau gives them directions to
buy it. I do not know precisely the manner in which it is done. All
I know is, that I have no knowledge of the matter until the bill comes
to me to be paid; and sometimes the bill says "by order of the bureau,'
and sometimes it does not. I merely transmit these bills to the department without comment.  But everything I buy myself I send on with
my approval.  But I do not pay any money out on any bill until it
is approved by the inspector and the commandant.
Question, What is your salary?
Answer. Three thousand dollars a year; and there is a mooted point
connected with that, as to when that salary shall be drawn. The law
says,I am entitled to two per cent. for all moneys that I disburse,
provided I am not to receive to exceed $3,000 per annum. Now, I
claim that I am entitled to two per cent. on all moneys I disburse
until I receive $3,000, and then I am  to disburse the money of the
government for nothing-that is, I claim that when I have disbursed
$150,000, I am entitled to draw  11 my $3,000. But that question I
believe is in litigation now.  At all events I have retained that
amount.
Question. Your salary cannot exceed $3,000 a year?
Answer. No.
Question. Are there any perquisites besides your salary in any
way attaching to the office?
Answer. I have made a charge for but one thing; but that is a
matter which has never been brought before the department, and there
are no instructions upon the subject. I have charged $3 to contractors
when I have been called upon by them to go around town and see
whether men they offer as sureties are good or not. I consider that
rather outside of my regular official duties. I have charged parties
in that case because they can go to the judge, or district attorney, or
any other officer named by the law to do that duty, and they would
be charged $5. They are not obliged to come to me. If there was
nobody else to do it but me it would be a different thing. But there
are several others and they all charge $5 each; if i charged nothing
I would have it all to do. But it is specified upon contracts that one
of several officers shall do it.
Question. In what cases have you to pass upon bonds?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     239
Answer. Only in cases of contracts.  Where I do not know anything
of the character and standing of the sureties offered, I must satisfy
myself in regard to them.  To my knowledge they have never complained except in one instance.  I consider it a legitimate charge.  I
have had no instructions upon the subject.
Question. Do you mean to say that where parties propose to supply
articles it devolves upon you to ascertain and report whether the sureties they offer are sufficient?
Answer. It does not devolve upon me unless the contractor calls
upon me to do it. Any of the other officers may do it. Contractors
have their own election to call upon me or upon one of the others.  If
they come to me I charge them $3, without any especial instructions
upon the subject one way or the other. I was told by a predecesssor
that such a charge was legitimate and proper. All the parties have
cheerfully paid it, except in one instance, without any complaint whatever.
Question. What is the amount of the income derived from this
source?
Answer. Very small; I do not know exactly how much; probably
$100.
Question. Are there any other sources of income?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Then $3,000 a year and this other matter is all the pay
you receive?
Answer. Yes, sir; and it is very inadequate too; so much so that
I have scattered a little of my time.  It is not sufficient to support
me.
Question. Do you know whether any navy agent had agreements
with persons from whom he ordered articles, that those persons should
allow him a certain sum, a certain percentage, or a part of the profits
in consideration of his purchasing from them?
Answer. Only from hearsay. I have had no such arrangement myself.  I have no knowledge concerning others, except from hearsay.
I know that navy agents are subject to general attack, of which I have
heard a great deal.
Question. Have you ever got a percentage for paying bills before
they became due?
Answer. I never paid a bill before it became due.
Question. Then you have never made arrangement to pay a bill
before it became due?
Answer. I have done this; I have borrowed largely for contractors.
During the summer of' the last year, when they could not get along
very well, even a week's advance upon their bills was of great consequence to them. I merely stated that their bills would be paid at such
a time. I took no official responsibility, but merely stated as Geo. N.
Sanders that they would be paid. I merely stated what the bills were
drawn for; that they were all right, and would be paid when the
money was received.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Then you made representations by which they got their
bills discounted?




240                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have they ever paid you anything for this?
Answer. There was never any agreement that they should. They
have made me small presents afterward, sometimes to a very trifling
amount.  Not in consideration of the money I helped them to get,
but for my general kindness and attention to their interests. I have
never charged a man a cent for what I have done, beyond this $3,
which I said I charged for hunting up their sureties.
Question. When you send a bill to the department to draw the
money on it is this receipt attached to it?
Answer. A blank form of receipt is attached to it; it is not signed,
however, until the money is ready to be paid.
Question. You send the bills to the department, they send you the
the money, you pay the parties, and then they sign the receipts?
Answer. That is so.  They sign the receipt when the money is paid
to them; and these receipts, thus signed, are my vouchers.
Question. Then the bill when it is first sent on is the same as the
one you send as a voucher, only the receipt is not signed?
Answer. Yes, they send it back to me, and when I get the receipt
signed, it goes to the accounting officer of the treasury as my voucher.
Question. Is a record of these bills kept at the department?
Answer. I presume so, at least; I do not know enough of the way
they manage their business, however, to say positively.
Question. Then at the end of the quarter you send to the Treasury
Department all your receipts?
Answer. Yes, and they then close up my accounts for the quarter;
I have never had a mistake found in my accounts yet; some items
may be sent back for explanation, but in every instance it has been
satisfactorily explained.
Question. Would it be practicable for you to draw money to pay
a bill before it became due?
Answer. No it would not be practicable for me to do so, and even
if it were, the department would not pay it.
Question. Have you never anticipated by a month or two months
in your drafts upon the department accounts that were to become due?
Answer. No, I cannot anticipate, I tried to keep a balance on hand
of about $5,000, I found in one or two instances that my balance on
hand was not enough for extraordinary occasions.
Question. Has this ever been the case, that you have drawn money
to pay a bill due, and when the money has been received you have
used it to pay some bill that was not due, leaving unpaid the bill that
was due, and upon which you drew the money?
Answer. I will explain the precise facts about that matter. During
the issue of treasury notes I was instructed to equalize their payment
among the contractors as much as possible, paying each one part cash
and part treasury notes, so as to show no partiality. In the treasury
they did not like to separate a warrant.  For instance, two warrants
drawn upon the treasury, one of them  they would pay in cash and
the other they would pay in treasury notes; not paying each one part
cash and part treasury notes, but leaving it to me to make that divi



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     241
sion.  The cash would invariably reach me several days in advance of
the treasury notes. This cash I have divided among the creditors,
and so with the treasury notes.  The warrants were drawn about
the same time.  This arrangement always appeared to give entire
satisfaction, for I never heard a creditor complain about it. The
only cases where I have shown partiality have been for personal
services, officers of the navy, for instance, I have always paid them
in gold instead of treasury notes, for the reason that I supposed
they could not get rid of the notes without submitting to a heavier
loss than the merchant.  That is the only class of cases in which I
have exercised any discrimination. The creditors of the government
were so much pressed during the panic, that I would pay part of the
bills in cash immediately upon its receipt and the balance in treasury
notes a few days after, instead of keeping the money on hand as I had
a right to do, until I could pay the whole bill. This I have done at
the instance of those holding the bills.
Question. Has it ever been the case that you have used money, which
you have received for a particular bill which you have sent to Washington, to pay another bill which you have not sent on to Washington,
leaving the other bill unpaid?
Answer. No; I have never let a bill lie over at all, except when
I was directed to use this discretion, to work off the treasury paper to
the least injury of all parties, giving a part of the cash, which reached
me in advance, to one and a part to another. I have never heard
a word of complaint from a contractor on this ground, and no man
who received money through my office ever had cause to complain that
I had kept him waiting for his money a minute after he applied for
it, if I had received it.  Now, to show that if I am deficient in anything it is in not keeping sufficient funds on hand, because it takes
a week for me to make a requisition upon Washington and get the
money. I will mention an instance:  At the time the Niagara was
ordered off, the purser of the Niagara received an order from the Secretary of the Navy upon me for $10,000, and I received a despatch to
that effect also. Recent drafts from the Secretary and Fourth Auditor
had exhausted all the pay and contingent fund on hand; but I promptly
borrowed the money and paid it over to the purser.  There has been
no instance, after the receipt of funds, in which I have kept creditors
waiting for their money from the smallness of the contingent fund.
The department has overdrawn on me twice, yet I have always paid
I recollect that there was an article in the Herald, about the time of
my confirmation, saying that the Secretary had better examine my
accounts; yet on that very day I was $2,000 in advance to the, government, and transmitted a telegraphic despatch to the Secretary of
the Navy to that effect.
Question. When did you last settle up your account?
Answer. On the 30th of September last.
Question. Did you exhibit your receipts and vouchers at thlat time?"'
Answer. Yes; everything.
Question. How did your accounts then stand?
Answer. They were all square; it takes sometime for the accounts'
to pass through the circumlocution of all the offices; they passed the
accounting officer of the treasury, lbut they have not all passed through.
16 D




242                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
the Comptroller's office, up to this time; I mean my accounts of' the
30th September.
Question, Did you exhibit receipts for all the money that had been
placed in your hands by the government?
Answer. Yes, receipts for what had been expended.
Question. How much money did you have on hand at the time?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question. About what amount?
Answer. I would rather let the record speak upon that point; there
was not a great deal.
Question. How much force does the government allow in your office?
Answer. They allow me three clerks and a porter, which is hardly
enough.
Question. Is that the force generally allowed to your office?
Answer. I do not know what my predecessors had; I have full
employment for more than that; the business of the office is increasing.
Question. How much personal attention do you give to your office?
Answer. As much as my predecessor did.
Question. How much is that?
Answer. I am there when I am in New York, all that I think is
necessary for the proper direction of the office; as to the hour, I
come sometimes late and sometimes early; I am irregular; and I always
find everything going on like clock-work.
Question. Have you not been away from New York a great deal?
Answer. Not a great deal; I have been to Kansas three times.
Question. Who discharges the duties of your office while you are
away?
Answer. I leave it under the general supervision of Mr. George J.
Forrest. He was formerly a New Orleans merchant, latterly a New
York merchant; a man of fortune and of high standing.  He has the
general superintendence of the office, and acts as the navy agent in
my absence; and then I have my clerks there, in whom I have great
confidence.
Question. Is this Mr. Forrest one of the three clerks you spoke of as
those allowed you by the government?
Answer. No, sir; he is unsalaried; he is a gentleman of leisure,
having retired from business, and my office is a kind of resting place
for him down town, where he can see his friends, and from which he
can direct his correspondence.
Question. How long has he been in the office?
Answer. He only exercises superintendence there when I am away
from New York; he did so while I was absent in Kansas, and he is
doing so now.
Question. When did he commence that?
Answer. When I went to Kansas.
Question. Did you not have a deputy before that?
Answer. I had Mr. S. N. Johnson, the present editor of the Union
and former consul to Matanzas; a very able man, and who was
recommended by our party for Assistant Secretary of State.
Question. There has been mentioned here one of the Secors in connexion with this matter?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     243
Answer. He was one of my sureties, and I merely left him  a
general power of attorney while I was absent, to interpose when anything wrong was going on; a thing he never had occasion to do. I
have never had leave of absence from  the department.  I have
intimated to them that I was going away. The reason for not giving
leave is, I believe, that they think if they granted me leave of absence,
they release my sureties. Whenever I go away, I take a great many
precautions to have everything done right. I require several signatures to endorse my checks before they are to be paid. No check can
be cashed in my absence without its having two signatures-that of
Mr. Forrest and that of my chief clerk. Even if I were to send on from
here a check with my own signature to it, it would be stopped f6r
explanation, according to the general instructions I have left with the
assistant treasurer.
Question. Has a gentleman by the name of Swackhamer ever been
employed in your office?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In what capacity?
Answer. As a subordinate clerk making requisitions  He was a
brother of my predecessor. I found him there, and he importuned me
to keep him.  I did not like to turn him out, as he professed to be a
democrat, and I told him he might remain there until he could obtain
some other position. There were a great many complaints from my
friends because I kept him, and there were complaints from contractors against him. But I did not see that they were well founded, and
I thought it might damage his prospects to turn him out then.  But
after we had divided there in New York politically, and he and his
brother had espoused the cause of my opponents, I removed him and
told him to get patronage and support from the party he had joined.
Question. When did you remove him?
Answer. As soon as the collector was confirmed.
Question. Was this mnan your book-keeper?
Answer. No.
Question. Did he have access to your books?
Answer. They were not particularly excluded from him.  He had
no charge of them and not much knowledge of them. I think he is
a very ignorant man. I would not trust him, not on account of any
want of honesty, but because of his ignorance. I kept him, I think,
to my own detriment and to the detriment of the public interest.
Question. Why did you keep him so long if he was not competent?
Answer. I merely kept him because I did not want to be hard upon
my predecessor and upon a professing democrat.  He was constantly
saying that he could not get employment, and I felt that it would be
damaging to him to remove him. Schell, of whom he was a partisan,
kept putting him off; but after Schell was confirmed as collector, I
thought he could take care of him, and so I removed him.
By the Chairman:
Question. State the aggregate amount of annual payments made by
you, as near as you can?
Answer. I think about $3,000,000 the first year.




244                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. What proportion of these payments was for materials and
on contracts?
Answer. I would rather let the record speak. I am having a table
prepared in my office, which will show this.
Question. State as near as you can the amount you paid out upon
open purchase?
Answer. About $400,000, I should think.
Question. Will your table show that accurately?
Answer. Yes, sir,
Question. For what bureaus did you make purchases?
Answer. For all except the Bureau of Medicine. I do not think I
have made any purchases for the medical department at all; they are
all made by those in charge.
Question. Please furnish a form of the requisition made upon you
when an article is bought upon open purchase.
Answer. I will do so. [See appendix to this deposition.]
Question. Why did you select Secor & Co. to make your purchases?
Answer. I had confidence in their integrity that they would not
defraud the government nor myself.
Question. Have you had, or do you now have, any understanding
with them that you are to derive any benefit or advantage from. their
being selected by you to make these purchases?
Answer. No. They became my security, knowing that I was a
poor man, bankrupt as I was. They had known me intimately for
fourteen years, and so had Mr. Robert J. Walker. C. A. Secor became
embarrassed, and I have been happy to have had it in my power to
help his son.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You say you were a poor man when you took this office.
What is your pecuniary condition at the present time?
Answer. I have not a red cent beyond my salary, and that I have
to draw a little in advance sometimes.  But I manage to keep just
about square.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was there any other motive which induced you to select
Secor & Co. as your purchasers beyond those you have named?
Answer. There was no consideration connected with their being
my security, if that is what you mean. The only reason was that
they were my intimate friends and had my confidence.
Question. When you made purchases on open purchases what was
the first intimation you received as to the price?
Answer. From the navy yard.
Question. After the article was delivered?
Answer. Yes, except in some material cases, such as 100 or 200
barrels of flour, or 200 or 300 tons of coal, of which the price could
be seen in every newspaper; but in reference to these miscellaneous
small matters, amounting, perhaps, to $40,000 in the course of a year,
I have no knowledge of the price until the bills come to me from the
navy yard.
Question. Had you any knowledge of the quality or the fairness of
the price, other than the signature of the officer of the yard?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     245
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have there been cases that the articles described in the
requisition have been bought and delivered in the yard before the
requisitions were made out?
Answer. It has sometimes been the case that when I. have called
upon merchants to fill a requisition sent to me, when they have sent
the articles over to the yard, they have found that they have been
already supplied.
Question. Who, in such cases, would make the purchases in the
yard?
Answer. The inspecting officers of the yard, I suppose; perha:s the
commandant.
Question. Do you include the master workmen or bosses, in the
term " inspecting officers?"
Answer. Yes, sir; they are the inspectors for their departments.
Question. How many of the officers or master workmen, and persons
in the yard make these purchases?
Answer. That I cannot tell now; I would rather speak from the
record, and therefore, with your permission, I will answer it hereafter.
(See appendix.)
Question. In such cases did you exercise any supervision over the
articles purchased as to quality and price?
Answer. On the bill being presented to me for payment, if I thought
it was excessive in price, I would not approve it.
Question. When was this habit commenced of putting upon the
requisition a suggestion as to where the article should be purchased?
Answer. It was in practice when I went into office.
Question. Why did you observe it?
Answer. I have done so when I knew the price was as low as the
article could be obtained for.
Question. Did you know that there was collusion between these
persons in the yard, and those of whom they bought?
Answer. I have heard. I knew nothing about it.
Question, You conformed to the suggestion?
Answer. Yes; and I think I have yielded too much in that way.
To be sure I did so when I thought the price was a proper one; but I
think it is a bad precedent to be established, to allow the inspectors
Lo purchase the articles, or to have much to do beyond the inspection.
Tow, if I found a person, against whom all the officers and ins)ectors in the yard had personal objection, it would not prevent my
g'.ing him orders; he might still be a very good person to supply the
government.
Question. Was there not a constant dispute between you and the
bosses of the yard, the inspectors, as to whom you should buy your
articles from on open purchase for the government?
Answer. They very often made these intimations to me, and I have
some times yielded to them; some times I have not. But I never
yielded to them when I supposed there was anything wrong about it.
Question. That is not an answer to my question. Was there not
constant controversy between you and the bosses of the yard on this
point?




246                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I cannot say that there was.
Question. How frequently would there be a controversy?
Answer. It could hardly be termed a controversy.  When I have
received a requisition and called upon a merchant to supply the
article thus called for, and when he has taken the article over to the
yard, and found that it had been supplied by some one else upon a
call from the officer of the yard, then there has been some little dispute about it; for it is a matter not yet settled whether I am responsible or not when I call upon a merchant to supply an article for the
yard, and he has taken it over there, and it is acknowledged to be a
good article and at a fair price.
Question. Then I understand that a requisition would be made upon
you, and you would make the ordinary call, say upon Secor & Co., to
send the article required, and when they have taken it over to the
yard they have found that it had been already supplied by some one
else?
Answer. Yes, sir; that is so.
Question. Then the controversy would occur between Secor & Co.,
and the person who supplied the article as to who should be paid?
Answer. Not necessarily; the controversy would be between me
and the inspector and whoever I sent the requisition to; for instance,
here was this lumber transaction, I gave the order to Mr. Grice to
furnish the lumber; I was satisfied that he would furnish a good article and at a fair market price for the quality he would supply; it
was doubtful to me what I should do, whether to refer the matter to
the foreman or simply to refer it to Commodore Kearny, and let it go
at that.
Question. In the present mode in which business is done, what
check is there upon collusion between purchasers and those of whom
the articles are purchased?
Answer. If the inspectors purchase the article, the commandant of
the yard, the navy agent, and the bureau.
Question. You say you have exercised no check?
Answer. I have seen nothing of collusion.
Question. In your absence would your subordinates do it?
Answer. I suppose they would.
Question. Does not the department take these certificates as conclusive upon them?
Answer. No; they generally examine as to the price themselves
and sometimes there is quite a contest as to the price; all the bils
that are paid are examined and passed by them.
Question. What facilities have the department to ascertain  ile
price of articles?
Answer. They have the schedule of prices in the various contracts
for similar articles in the various yards, and also the prices paid in
the various yards for similar articles obtained on open purchase.
Question. Who pays the superintendent you speak of, the gentleman who acts for you in your absence?
Answer. He does not get any pay; he is a retired merchant, and
does this merely because he is a personal friend, it is an advantage to




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       247
him to have an office to sit in and receive his friends. It is merely a
favor that he does for ume as his personal friend.
Question. What was your previous business before you became
navy agent?
Answer. I was a grazier.  I went into the State of Ohio, when I
was eighteen years old, to buy and to sell cattle, and a dealer in live
stock of every description.
Question. Have you ever been engaged in the business of merchandizing?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you ever before been engaged as disbursing and receiving officer?
Answer. No, unless consulship to London was such.
Question. Were you not known at the time of your appointment
as an active politician rather than as a business man?
Answer. I do not know that I had any reputation as a business
man, still my own opinion and that of my intimate friends as to my
business capacity might differ from that of the public.
Question. If a person engaged in business in the city of New York
had desired a disbursing officer to take charge of books, and keep
intricate accounts and requisitions and dealings of this sort, do you
think it probable that you would have been selected for that purpose?
Answer. Only by those who knew me intimately.
Question. Is it not a fact that the offices in New York, the customhouse and the yard especially are filled upon political grounds, and
not upon business considerations?
Answer. They are doubtless all filled upon political grounds mainly,
but they are taken in connexion with the business adaptations of the
recipients. I will say this, that I did not seek the office to which I
was appointed; I desired another.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Were your bills ever rejected at the department here on
account of price?
Answer. I believe not; none that I recollect of. They may have
been held over for explanation.
Question. When they have been objected to?
Answer. Yes.. Question. Has there ever been any instance, according to your
recollection, of an abatement in the price in consequence of objection
from the department?
Answer. I do not recollect of any such case; there may have been;
I cannot say positively.  I cannot bring to my mind any case, and I
would not like to say positively now.
Question. Are you willing to state, in the absence of your accounts,
the proportion of purchases made in the yard by order of the bureau
or otherwise?
Answer. I should guess that about two-thirds-perhaps not so
much, but I think about that - were made by employes of the
yard without any reference of the requisitions to me.  They made
about twice as many purchases as I did.  The heavy items I generally




248                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
have nothing to do with.  There may be some exceptions, but I would
prefer to answer more explicitly by exact figures from the office.
(See appendix.)
Question. Now in regard to purchases made by yourself, I understand you to say that you made the purchase, but did not inquire tile
price; is that so?
Answer. That is not exactly so. I would send the requisition to a
merchant in whom I had confidence, and upon whom I would place
dependence that he would charge but the market price, and that he
would send a top article. I do not examine the article myself. It
goes to the yard and is there inspected, and the bill for it is signed
and certified to there. After going through that ordeal it comes back
to me, and if I am convinced that it is all fair and right I approve it.
Question. In any case do you inquire the price?
Answer. When I get a requisition for some staple article, such as
flour, pork, coal, &c., I ascertain the price.
Question. Do you inquire the price of any of the miscellaneous
articles you speak of?
Aneswer. Unless of' some value, I rely upon the inspectors.
Question. State the class of cases in which you inquire the price,
and those in which you do not.
Answer. I always inquire the prices of coal, pork, flour; such and
all staple articles.
Question. What cases are those in which you do not inquire the
prices?
Answer. I do not inquire the price of the smaller articles.
Question. You do inquire the price of the larger articles?
Answer. Yes, sir; if the articles amount to any considerable sum
I generally inquire the prices.
Question. What do you mean by a " considerable sum "?
Answer. A couple of hundred dollars, for instance.
Question. Then when you make a purchase, the cost of which
amounts to $150 or $200 or upwards, you do inquire the price?
Answer. I do, unless it is something that I know nothing about;
some pump of a new patent, articles of' that kind, which are to be
selected; it is then for the inspector to fix the price.
Question. Then where it is not an ordinary article in the market
you do not fix the price?
Answer. Rarely; it is fixed at the yard.  It takes some time to
hunt up an article of that kind, and the price is generally fixed upon
by the inspectors at the time of selection.
Question. Do you buy a great many articles where the amount they
come to is very small?
Answer. Some of them as low as twenty-five cents.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. What checks are there upon the navy agent in disbursing
money where he makes open purchases, if he should be disposed to
collude with the vendor?
Answer. The agent and the vendor may have an understanding, it
is true; but then if the others do their duty, it is not possible for any
excessive profits to be made.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      249
Question. Could not five or ten per cent, very well be made?
Answmer. That would not be considered an excessive profit.
By thle Chairman:
Question. Could that amount be added to a fair profit without exciting notice?
Answer. It might; but I have no knowledge of anything of the
kind. There would have to be general corruption, from the bureau
down through the commandant, inspectors, and navy agent. It is
possible that the navy storekeeper and the inspector could give a
receipt for an article that was not received; that is possible, but the
commandant and lieutenant of the yard have a general supervision of
that matter. But it is scarcely possible that an excessive profit can
be made upon a top article, because it could be so easily corrected at
the bureau.
Question. Would the commandant of a yard be supposed to be intimately acquainted with prices?
Answer. He has the prices all before him. There are so many
competing to send in articles for the yard that they will be sure to
send him their prices of everything.  If a man has a thing to sell to
the navy yard he is very apt to send the price to the commandant and
to the navy agent.
Question. Then you think that five per cent. profit would be added
very easily.
Answer. Yes; I think that amount of profit could be made. I think
that much profit should be conceded to a fair honest man.  Some of
the inspectors are not inclined to allow a man any profit. But the
amount of profit to be allowed is not yet fixed; and it is not even
yet decided whether those who deliver articles in the Brooklyn navy
yard are to be allowed any per centage for ferriage. A merchant does
not like to take an order to fill without he can make some profit.  He
must deliver the article at the yard at some expense for drayage, &c.,
and then there are the chances of the article being rejected, although
he may in good faith take a tip-top article there at a fair price; and
yet, the inspector and master workman can put him to a very serious
loss and inconvenience by rejecting his article, from some cause or
other. Therefore, a man will not take the business of the yard
without some prospective profit.
Question. Have you discovered anything like a general disposition
upon the part of contractors to take advantage of and impose upon
the government?
Answer. I have not; they are too anxious to obtain the business of
the government, for it gives them a credit with the mercantile marine;
it is a sort of endorsement of them to have a contract with the government, and they therefore work for small profits, and I have told
Commander Rootes that if there was any attempted imposition upon
the government to let me know it, but he has never reported an instance to me.
Question. Then you do not think that it is a common feeling in the
community of New York, that it is legitimate to plunder the government?
Answer. I do not think that it is so: I do not think that such a




250                   BROOKLYN NAVY  YARD.
thing is attempted in that yard, for they know the ordeal throngh
which they would have to go.
Question. You spoke of having scattered your time somewhat, and
of having been absent in Kansas, what proportion of your time have
you been absent?
Answer. My first trip to Kansas I was gone six weeks; my second
trip I was gone a couple of months; and my third trip one month.
I have not been to a watering place, or a place of pleasure; but the
rest of my time I have devoted to my office.
Question. Were you engaged in speculations in Kansas?
Answer. I was.
Question. Have you a large amount invested there?
Answer. Not of my own money, but money advanced by other
parties.
Question. What per cent. do they give yo?
Answer. They give my wife one-half of the profits.
Question. What amount of profits have been realized in behalf of
your wife?
Answer. NTone, at all; they depend entirely upon the future.
Question. Then the investments have been made, and the profits are
yet to be realized?
Answer. Yes; but not a dollar of my own money has been invested
there.
Question. Are any other persons to be benefited by these investments?
Answer. None but them; they supposed that I had some ability in
that line; there I have the endorsement of capitalists to a large extent,
of my ability in that respect; when they might not think me a good
book keeper they would trust their money to me to make those large
operations.
Question. What proportion of your time have you devoted to the
duties of your office, while in New York?
Answer. I am there every day, late or early; generally late, sometimes early.
Question. Who does the business of the office?
Answer. I direct it all myself.
Question. The duties are actually performed by the clerk, I suppose?
Answer. Yes, sir; I direct the correspondence, give directions as
to where the requisitions shall be sent, except the small things; when
there is a case of any moment it is always referred to me. I have a
clerk who has been raised to business in that office, and I believe he
has made no mistakes; I think all the accounting officers here will
give him a certificate as being admirable in his department.
Question. Who are your clerks?
Answer. Mr. Blood, Mr. Hardy, Jackson Orr and Mr. Vincent.
Question. What are their salaries respectively?
Answer. The Secretary allows forty-six hundred dollars clerk hire,
which sum is distributed among the persons named; the chief clerk,
Mr. Blood, receives nineteen hundred, also five hundred dollars for a
messenger.
GEO. N. SANDERS.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     251
Documents explanatory of foregoing deposition.
[In triplicate.]
PROVISIONS AND CLOTHING.-OPEN PURCHASE BY THE NAVY YARD.
THE UNITED STATES N'AVY DEPARTMENT, (appropriation for provisions.)
To AUGUSTE CASSIN & Co., Dr.
1857, August 3. 1,000 boxes mixed vegetables, containing
500,000 rations, at $1 28...................  $6,400
The articles charged in the above account are furnished at fair market price.
~  ~, Navy Agent.
UNITED STATES NAVY YARD,
New York, August 3, 1857.
I have inspected and received the articles above charged, they being
of good quality and of fair price.
JNO. D. GIBSON,
Inspector in charge of provisions, clothing, &c.
NAVY YARD, New York.
The public exigencies required the immediate delivery of the articles
mentioned in this bill, and there not being time to advertise for proposals, the articles were properly obtained by open purchase, and the
same is approved for the sum of six thousand four hundred dollars,
cents.
THOMAS R. ROOTES,
Cormandant pro tern.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New York, August 15, 1857.
Received of George N. Sanders, navy agent, sixty-four hundred
dollars and- - cents, in full of the within bill, and have signed
triplicate receipts.
$6,400.
AUGUSTE CASSIN & CO.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
Bureau of Provisions and Clothing, August 14, 1857.
Approved for sixty-four hundred dollars.  Will be paid by the
navy agent at New York.
$6,400.
H. BRIDGE,
Chief of Bureau.




252                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARDo
[In triplicate.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS.-OPEN PURCHASE BY THE NAVY AGENT.
THE UNITED STATES NAVY DEPARTMENT, (appropriation for contingent.
To SECOR & Co, Dr.
1857, June 11. Master laborer's department, one pair of garden
shears................................... $2 00
Approved:
GEORGE N. SANDERS,
Navy Agent.
Having examined the articles above charged, I certify that they are
of good quality, and charged at the market price.
HENRY S. NEWCOMB,
Lieutenant.
AUGUST 5, 1857.
Received the above articles for contingent.
ANSON HERRICK,
Navy Storekeeper.
NAVY YARD, New York,
August 6, 1857.
The public exigencies required the immediate delivery of the articles
mentioned in this bill, and there not being time to advertise for proposals, the articles were properly obtained by open purchase, and the
same is approved for the sum of two dollars.
$2 00.
THOMAS R. ROOTES,
Commandant pro tern.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
New York, August 26, 1857.
Received of George N. Sanders, navy agent, two dollars and -~
cents, in full of the above bill, and have signed triplicate receipts.
$2 oo.
SECOR & CO.




BROOKLYN  NAVY YARD.                           253
OFFICE OF TIIE ASSISTANT TREASURER UNITED STATES,
New  York, February 16, 1859.
The balance to the credit of George N. Sanders, navy agent, New
York, subject to draft at the close of business on the 31st of January,
1859, was ($56,985 88) fifty-six thousand nine hundred and eightyfive dollars, eighty-eight cents.
The balance to his credit at the close of business on the 15th of
February, 1859, was ($33,914 91) thirty-three thousand nine hundred
and fourteen dollars, ninety-one cents   The last deposit made by him
was treasury draft No. 8916, for ($23,082) twenty-three thousand and
eighty-two dollars, on the 7th of February, 1859.
I certify the above to be a correct statement from  the books of this
office.
JOHN J. CISCO,
Assistant Treasurer United States.
Abstract of receipts and expenditures on navy account, for the month of
January, 1859, by George N. Sanders, navy agent, at New  York:
DEBIT.
Balance fiom  1858............./.................................    21,015 68
Amount received on requisitions...........................  109,906 65
130,922 33
CREDIT.
Disbursements in January....................  $79,451 42
Deposit in treasury..............................    2,250 00
81,701 42
Balance on hand January 31.........................    49,220 91
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,
NEW  YORK, February 16, 1859.
Statement showing the balance of funds on hand, according to the
books and accounts of this agency, at the different dates herein named.
On January 31, 1859.......................................  $49,220 91
On February 1, 1859..........................................   79,353 70
On February 6, 1859........................................    45,765 18
On February 7, 1859....,..,.................................    67,141 23
On February 10, 1859..........................................   49312 41
On February 15, 1859.........................................   33,914 96




254                         BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW  YORK:
George A. Blood, chief clerk to navy agent, of the county of Westchester, being duly sworn, says that the above is a correct statement
of funds on hand according to the books and accounts of the agency
at the different dates above named.
GEO. A. BLOOD,
Chief Clerk to Navy Agent.
Sworn to before me the 16th day of February, 1859.
SUMNER STOW ELY,
Commissioner of Deeds.
Amount of open purchases made at the New  York station, arranged
according to the quarters, from  April 1, 1857, to December 31, 1858,
inclusive.
Quarter.                         Purchases 1,y   Purchases by
agent.   -     yard.
Second quarter, ending June 30, 1857  ------             $32,287 97       $52,739 56
Third quarter, September 30, 1857      ------— 14, 832 72                  61, 928 40
Fourth quarter, December 31, 1857-.4 -- ---                4,830 30        39,912 24
First quarter, March 31, 1857 —--------- -                 5,787 57        57,086 13
Second quarter, June 30, 1858 --------------        -     13,192 88        27 172 12
Third quarter, September 30, 1858 ---------                6,425 ]5        29,860 07
Fourth quarter, December 31, 1858 —---—.. ——. —-        11, 036 23       34,189 80
88,392 82       312,888 32
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Fourth Auditor's Ofice, February 14, 1859.
SIR: Your disbursements as navy  agent at New  York, fiom   the
commencement of your official service, April 1, 1857, to September
30, 1858, the latest date of your returns to  this office, amount to
$2,532,438  42.  Thus:
2d quarter, 1857..........................                      $4...........  482,632 65
3d quarter, 185.................................................   433,691 96
4th quarter, 1857...........................................        290,196 42
Ist quarter, 1858..........................................      515,021 48




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                       255
2d  quarter, 1858...........................................  402,618   19
3d  quarter,  1858...................................................  408,277   72
2,532,438 42
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. J. O'BANNON.
GEORGE N. SANDERS, Esq.,
Navy Agent, Present.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Fourth Auditor's Office, February 16, 1859.
SI: In reply to your verbal request of the 15th instant, in relation to your accounts as navy agent, I have to say that, in the settlement of your account, under your old bond, to the 23d of June last,
there was a balance found against you of $7,318 54, and that subsequently you have deposited into the treasury, on account of this balance, $6,410 88, leaving a balance still due of $907 66.  This sum,
however, consists of suspended items referred to the Secretary of the
Navy for his approval, and which have not yet been acted upon.
Up to this time your account presents a fair and satisfactory adjustment.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
A. J. O'BANNON.
GEO. N. SANDERS, Esq.,
Navy Agent, New York.
No. 74.-TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM TRBNER, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 12, 1859.
WILLIAM TURNER called and examined.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. What is your employment, Mr. Turner?
Answer. I am master painter in the Brooklyn navy yard.
Question. How long have you been in that position?
Answer. I entered into the discharge of my duties on the 23d
day of March, or thereabouts, almost a year ago.  I was appointed
about the 15th.
Question. Do you know anything about a subscription that was gotten up among the men under your employment to pay your expenses
to Washington?
Answer. I did not know anything about it.  I heard that there
was one some time afterwards.  One of my men gave me some money
to come on here to see the department and try to have their wages
raised. In the yard at Brooklyn it has always been the custom in
the spring of the year to get an estimate of the salaries of men out




256                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
of doors in all the departments; and I found, on going out of doors
and getting a report of the wages there, that they were higher than
what the men in the yard were getting.  The men knew that fact,
and wanted to know if I would not come to the department and try
to get their wages advanced.  I told them I would; and when I was
coming away they gave me some money to pay my expenses.  I do
not know anything about any subscription, whether they got one up
or not.  I do not know that they did.
Question. What is the practice about wages outside and inside the
yard?
Answer. It has always been customary to rate the wages inside
the same as those out of doors.
Question. For the painters?
Answer. Yes, sir; the same that painters receive out of doors.
Question. I will ask you about a practice in the yard which has
been adverted to, of making presents of watches, and canes, and
such things, to the master workmen in charge of the different departments.  Do you know anything about that?
Answer. I do, sir.  I must state frankly that it has always been
the practice for the mechanics in the different departments to present
some token of respect to the masters when they come into the yard.
Question. How long has it been the practice to do this?
Answer. I presume, from my knowledge, for eight or ten years.
Question. Do you know that this is so?
Answer. I do.
Question. Did you have anything to do with getting up anything
of that kind?
Answer. I did not, sir.
Question. Did you yourself receive such a present?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether, during last summer or last fall,
you did not, upon one or more occasions, leave the yard and take
some of the men with you to go into Queens county?
Answer. Never, sir, without checking the men; that is, reporting
to the officers that their pay was then cut off during the day.
Question. Is it allowable, upon making that application and checking the men, so as to deduct the time for their absence; has it been
the practice in the navy yard to allow men to go off temporarily?
Answer. A man can go off at any time he sees fit if he checks; I
have no control over that.  The clerk of the yard keeps the books,
and calls the roll at seven o'clock in the morning, and at roll time,
whatever time it may be.  A man cannot go out of the yard between
the rolls without reporting himself to the clerk's office.  I have discharged several for going out without checking themselves.
Question. Suppose you have need of the services of the men in
the yard, are they allowed to go in this way?
Answer. They can leave at quarter time without my knowledge,
only they report to the clerk of the yard.  For instance, they go
into the yard in the morning and work a quarter of a day, and leave
before the second bell at one o' clock, and then they only receive pay




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   257
for a quarter of a day. I suppose the men can go out by deducting'their time.
Question. Why are they kept in, then, if they can go out in this
manner?
Answer. We have no control over the men only during the time
they are at work there.
Question. Suppose there is work for them to do upon any given
day, can they get permission to leave by having their time deducted?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And let the work go undone?
Answer.  They are not compelled to be there at all; but if they
ever leave the yard and are absent three full days their call runs out,
and they are struck from the books. They can go away and stay
two days and a half, but on the last call on the third day they have
got to be present or their name is struck from the book: they are no
more on the list, and the clerk does not call them. During the three
days they can do as they please. A man may be sick, for instance,
or he may be employed in some other place; he may have to go and
see a friend, and he can remain away during two days.
Question. The question is, supposing, in your opinion, the presence
of the men is necessary in the yard for labor-there is work on hand
to be done, can they get leave of absence whenever they please?
Answer. I cannot see that we have got control over the men; they
can go at any time, so long as they come up to the rules of the yard.
They are in my control only when they are actually at work.
Question. Did you ever ask any of these men under your employment to do work for you?
Answer. Never, sir, when they were paid by the government.
Question. Did you never have any painting done; did you never
send any men out to do any painting for you?
Answer. Never, outside of the yard gate; not when they were
paid by the government.
Question. I mean when they were paid by the government?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Did you never send a man to Calvary cemetery to paint
for you?
Answer. Never, when he was employed in the yard.
Question. Did you send a man there at any time?
Answer. Yes, sir; but I paid him for going there; he was not paid
by the government.
Question. Did he return to the yard?
Answer. Not that day; he was checked, and the books show that
he was not paid by the government.  For instance, up to my house,
or any other place, if I had a small job of painting to be done, perhaps it would be too much trouble to get a painter out of doors, and
I would say to one of the men, you need not come into the yard tomorrow, for I have a little job for you myself.  It is customary for
the officers, if they have anything of this kind to be done out of doors,
to hire a man in that department and send him to do the job, at the
same time having him checked by the clerk of the yard, so that he
17 D




258                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
does not receive pay from the government for the time he is thus
employed. I did send a man to paint the iron rail around the graves
of my family.
Question. At Calvary cemetery?
Answer. I did, sir; but the government did not pay him.
Question. Did you ever send men under your employment to do
work for members of Congress?
Answer. Never in my life.
Question. Do you mean to say that no men under your employment
ever did any work for members of Congress?
Answer. They never did to my knowledge. I have understood
since that a man by the name of White and a man who is now my
foreman, by the name of Craig, on the 1st day of July, went over to
see Hon. John Searing, and were there on a visit cherrying; and
during the time they were there I believe they did some work for
Mr. Searing. This was not done to my knowledge. I have only heard
it from hearsay. They were Mr. Searing's constituents and friends,
and I believe they were there on a visit.
Question. Were they checked upon that occasion?
Answer. They were not paid. I have got my books in Washington, and you can see from the books that they were not paid from the
2d of July to the 6th. The 4th was celebrated on Monday. They
were absent from the 2d to the 6th; but the 4th being taken out,
still made their call good on the morning of the 6th, for when there
is a holiday in the yard we never count that on the man's time.
Otherwise, their time would have run out; but the 4th of July coming in, they were absent only two days when the roll was called in
the yard. The book shows this. I will bring the book if the committee wish to see it; it is up to Mr. Willard's.
Question. How do you guard your paint?
Answer. I have got nothing to do with it.
Question. Who has charge of it in your department?
Answer. In my department I require it from the storekeeper, and
Mr. Jones has charge of it-the man who keeps my books.
Question. Is he under your control?
Answer. Yes, sir; he is.
Question. Then is not the paint under your control?
Answer. It is in a measure.
Question. Have you ever, upon any occasion, done any painting for
yourself with the paint of the government?
Answer. Never. I never took a pound of paint out of the yard to
my knowledge; that I solemnly swear.
Question. I wish you would explain to the committee about the
hundred weight of zinc, or thereabouts, that was taken to Williamsburg upon one occasion?
Answer. I never knew anything about that until the first day of
last month, when this committee was organized. It was written to
me that such a thing had been stated before this committee. I called
upon all my men and asked them if they knew anything about the
fact. Two of my men said they did. A man by the name of White




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                  259
said that during my absence in Washington-for I was here and staid
here some ten days —r. Fitzgerald ordered these men to carry a
keg of paint over to the Block. I was then painting the shell house
on the Block, and the paint could not go out on any other occasion.
They had to take it in a small boat and carry it to the Block. There
is a little stream that runs between the Block dock and Williamsburgh, and White and Leighton informed me that, by the order of
Mr. Fitzgerald, they took the hundred pounds of zinc and landed it
at the Williamsburgh dock.
Question. What became of it?
Answer. I do not know what became of it.
Question. Do you say that you were not there at the time?
Answer. I was in Washington at the time.
Question. Have you said anything to Mr. Fitzgerald about taking
paint out?
Answer. Never in my life; he is a man that I would not have anything to say to.
Question. Do you know anything about glass having been taken
from your department?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you any recollection of two boxes of glass having
been taken at any time?
Answer. Never, sir, to my knowledge.
Question. Have you not, upon one or more occasions, gone with men
under your employ to political meetings?
Answer. On one occasion I went myself to a political meeting in
the day time, and some of my men went, but they checked themselves
and were not paid for the time they were absent from the yard.
Question. How do you know that?
Answer. I know it because the books show it. I can swear positively to it, for every man who went checked himself at my request.
Question. When was it?
Answer. It was in September, I do not know the day; I went to a
political meeting in East New York. Several of the men went and
none of them got paid; among them was my foreman.
Question. Do you know whether aly of this hundred weight of zinc
that has been referred to by the witnesses was used upon your house?
Answer. I do not know anything about it. I paid for the paint
that was used upon my house.
Question. Were you painting your house at that time?
Answer. No, sir; my house was painted in April, about a month
after I came into the department. A man by the name of Bagley
painted my house for me. I gave him sixteen dollars for the outside
and ten dollars for the inside, making twenty-six dollars for the
whole. I bought the paint of William D. Kennedy and paid cash for
it. I have the receipt, dated the 16th of April.
Question. Have you done any painting on your house since that
time, while you were in the yard?
Answer. I have, sir.
Question. When was that?




260                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I believe the roof of my house has been painted since,
perhaps it would be in June.
Question. Might not some of this paint have been used upon that?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Where did you get the paint with which you painted it
in June?
Answer. It was some which I had left when I painted my house in
April; I bought it of Mr. Kennedy.
Question. When did you go into the yard?
Answer. I went on the 23d of Mlarch. At that time my house had
been primed, and after I went into the yard it was finished.  I got
the paint from a man by the name of Saunders, in Flushing.
Question. You think this hundred weight of zinc that has been
referred to went out of the yard in July, do you?
Answer. I know it could not possibly go out of the yard, except
while we were painting the shell house; Mr. White said it went in a
small boat; it could not possibly go at any other time.  It was some
lime before the end of the session that I was on here; I think it was
in June.  It was a matter of impossibility for anything to go out of
that yard unless it went in that way, as was stated, in a boat; and
then it could not go, only they had the privilege of going over there
to do the work.
Question. Do you remember any occasion when Mr. Cohane was
handling two boxes of glass?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. Was Mr. Fitzgerald under your employment?
Answer. He was, sir; I found him there when I went there.
Question. Did you discharge him?
Answer. I did the very day after I went into the yard.
Question. The first day you went into the yard?
Answer. The very next day, the 24th of March, I discharged MWr.
Fitzgerald; I took possession on the 23d, and the next day I disrated
him; but the commodore and Captain Rootes would not sign the
papers.
Question. How long did he continue there?
Answer. I was compelled to keep him, until about the fall election,
as my foreman.
Question. Who discharged him then?
Answer. I did, sir.
Question. If you discharged Mr. Fitzgerald then, why could you
not have discharged him before?
Answer. I can give you my reasons if it is required.
Question. Why did you not discharge him before?
Answer. Because I was compelled to keep him, sir.  If you want
me to tell who compelled me to keep him, I can tell; but I would
rather not.
Question. [After consultation with the committee.]  Who compelled you to keep him?
Answer. Hon. George Taylor compelled me to keep him.  I haive




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     261
received several letters from him, which I have here with me. They
are as followis:
"WASHINGTON CITY, iMarGch 23, 1858.:' CAPTAIN TURNER: You will much oblige me by retaining Mr. Fitzgerald as foreman.  This is the understanding between Mlr. Searing
and myself, and I may add, the Secretary of the Navy.  You will
also oblige me by appointing Mr. Tenney, of the 12th ward, when
in your power to do so.  As a general thing, Hugh McLaughlin,
master laborer, knows who my friends are, and he will confer with
you at all times.' Yours, respectfully,
"GEO. TAYLOR."
"HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
"April 7, 1858.
"DEAR SIR: I understood that, as a part of the arrangement before
your appointment, you were to retain Mir. Fitzgerald as your foreman.
You promised to do so; and that is Mr. Searing's understanding.  I
am now informed that you intend to dismiss him and appoint some
one in his place from New York.  This is not right, and you ought
not to to think of it, if you do.  I trust that the original understanding will be carried out.  I have just conversed with Mr. Searing, and
this is his view of the matter, and it was the Secretary's view when
you were appointed.  In your turn you will, of course, do the best to
equalize matters among the various members.
"Yours, respectfully,
"GEO. TAYLOR.' I have just shown this letter to Mr. Searing.
"WILLIAM TURNER, Esq., MIaster Painter."
"WASHINGTON CITY, April 13, 1858.
"SIR: Your favor has been received. I will be much obliged for a
list of the men under you, when I will write to indicate those I am
especially interested in. I want only a fair proportion of the men.''In reference to Mr. Fitzgerald it was expressly understood between
Mr. Searing and myself that Fitzgerald should remain, and you promised this yourself.  I do not know what Mr. Kelly has to do with this
matter, but I shall be pleased to see him gratified as far as it is
proper; but I cannot and will not submit to Mr. Fitzgerald's dismissal;
and I now give you notice that if you do remove him I will do what
I can to correct it, and if you suffer you must not blame me.  I desire
to sustain you and to make your position pleasant; this I desire on
your account as well as in respect to Mr. Searing, but, sir, I will not




262                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
stand by and see my friends struck down by you or any other
master.
"Yours, respectfully,
"GEO. TAYLOR.
"WILLIAM TURNER, Esq."
Question. Upon whose recommendation were you put into that
yard?
Answer. The recommendation of every democratic member of
Congress from the State of New-York, with the exception of George
Taylor, I believe, and a great many gentlemen from the county I
belong to, Hon. John W. Lawrence, John H. Brown, and a great
many merchants in New York.
Question. I understand you to say that the day you went in you
undertook to remove Mr. Fitzgerald?
Answer. I went into the yard on the 23d, and took possession of
my shop on the 24th.  It was either that day or the next-within
forty-eight hours after I went into the yard. There had been several
gentlemen come to me and told me that this Mr. Fitzgerald was a bad
man. I made up my mind and had partially agreed to let him stay
before I got my appointment; but when I found out from my friends
the character of the man, I at once removed him and disrated him
from being my foreman, and appointed a man by the name of James
Daly in his place, from New York.  The papers went to the commandant's office, but Mr. Delano had a conversation with Captain
Rootes, and they had agreed that they would not allow Mr. Fitzgerald to go out. The reason that they gave was that I was a green
man and did not understand anything about the routine of the yard,
and the man that I had appointed in Mr. Fitzgerald's place being green
too, everything would be turned upside down, and they would not
know where to find it.  I thought that was a very good reason, and I
let the matter go over. In addition to that I received these communications from Mr. Taylor, which tied my hands, and so I thought
I would let Mr. Fitzgerald remain.
Question. Was Mr. Fitzgerald aware of your disposition towards
him?
Answer. Yes, sir; I told him what I intended to do.
Question. On what terms have you and Mr. Fitzgerald been since
then?
Answer. I have never let him know anything more of my business
than I could help.
Question. Have you been friendly or unfriendly towards each other?
Answer. I treated him the same that I would any other man; I paid
no particular attention to him, but went along and attended to my own
business. I have heard that he has made threats that he would have
me out of the place if it cost him his life.
Question. Did you ever have any controversy with Captain Rootes
in that yard?
Answer. We had some high words at one time, I believe.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     263
Question. Did you ever have any controversy about discharging
men that were idle in the yard?
Answer. One day, when I was attending to my business, Captain
Rootes came up to me and said to me that there were three men that
he had found idling, and he wanted me to discharge them. I told
him  that I would if he would go and point out the men to me.  I
went with him and he pointed out the men, and then I hesitated for
a moment.  I asked the men if they were idle, and hesitated about
discharging them;' and I do think that I might have said to Captain
Rootes that I would not do it. But I went directly and dismissed the
men; and Captain Rootes, after he had cooled down, came to me and
said that if these men would make an explanation to him, he would
not have them suspended from the yard. I believe they did make
explanations.  I dismissed them, but he put them on.  That is all
the conversation that we had upon that occasion. He told me that
there were three men idling around the ship, and I dismissed them
at once; and afterwards he wanted me to put them on again, and I
would not do it.  He would get excited sometimes, and afterwards
had a feeling of sympathy for the men.
Question. Were you ever suspended from the yard?
Answer. I was, sir.
Question. Why?
Answer. My men were painting this very building upon which
Captain Rootes said they were idle-they were painting the marine
barracks. I was a stranger in the yard and did not know the officers.
One of my men was standing on a ladder reaching over to paint a
window, and I saw a man come up to him, who I was afterwards informed was Colonel Harris, and he raised his umbrella and was about
to hit the man.  The painter jumped and came very near falling
down.  I went up to this man and said, "Sir, I do not allow any
man to interfere with my men."   Said he, "Who are you, God
damn you?"  Said I, "Damn you, I am master painter."  I only
gave him back what he gave me; and the next day, without any trial
or anything of the kind, I was suspended.  A few days after I was
reinstated by the department. Affidavits came on here to show that
I was in the right.  He had no cause to interfere, and had nothing to
do with my department.  He was colonel of the marines; but I did
not know that it was Colonel Harris, or I should not have spoken as
I did to him.  I afterwards learned that it was he. I was suspended
for a few days or perhaps a week.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you ever get any brandy or whisky from Mr. Teller?
Answer. Mr. Teller purchased some and sent it to the boat for me
at my request. I asked him to do it, because he knew where to get
good brandy better than I did.'I believe it was the second time I
ever spoke to him.
Question. What sort of spirits was it?
Answer. Brandy, sir.
Question. Did you ever get any whiskey from him?
Answer. No, sir.




264                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD
Question. Neither as a present or on purchase?
Answer. No, sir.  The only article which I ever got from him was
five gallons of brandy, and that was a very good article I thought.
Question. Did you ever appoint a man under you in the navy yard
upon the recommendation of Mr. Teller?
Answer. Not that I know of, sir.
Question. Do you not remember that MIr. Teller recommended
somebody to you?
Answer. I do not think he ever did. Mr. Samuel Willis, the appraiser, recommended a man to me, whom I appointed. I do not
think Mr. Teller ever did; but I may be mistaken, as I get so many
letters.  I get twenty or thirty some days, perhaps.
Question. Did Mr. Donnelly ever recommend a man for appointment
under you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you appoint the man whom he recommended?
Answer. A friend of Mr. Donnelly' s brought me a letter requesting
me to appoint him in the place of a man who was taken sick.  I did
not appoint the man; his name was O'Brien.  I believe, upon further
recollection, that Mr. Teller did send to me to appoint him.
Question. Did you ever give him any work in the yard for a longer
or shorter time?
Answer. No, sir; he never worked for me.
Question. What particular obligations were you under to Mr. Teller
to appoint the men that he should recommend to you?
Answer. None at all, sir.
Question. Where does Patrick Fitzgerald live?
Answer. I do not know, sir.
Question. How far is your house from Williamsburg?
Answer. Sixteen miles, I think.  I do not go by Williamsburg to
my house.  I take the boat at Fulton market, on the New York side.
Question. What sort of communication is there between Williamsburg and your house where you reside?
Answer. There are roads running out for wagons and carriages,
but there is no public communication.  There are stages that go out
to Newtown; but I live at a place called Little Neck Bay, or Bayside.
I go on the Flushing railroad, which connects at Hunter's Point with
the steamboat which leaves Fulton market.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Fitzgerald lives at Williamsburg?
Answer. He lives at Brooklyn; I do not know what part of it.
There is a car runs direct across from Brooklyn, and there are cars
branch off in different directions. I know he lives in Brooklyn, but
in what part of it I do not know; it is some distance from the yard, I
should think; I have heard him say that it took him pretty near an
hour to get there.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Are you on the direct route of his house, going to Williamsburg?
Answer. Yes, sir, the direct route of this railroad.  There is a




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    265
railroad runs through Brooklyn, which branches off indifferent places,
and it runs up as far as'Green Point, and it runs within a mile of the
Flushing railroad, and there it ends; then you cross over a river to
get to the Flushing railroad.  You might go this way, I suppose, to
the Flushing railroad by walking a mile.
Question. Did you levy a collection on the men at any time to send
Mr. Searing to Washington?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. Do you know whether the men did at any time make a
contribution to send Mr. Searing to Washington to have their salary
raised?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you ever make a promise or arrangement to appoint
the men Mr. Teller recommended to you?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think he ever asked me, with the exception of recommending a man to fill a vacancy caused by the sickness of one of my men, the man whom Mr. Willis sent me. I think
he sent a letter recommending a man by the name of O'Brien. He
asked me if I would not put this man on, but I refused to do it.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
WILLIAM TURNER recalled.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Do you know anything about any money being raised
from the men in your employ to aid in defraying the expenses of Mr.
Searing' s canvass last fall?
Answer. I do, sir; the circumstances are these: I was a member of
the executive committee of Queens county, and that committee had
not funds enough to pay their printing bills. I told my men that
as Mr. Searing was running for Congress, and the most of my men
were from his district, I wished that they would (as the other men in
the yard did not contribute anything to the election) give something
to defray the expenses of printing. Some of them gave something
and some of them did not. Those who gave put down just what they
pleased, and I took it and devoted it to the expenses of printing.
Question. Was it a voluntary contribution?
Answer. Entirely so.
uestion. Was it never made a cause of removal with any man,
that he declined to give any money in this case?
Answer. Never.
uestion. Do you know anything about some men going off after
roll-call to attend political meetings; I mean men employed in the
yard?
Answer. I do not.  I have stated to the committee already that I
attended one of these public meetings in the day time, and I asked
some of the men to go with me; but when they went out of the yard
they checked themselves, and were not paid by the government.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Has anybody approached you in relation to your testimony here?




266                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Has nobody asked you about what sort of testimony you
would give in relation to Mr. Saunders, the navy agent?
Answer. Yes, sir; but not since I have given my testimony, but
previous to it.
Question. Who approached you upon the subject?
Answer. Lieut. Barnet asked me to state to the committee that
such and such things occurred; I told him that I would answer any
question that the committee would ask me. This Lieut. Barnet was
at one time the inspecting officer of the Brooklyn navy yard. He
spoke to me in reference to some articles which he said had been sent
to my department, and something about Mr. Saunders not giving me
the requisitions on parties from whom I could purchase articles at a
lower rate than they were purchased at. I told him that if the question was asked me I would state all that I knew about it.  That is all
that was said to me. In conversation with Lieut. Barnet, since I
have been in town here, he has asked me to say to the committee that
Mr. Saunders compelled me to go to a certain place to purchase goods
when I could purchase them at a lower price somewhere else.
Question. Is there anything true in such a statement?
Answer. Mr. Saunders always gave me a requisition upon any place
that I asked. In making a requisition for articles in my department
to be obtained upon open purchase, tools, for instance, or any articles
that I want to have selected, I state on the requisition "to be selected," and it goes to the navy agent in that way. He may, perhaps, send me to Mr. Secor, or to Mr. Kennedy, or to any other place
that he may choose to recommend. But if I should conclude that I
could get a better article at Mr. Kennedy's than at Mr. Secor's, and
should ask the navy agent to let me go there, he would always do it;
he has never compelled me to go to any place.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did Mr. Barnet desire you to state anything more than
was within your own knowledge?
Answer. No, sir. He called to my mind an item in regard to some
packages of gold leaf which I had required in a great hurry, to be
used upon the Wabash. He wanted me to state that I could have got
this gold leaf at a lower price. I did not know anything about the
price, and hence I could not make any such statement.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When you told him that you did not know anything
about it, was not that sufficient for Lieutenant Barnet?
Answer. He wanted to know if a party in Brooklyn did not offer
it to me at a lower price. I told him that, after I had received this
article from the navy agent, a man by the name of Wallace sent me
a circular offering to sell gold leaf at about $7 50 a package, while
this I had received had come from Mr. Kennedy, and had cost $8 50
a package.
Question. Would you understand from what Mr. Barnet said to
you that he wanted you to state certain things to the committee upon
the supposition that you knew about them?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    267
Answer. Certainly; he would never think of asking me to state
anything I did not know.
Question. Now, in reference to this matter of the paint being
taken from the navy yard; have you ascertained when you was here
in Washington, last spring or summer?
Answer. I have not examined the books myself, but Mr. Artemas
Jones, a witness who is present, has examined the books at Willards',
where I stopped, and can tell at what time my name was registered
there.
Question. Is Mr. Graham your superior?
Answer. Yes. sir.
Question. Do you know anything about the manner in which his
duties have been discharged?
Answer. I know nothing against him.  I know that he has put off
work which I thought ought to have been done, and he has given as
a reason that he wanted to keep down the expenses of his department. Now there were the ship houses and other buildings, the
roofs of which were suffering for want of paint; they were not painted
because Mr. Graham said he did not want to raise the expenses of
the department.
Question. How do the present expenses of the department compare with former years?
Answer. I could not tell that.
WILLIAM TURNER.
No. 77.-JOHN KELLY, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 12, 1859.
JOHN KELLY called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In the city of New York.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am sheriff of the county of New York.
Question. Have you been recently a member of Congress?
Answer. I have.
Question. How long were you a member of Congress?
Answer. From the 4th of March, 1855, to the 25th of December,
1858.
Question. Were you in the habit while you were a member of
Congress of recommending persons for appointment in the Brooklyn
navy yard?
Answer. Yes,, sir.
Question. When you made a recommendation for a man to be appointed there, did you require the master workman to appoint him
without reference to his qualifications?
Answer. No, sir, I cannot say that I ever did; I do not recollect
of any such instance.
Question. Did you take any steps to inform yourself of the man's




268                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARDo
qualifications as a workman or a mechanic when you recommended
him as a mechanic?
Answer. Yes, sir; but generally the men whom  I recommended
were mere laborers; the most of them, at all events.
Question. Do you recollect any case of your recommending a man
for appointment, and after he was appointed of his being turned out
again?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. In consequence of unfitness for his place?
Answer. I remember no particular case of that kind.
Question. Do you remember of any case of a man being appointed
upon your recommendation, and then being turned out because of his
dissipation, and you being informed that he was incompetent, still
insisted upon his being kept in his place, although he was incompetent?
Answer. I do not recollect anything of the kind.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did you ever have any controversy with any of the masters in the yard in regard to the discharge of men whom you recommended for appointment?
Answer. I think I did have.
Question. What was that controversy, and with whom?
Answer. It was no personal difficulty.  I complained of the man-er in which some of the men were treated whom I recommended.
I think one Berry, who was formerly the master painter, refused to
employ a man whom  I recommended, and I aided and assisted in
having Berry turned out, because I thought the manner in which he
treated not only me, but others, was rather disrespectful.
Question. What reason did he give for that?
Answer. The case was this: I recommended to him a man by the
name of Grace, whom  I sent to him with a recommendatory letter.
I do not think there was anything threatening in it.  My impression
is that it merely requested him to employ Grace.  He did not do so,
but told Grace-at least so Grace afterwards told me-that he might
go back and tell John Kelly to go to hell, as he would not employ
him at all.
Question. Grace told you that, did he?
Answer. Yes, sir. I asked Grace if he was sure that Berry said
so, and he said he was sure of it, and that Berry desired him to carry
the message to me.  I thought that was rather harsh language, as I
had given him no cause of offence.  I complained of it, therefore, to
the Secretary.
Question. Did you ask Berry whether he had used that language
or not, before you complained to the Secretary?
Answer. No, sir. I recollect that he afterwards came to me for
an explanation.  He said that he understood I had complained to the
Secretary.  I said that I had. lie asked my reason for doing so.  I
said that he had treated Grace badly, and had treated my message
with contempt.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     269
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question.  What did he say to that?
Answer. He denied ever having said what Grace told me had said.
He said that Grace was in the habit of getting intoxicated, and it was
for that reason that he had discharged him, having found him drunk
in the workshop.  He told me that Grace came to him and told himt
that if he did not employ him he would use all my influence to get
him turned out.  Now I had given no authority for saying that.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Was Berry turned out in consequence of your application
to the Secretary?
Answer. I think not; he was not turned out until nearly three
months afterwards.  He was then turned out and a man named
Turner was put in his place, upon the recommendation of Mr.
Searing.
By M3r. Bocock:
Question. Did you know, before you made complaint to the Secretary, that Berry had discharged Grace because he was -in the habit of
getting drunk?
Answer. No, sir; Berry told me, I think, afterwards that that was
the reason he had done it.
Question. Did he not tell you before?
Answer. I believe not; I am not sure.
Question. Did you apply for the removal of any other master mechanics?
Answer. Yes, sir; I applied for, think it was subsequently, the removal of a man by the name of McManus, who was master blockmaker.
Question.'Upon what grounds?
Answer. Because he had treated me with contumely; I had heard
that he had told the persons whom I recommended to him that they
might go to the devil, or words to that effect.
Question. Then it was for the use of this harsh and insulting language that you complained?
Answer. I do not think I made it a particular issue with Mr.
McManus. Buthe was afterwards removed, I think at the solicitation of Mr. Sickles, and a man appointed in his place by the name of
Fox.
It may be well for me to say, just here, that before I complained to
the Secretary about McManus I heard that he was in the habit of
getting drunk and locking himself up in the office. I heard it fioro
pretty good sources, and I gave it as I got it.
Question. Did you ever, on any occasion, insist on having a man
put in, or reappointed after he was turned out, knowing at the time
that he was an incompetent man?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Do you remember writing threatening letters to Lawrence
Cohane in relation to appointments?
Answer. I do not recollect of any thing of the kind.




270                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Did you ever have have any difficulty with Merrifield
about appointing men?
Answer. Not to my knowledge or recollection.
Question. I will read to you a portion of the testimony of Lewis W.
Berry. He had said that members of Congress had threatened him
in regard to incompetent men; that if he did not employ them he
should be removed. The testimony goes on:
"Question. By whom were these threats made?
"Answer. John Kelly, of New York, made that threat.
"Question. State the circumstances under which it was made, and
what gave rise to it?
"Answer. It arose in this way: Therd was a man working in my
department who was a drunkard. Now, I thought a great deal of
Mr. Kelly. He appeared to he very much of a gentleman, akd I felt
disposed to do what I could to oblige him; I therefore warned this
man that he must behave himself, or I would not employ him. At
last I was forced to discharge him. He would continue to get drunk,
and would lay for hours in my office in a rum fit, and I therefore discharged him. Mr. Kelly told me that he wanted me to take him on
again. I told Mr. Kelly I could not employ any such man as he was,
as he had disgraced himself, and was a disgrace to any department.
Mr. Kelly said he could not help that, but that the man must go to
work there again. I told him I could not employ him again. Said
he,'you may set it down as a fact that I will have you removed if I
can, if you don't put that man on again.' I told him that I did not
care two snaps of my finger about remaining; that I really thought it
would be a relief to me to get out of the place.
"Question. How long was this before your removal?
"Answer. Two or three months, perhaps."
Question. Do you recollect anything about that?
Answer. I did not know about his being drunk. He may have
been; but I had known him for ten or twelve years, and had not
known of his getting drunk, nor never saw him so.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Did you ever have any such conversation with Berry?
Answer. I do not recollect of any such thing. In every interview
that I ever had with Mr. Berry he always treated me very roughly.
Hence the reason of my finding fault with him, either in person or
by letter. I had no man but this man Grace working in his department who had been appointed on my recommendation.  And I
thought it pretty hard that he did not permit one man to work there
for me. I think he also assigned as a reason that the patronage of
the yard belonged to Brooklyn; that he himself was appointed upon
the recommendation of a member from Brooklyn, and he was not
under obligation to any body; this was in substance his conversation
outside of Brooklyn.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. When did you make complaint against him?
Answer. I do not know exactly.
Question. How long was it before his removal?




BROOXLYN NAVY YARD.                    271
Answer. I think about three or four months. I think he was not
removed upon my complaint, solely.
Question. How many men from your district are employed as mechanics in the navy yard?
Answer. I do not know.
Question. A large number or small number, as compared with other
districts?
Answer. So far as the patronage of the yard is concerned, at least
since I have had anything to do with it, at least one half of it was given
to the Brooklyn district.  I think there were about twenty mechanics
from my district over there, or perhaps more.
Question. Do you know anything about the character of those twenty
mechanics as workmen?
Answer. I think they were good workmen; I do not know of my
own knowledge that they were, but I think so.
Question. The larger portion of your patronage, then, was among
the laborers?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Why was that?
Answer. Because Mr. Murphy, the master dock builder, was appointed at my solicitation, and the greater portion of his work was
done by laborers. 
Question. Are you aware that a number of mechanics and laborers
from your district were retained in the yard, though they were
inefficient?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Has such a thing as that never been brought to your
attention?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Does your district abound in skillful mechanics or not?
Answer. I think it is a mechanical district.  Two-thirds of the
population of the district, I think, are mechanics and laborers.
Question. Do you remember to have recommended a man by the
name of Kelly for appointment under Mr. Berry?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What sort of a man was he? What was he recommended
for?
Answer. I think he was a chair painter and gilder, and I think I
recommended him as such. I think he was a resident of the Brooklyn
district when I recommended him. He was a brother of Alderman
Kelly, now dead.  This circumstance induced me to ask Berry to put
him at work.  He put him at work for two or three weeks and then
discharged him.
Question. What:occured between you and Berry about that?
Answer. Nothing.
Question. Did you complain to the department about his removing
Kelly?
Answer. I think not; I do not now recollect of doing so. The only
difficulty I had with Berry was that about Grace. My complaint to
the department was principally on account of the man's treatment of
me rather than anything else. I did not complain that he did not




272                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
appoint any body at my solicitation, but of his manner and roughness,
-and his insulting tone towards me.
Question. Did you ever tell Merrifield that if he did not give you
your share of the patronage of the yard you would have him turned out?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think I ever said so. The patronage of
that yard was not worth the snap of my finger to me politically; but
occupying the position of a member of Congress, as I did, men
would apply to me to get them a place in the yard.  Some of these
men, I understood afterwards, raised some money to aid me in my
election.  When those who had charge of the matter came to me
with it I asked them  where they got it; they told me they got it of
the men in the navy yard; I told them to take it back and give it to
the men who had raised it.  I believe there is but one man in that
yard, and that is Nicholas Murphy, the master dock builder, who paid
any thing at the last election; he came to me with it, and I told him
I should have nothing to do with it.  There was a committee appointed for the purpose of getting contributions for the election, and
I think Murphy contributed something to that committee, what ii
was I do not know; and I think the civil engineer before Mr. Gr,.
ham, who also was named Murlphy, gave something to the election
committee, but he gave nothing to me, nor did any one else in the yard.
Question. How long have you been acquainted with the management of the navy yard?
Answer. About eight years perhaps.
Question. During that time have appointments always been made
on political grounds? I mean has it been so during all that time?
Answer.  Mostly so, I think.  If I recommended a man there it
was principally on that ground, together with the sympathy I had
for the condition of the men.
Question. Have you known what has been the management of the
yard under all parties?
Answer. Yes, sir; when the whigs formerly had the yard they
would, of course, turn out the democrats, every man of them; they
would not permit them to work there; and as soon as the democrats
got into power again they would turn out the whigs, and so it has
been in all the offices in New York, post office, custom-house, &c.;
and so it is to-day in the appointment of the police. The republicans appoint all republicans; it is very seldom that a democrat can
get a place, if he does, it is through some extraordinary influence.
Question. In the management of politics in New York are offices
made a matter of party patronage by all parties?
Answer. Yes, sir; Mr. Hays, who has been recently elected comptroller, has turned out all the democrats in his office and put republicans in their places; or he will do so, he cannot turn them all out
at once.  He will turn out a few at a time, but they all expect to go,
and so it is with the distribution of the patronage of the State government; the republicans turn out the democrats, and when the democrats get the power they turn out all the republicans., Question. Are the parties in New York in the habit of using
money in their canvasses to promote the success of the party?
Answer. Yes, sir, they are; all parties use it.   JOHN KELLYo




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    273
No. 79.-CHARLES R. GRAHAM, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
CHARLES R. GRAHAM called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. Constructing engineer in the navy yard at New York.
Question. What are the duties of that position?
Answer. To superintend the construction of all the buildings and
wharves, the filling up of the grounds, and keeping the various
buildings in repair.
Question. How long have you held this office?
Answer. Since May, 1857.
Question. I)o you know upon whose recommendation you were
appointed?
Answer. Yes, sir; upon the recommendation of the New York
delegation.
Question. Have you given your attention to the duties of the office
since that time?
Answer. Yes, sir; constantly.
Question. In what business were you engaged before that time?
Answer. I was a clerk in the assay office, and acting surveyor in
New York.
Question. Had you a partner in your business as a surveyor of the
city?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has that partnership continued since you have been in
the navy yard?
Answer. Nominally; but I have never attended to the business. I
may add that I was one of the assistants also upon the Central Park
up to November, 1857, subsequent to my appointment.
Question. How much of your personal attention did you give to that
business after you were appointed?
Answer. Latterly I was not obliged to give any, because the surveys had been completed, and I was permitted to employ assistance
to do the work, paying the money out of my own pocket. There was
no appropriation made for this work, and we did it with the expectation of getting one; I made the advances out of my own pocket. I
had three or four gentlemen employed to do the work. I had laid
out the survey. The only thing that I was required to do was to overlook the maps as they were handed in, and see that they were correct.
Question. Are you a regularly educated scientific engineer and
surveyor?
Answer. I have never served any time at a military academy.  I
have been a student of engineering for six years. I was formerly in
the naval service, where I received my mathematical education.
Question. Are you able to draw plans?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What is the business of Mr. Hastings?
Answer. Mr. Hastings is nominally my assistant.
18 D




274                  BROOKLYN NAYY YARD.
Question. What does he do?
Answer. Really I do not know what he does. I scarcely ever see
him; sometimes not for a month at a time. He has been retained
there in opposition to my wishes. I have demanded his removal, but
I have never been able to accomplish it.
Question. What is his salary?
Answer. $1,500 a year.
Question. You say he does very little service?
Answer. Very little; he is in the yard every day. He inspects the
various articles that are brought in. I have never attended to that
business.
Question. Who draws the plans for continuing the work?
Answer. Mr. Lee is the draughtsman. Mr. Lee has attended to all
the duties of an assistant ever since I have been there,
Question. Is it the practice of the yard for those at the head of the
different branches or business to purchase the articles you want?
Answer. Occasionally open purchases are made when the articles
are not upon the contracts. If any merchandise or any timber is
required, a requisition is made out, and the navy agent purchases it.
Question. Does the navy agent or the master workman make the
purchases?
Answer. The navy agent in my case. I have never made a purchase since I have been in the New York yard.
Question. Do you know the practice of other heads of departments,
the naval constructor and the master workmen?
Answer. I think the master workmen, the naval constructor, and
the chief engineer of the yard, sometimes make purchases.
Question. When articles are purchased for your department who
makes the purchase?
Answer. The navy agent.
Question. You say that Mr. Hastings is an inspecting officer; is it
his duty to look into the quality of articles purchased?
Answer. Yes, sir; but if they are required by the master mason
for his department he also inspects; the master carpenter also inspects
the timber for his department, &c.
Question. How often are you there in the yard?
Answer. Every day of my life when I am in health, or when absent
as I am now. I do not think I am out of the yard ten days in the
year?
Question. How many hours of the day do you usually spend there?
Answer. From four and a half to five hours, sometimes more. I
usually reach the office by ten o'clock or a little after, and remain
until three or half-past three. All my duties are not performed at
the yard.  Occasionally I do work out of my office. My office at the
navy yard is a kind of a rendezvous; I have no library there, and
consequently I should not be able to prosecute my studies.
Question. You devote so many hours in the yard, and also perform
some of the duties of your official position at your own house?
Answer Yes, sir; for instance, I usually devote an hour or two to
study every day at home, and have done this ever since I have been
in that position.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    275
Question. Does your position make it incumbent upon you to see
that the work in your branch of business is faithfully executed?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you superintend the master workmen under you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Who are the master workmen under you?
Answer. The master mason, the master house carpenter, the master
dock builder, and the master laborer. I had a master stone cutter,
but I dismissed him some time ago and broke up that department. I
have had a great deal of difficulty with my master workmen. I was
opposed to the system of appointments when I first went there, and I
have made something like forty reports to the bureau in opposition to
the system. I recommended that the head of the department should
have some control over the work; that he should have the selection of
his own officers, in order to get persons competent to do the duties.
Question. Have complaints been made to you of incompetent men
being employed under master workmen?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What has been done in such cases?
Answer. Some of the men have been dismissed.
Question. By whose direction?
Answer. By my own and by that of the commandant of the yard.
Question. Have you ever permitted incompetent men to remain under your master workmen, when the fact has been brought to your
knowledge that they were incompetent men, in consequence of political or any other influence?
Answer. I do not think that I have, sir.
Question. Has Mr. Sickles or any other member of Congress insisted
upon your retaining incompetent men?
Answer. Never, sir; I have reported incompetent men, and endeavored to have them removed, but have been unable; I have had
an excellent foreman, the foreman of the stone cutters, turned out
without my signature, and against my protest, and another man put
in his place.
Question. How was that done, and when?
Answer. When Commodore Kearny was in the yard, representations were made to him that the master was entitled to the office of
foreman; I resisted it for a long while; but finally a requisition was
taken to the commodore, and he signed it without my signature; I
never recognized the man at all; I considered it an insult to myself.
Question. Did you know  anything about an agreement among
members of Congress to divide the master workmen among each other?
Answer. I know that was the understanding, that appointments
should be distributed between the different members of Congress, but
there was no proportion arranged.
Question. Have you ever received any order from the Naval Department, from the bureau, or from the Secretary, to divide them
equally?
Answer. No, sir; the Secretary of the Navy has never issued such
an order.




276                  BROOKLYN NAYY YARD.
Question. Do you know anything about levying contributions upon
the men for political purposes?
Answer. Not in my department; I understand that they were about
doing it previous to the November election. A number of men came
to me and told me it was proposed to raise something to aid in the
election of Mr. Sickles and other members. I told them that so far
as Mr. Sickles was concerned I knew he was opposed to it; I saw
Mr. Sickles that evening and stated to him what I had said; he told
me I had acted properly; no money was raised to my knowledge.
Question. Have you not yourself been instrumental in getting up
contributions among the men under you?
Answer. No, sir, never, for any purpose; I never have raised a
dollar since I have been in the yard.
Question. Do you know anything about subscriptions being raised
to send men to Washington?
Answer. Never, in my department.
Question. Did you know of it in any other department?
Answer. No, sir, only from hearsay.
By the Chairman:
Question. You say you have turned your attention somewhat to
mathematics for the last six years; are you a civil engineer?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What works have you constructed or supervised the construction of?
Answer. I superintended the laying out and division of the Central
Park, at New York; I was employed there for eighteen months; I
have also acted as city surveyor, and have opened quite a number of
streets in New York, and have widened Duane and other streets.
Question. Do you draw any distinction between the duties of a civil
engineer and those of a surveyor?
Answer. Civil engineering is the higher branch; surveying is elementary, as it were.
Question. Do you call the laying out of grounds within the duties
of a civil engineer?
Answer. Such work as that upon the Central Park, I do; draining
it, building bridges and observatories.
Question. Have you had any part in the building of bridges and
the construction of observatories?
Answer. Only laying out and making plans for them.
Question. Have you ever aided or supervised the construction of
works of internal improvement?
Answer. None, sir.
Question. Or improvements in navy yards or dock yards?
Answer. Not before I went into the yard.
Question. What works were constructed under your supervision in
the navy yard?
Answer. I have built three buildings since I have been there;
about 200 feet of launching-ways, and 200 feet of the quay wall.
Question. Have you built any coffer dams?
Answer. No sir; I have not built one entire; I have one in the
course of construction now.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD,                    277
Question. Had you ever performed similar duties before you went
into the navy yard?
Answer. No, sir, I had not.
Question. Were you not appointed upon the recommendation of Mr.
Sickles, and for him?
Answer. No, sir; not only upon his recommendation, but upon that
of a number of others.
Question. Were you not regarded in the yard as his friend, and as
owing your position mainly to him?
Answer. I was regarded as such; but many others concurred in the
nomination-as Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Taylor, and others.
Question. Was it not understood that the heads of departments
recommended persons to office for political reasons?
Answer. Yes, sir; but political influence was not the only aid which
I had, for I had testimonials from some of the first engineers in the
State of New York.
Question. Had you any controversy with your superior officer with
regard to the launch-ways?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Where did you commence their construction?
Answer. I commenced them in the ship-house.
Question. Were any of your orders countermanded by Commodore
Smith?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Was there a correspondence upon the subject?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the purport of it?
Answer. The final order was, that I should commence where I
pleased; but, in his opinion, the outer terminus was the, proper place
to commence.
Question. Were you not told that you would be held responsible
for it?
Answer. Yes, sir; and that responsibility I am ready to take. I
think it can be proved by ninety-nine engineers out of one hundred
that I was correct.
Question. Had you any correspondence with Commodore Rootes with
regard to allowing men to be excused from the roll-call?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. State how common that practice was of allowing men to
be excused from the roll-call?
Answer. Captain Rootes forgot that when he signed all those papers
it was stated in them that the men should be excused from muster.  I
requested that Mr. So-and-so should be appointed dock builder, and
that he should be excused from muster.  He assented to this as soon
as the matter was brought to his attention, having forgotten that he
had authorized it.
Question. Why were the men excused from muster?
Answer. Because they were engaged at a considerable distance from
the yard, and it would be inconvenient for them to meet at the muster
office.




278                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. How many men were excused from  muster in your
department in February, 1858?
Answer. I think about twelve or fifteen.
Question. Was there any check to show that these men were engaged
in the public business?
Answer. Yes, sir; the duties of these men were these: They were
rated as dock builders and masons, because that had been the custom
of the yard. They were in reality inspectors. We were receiving
large quantities of earth-ten or twelve thousand cubic yards per week.
These men remained on duty, spelling each other, from five o'clock in
the morning until seven in the evening, receiving the earth, and an
assistant engineer reported their time to me.  There were two
inspectors at each dock at the time.
Question. Did you know any frauds to be committed in filling in
that earth?
Answer. Enormous frauds were perpetrated before I took charge of
it; but a short time afterwards I broke up the system and adopted
the system of inspectors, which I believe put an end to the frauds.
Question. To what extent did the frauds go?
Answer. It is hard to tell. The system then was this: A number
of tickets were issued for loads of gravel and loads of stone, worth from
nine to thirty-four cents each.  They were lying in the office in
large quantities, and only required for use the signature of an
irresponsible clerk.  These tickets were given to the inspectors to
deliver to those bringing the earth. They passed current in the
groggeries in the neighborhood, just as money would. The inspectors
could give two tickets for one to the contractors if they felt disposed.
Question. To what extent, as near as you could ascertain, was this
fraud carried?
Answer. I have no idea. It was broken up very shortly after I
went there. Afterwards a demand was made upon the government of
about $2,500, which I succeeded in defeating. It was referred to a
board at my suggestion, and the board reported unfavorably.
Question. Were you not in the habit, with the men in your department, of attending political meetings during the last election during
working hours?
Answer. No, sir; I have been with them at other times.
Question. When?
Answer. After hours at night.  The men were not obliged to go;
I requested them to go occasionally to our meetings.
Question. How many master workmen were under your supervision
at that time?
Answer. Five-master mason, master house carpenter, master dock
builder, master stone cutter, and master laborer.
Question. About how many men were employed by those masters?
Answer. I presume about six hundred men.
Question. Were any of those men selected by you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What proportion of them?
Answer. I do not know exactly what proportion. I never selected
any men for myself. Members of Congress made application to me to




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   279
put men on; Mr. Sickles, for instance, Mr. Cochrane, and others
would ask me, and I have endeavored to do so.
Question. What proportion of the men were appointed by you, and
what proportion by the master workmen?
Answer. That I could not tell. I presume that I selected one-sixth
of the men. They were put on at my solicitation; but none for any
service to me.
Question. You applied to the master workmen, and they appointed
the men?
Answer. Yes, sir. When I first went to the yard the constructing
engineer had the power of appointment entirely, and that is still
believed to be the case very generally in New York. Persons would
apply to me just as they were in the habit of applying to my predecessor; and when an application was made which I thought particularly deserving, I would send to the master workmen and request
them to put the man on. I never put them on when the department
had not decided that their services were necessary.
Question. You presume that you selected about one hundred of
these men?
Answer. Yes, sir; there may have been one hundred.
Question. Had you any conversation with Commodore Rootes at
any time?
Answer. I had, sir.
Question. Did you know what led to his removal?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you not know that complaints were made that he
interfered with the number of men in the yard, or with the increase
of the number of men in the yard?
Answer. I do not know that I heard that he was removed because
he complained of the number of men who were taken on; but I heard
he was removed on account of his interference with the men in other
departments besides his own.
Question. Do you not know the cause of his removal?
Answer. That was understood to be the cause of his removal. He
was exceedingly unpopular, and a number of applications were undoubtedly made to the Secretary to have him removed.
Question. Do you not know that he was removed on account of his
endeavor to prevent the yard from being unnecessarily packed with
men?
Answer. No, sir; I do not. I never had any conversation with
Captain Rootes upon the subject, and I never heard it from anybody
else. I had a correspondence with Captain Rootes, and was always
on the most friendly terms with him.
Question. What was the course adopted when you bought articles
on open purchase?
Answer. A requisition was made out, signed by me, signed by the
commodore, and sent to the navy agent. In only one or two instances
have I requested that the articles should be purchased of a particular
person-in purchasing some timber, and in purchaing some pipes for
draining. If I wished to purchase anything of any magnitude I
always wrote to the commodore requesting the permission of the




280                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
bureau to make the purchase. I did this because I knew that I was
no favorite, and was determined to take care of myself?
Question. What do you mean by taking care of yourself?
Answer. I mean that I knew from Commodore Smith's manner to
me that he was not my friend, but was anxious to have me removed.
I knew that Mr. Hastings was anxious to be my successor; that he
was very anxious to have me removed in order to receive my place,
and I was always very cautious. I have never meddled with any
money matters since I have been in the yard.
Question. Do you not know that the master workmen are in the
habit of making purchases upon their own requisitions?
Answer. No, sir; the masters in my department make requisitions,
which, after approval by me, are sent to the commodore for his
sanction.
Question. Do you not know that the master workmen have then
gone and made the purchases?
Answer. Yes, sir; in some instances.
Question. In that case is there any check to prevent collusion between the master workman and the person of whom he obtains the
goods?
Answer. I presume the navy agent is a check. If a bill was presented to him which appeared excessive he would not sign it. I have
withheld my signature often from bills for that reason.
Question. How frequently?
Answer. I have done it several times, insisting upon a reduction in
the price.
Question. When articles were purchased by the master workmen
themselves, was the price generally higher or lower than the regular
price?
Answer. The only masters who have ever made any purchases in
my department were Messrs. Cohane and Sturgiss. I believe them
both to be highly honorable men; I never questioned anything they
did.
Question. What bills were they that you rejected then?
Answer. A bill for timber in one instance; and recently, within
two or three months, I have rejected several bills which I regarded as
excessive.
Question. From whom were the purchases made?
Answer. The first was from Wesley Smith, of New York, who furnished some lumber at a price I considered excessive and which he
reduced in consequence of my objections; the other was from Mr.
Brown, who furnished some timber on open purchase; I thought the
price he asked for 11-inch yellow pine stuff excessive, and I withheld
my signature.
Question. Was it your duty to look to the price?
Answer. I regard it so when it is excessive.
Question. When the requisition is made upon the navy agent, and
the article comes in in that way?
Answer. Yes, sir; Mr. Brown has a contract for the present year
with the New York yard; we wanted a heavy floor for the store; the
first floor was 11 inches and too thin, and we thought that 1- or 2




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     281
inches would be better; so we entered into an agreement with M3r.
Simpson, the agent of Mr. Brown, that if we took this two-inch stuff,
he should not send on the 1I-inch stuff contracted for; he charged in
New  York the market price and nothing more than that for that
floor, and the floor was sent in; the 14-inch stuff in the contract
will not be sent in.
Question. You state that you know that Commodore Smith was not
friendly to you; do you know the reason of that?
Answer, I believe, sir, that it was because he failed in having his
own engineer appointed; he desired Mr. Brown, of Norfolk, to be
appointed there.
Question. Did not Commodore Smith, to your knowledge, state that
his objection to you was, that you had had no experience as a constructing engineer?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. And that you were appointed simply for political reasons?.
Answer. No, sir; Commodore Smith never attempted to ascertain
whether I was competent or not; he was actuated entirely by prejudice; when I first went there and offered him  my hand, as a gentleman would to another, he turned his back upon me.
Question. When was that?
Answer. Since I have been appointed; within a year or eighteen
months.
Question. What led to these unfriendly relations?
Answer. I am not aware excepting that I succeeded in getting this
place and demanded the removal of my assistant; when I went there
I considered him a competent, worthy, and honest man; but I found
reason to alter my opinion and demanded his removal.
Question. Upon what ground?
Answer. Upon the ground of inefficiency, and I had reason to believe that he was not honest; I wrote a letter to the department demanding his removal, and when that was refused I tendered my resignation to the Secretary of the Navy, which he could have accepted;
I have resigned twice since I have been there.
Question. Is there any other fact within your knowledge throwing
light upon abuses in the navy yard?
Answer. No, sir; the only thing I have ever objected to is the system
of appointment; I do not believe in allowing irresponsible persons to
select their own men; I think they should be appointed by the officers who are responsible for the expenditures.
Question. What per centage of cost should you think could be saved
by placing the selection of workmen and master workmen in the hands
of a disinterested person, who should have power to select competent
men without regard to political or other influences? What per centage
of the aggregate expenditure could be saved?
Answer. I think at least 25 per cent.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did  you have any correspondence with Commodore
Kearny with relation to the appointment of men?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was the nature of that correspondence?




282                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I was always endeavoring to have the power taken from
the masters; I have given my reasons.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did you write the letter now shown you?
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. How often have you been absent from your duties?
Answer. I have been to Washington twice since my appointment;
I have never attended to any other business since I have been in the
yard; I have been in my own office, where my name is still up, but
twice during the last year; every particle of my business was transferred to the gentleman who was my assistant formerly, and who is
now nominally my partner.
Question. What was your business previous to your going to the
navy yard?
Answer. Clerk of the assay office and city surveyor at the same
time; the latter was not an office but a profession, and I attended to
my business as surveyor after office hours; I had ample time after
3 o'clock; I may add that I live four miles from the navy yard, and
it takes an hour or an hour and a half to go there and to return; I never
leave the yard except on duty; and I never go out between 12 and 1
o'clock.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you and Mr. Cohane have any controversy about
the appointment of men in his department?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What was that? when was it?
Answer. It was before the last circular giving the masters the selection of their men; I resisted that practice; the correspondence was
upon that subject; I contended that the Secretary did not desire that
practice to extend to my department; and when I found that he did
I withdrew my opposition, and Mr. Cohane always selected his men;
I have a letter here from him to that effect.
[See Appendix to this deposition.]
Question. In your opposition to the plan of masters having the appointment of the men under them, did you ever bring the subject to
the attention of the Secretary of the Navy himself?
Answer. No, sir; my correspondence was with the commandant, as
my superior officer, and was intended to be forwarded to the chief of
the bureau; I wrote so many letters upon this subject that finally the
commandant of the yard received a request from Commodore Smith
that no more complaints of mine should be forwarded.
By the Chairman:
Question. Who employed the pattern makers?
Answer. Mr. Gay did; he was the chief engineer in the service,
and was putting up truss beams, which I contended, and which Mr.
Cohane contended, belonged to my department.  It was a matter
which Captain Rootes might have settled at once; but he referred
everything to the bureau; he was unwilling to take any responsibility.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    283
FEBRUARY 15, 1859.
CHARLES K. GRAHAM recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you last fall, or at any other time, have more men
employed under you than you could profitably employ?
Answer. No, sir, I never have; I never increased the force beyond
the limit I assigned, excepting upon one occasion, the case of the
carpenters; I supposed we had work for about fifty carpenters; after
many importunities I increased the number to ten more; but in order
to keep down the number I directed that only fifty should be mustered
each day; of course the other ten would receive no pay. I had the
most pressing importunities to put on still others, but I would not
put on any more; in the winter we very frequently have fifty laborers
on the roll, and the master is directed to muster only one-half or onethird of them, if there is only work for so many, and the others remain
out and receive no compensation.
Question. Is it ever the case that they are released from duty and
yet receive pay?
Answer. Never, sir; whenever a man goes out of the yard he is
obliged to check himself for the time he is absent.
Question. What other explanation or statement have you to make
in relation to the matters upon which you have been examined?
Answer. The taking up of the old launching-ways, composed of
timber, was not commenced till the fall, and when the task was completed it was too late to use the diving-bell, as its use, advantageously,
is confined to the summer months, say from April to September.
The inclemency of the weather during the winter months precluded
the possibility of the continuance of the work in the open air, but
inside the ship-house the force employed could work steadily and with
efficiency. For this reason I commenced the work upon the shore end
of the ways, the final completion of the ways not being dependent
upon the place where the work was commenced.
I was also, in this course, influenced by the fact that, if any emergency should require the building of a ship, the ways in the house
must be previously constructed, whilst, to launch her, temporary ways
could be laid outside. This was impressed upon my attention from
the fact that it was generally believed that two of the ships ordered
by Congress would be built at the Brooklyn yard, and the faithful
discharge of my duty required that everything should be in readiness
to complete the order.
On the opening of spring the construction of the ways at the outer
terminus commenced, using the diving-bell, but the obstructions
unexpectedly met with, (see my letter of November 6, 1857,) were so
great, and the expense of the bell so heavy, that I deemed it advisable
to dispense with the use of so cumbersome an instrument, except in
the only case when really useful, that is merely as an auxiliary.  Gunpowder was successfully used at such times as the officers of the yard
would permit.
Fearing that, from  the slow progress made with the bell, the
season would pass without the completion of the work, I took the
responsibility to construct a coffer dam, as the result of a deliberately
formed opinion, and in the discretion allowed to me by the bureau to




284                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
the commandant and the " skill of the civil engineer."  In this connexion it may not be inappropriate to say that I have ever considered
that it would be unsafe, in a high degree, to trust the shifting pressure
of a vessel to masonry constructed by a bell.
I took no part in the removal of Captain Rootes; I entertained for
him, personally, feelings of kindness, though I did at times object to
his administration of his executive duties.
After repeated communications to the commandant of the yard in
relation to the extravagance and inefficiency of the stone cutters department, I felt it to be my duty to abolish it, which I did.  My official
correspondence will more fully explain this matter.
Is he competent, has been the motto I have used; and I have at all
times instructed the masters to report to me, at once, any case of
neglect of duty or incompetency of the men; for while, as a matter
of course, I would appoint men of similar political faith with myself,
that faith alone has in no single instance been a shield for ignorance
and idleness; my duties to the government were higher than my
obligations to party.
The following gentlemen endorsed my application, viz: Hon. John
Cochrane, H. Fi. Clark, John B. Haskin, George Taylor, D. E. Sickles,
Elijah Ward, and John A. Searing. Messrs. Searing, Sickles, Haskin,
and Clark, accompanied me to the Secretary of the NavyCHARLES K. GRAHAM.
CONSTRUCTING ENGINEER'S OFFICE,
Navy Yard, New York, December 4, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I received a note from you a few days ago (which has
been mislaid) stating that you had been informed that I had given
directions to the masters attached to this department not to appoint
any men from your district on your recommendation, and desiring to
know whether such a statement was correct.  In reply, you are
informed that no such instructions have ever been given by me; and
as you are aware that the masters have the selection of their own men,
if I had interfered in the matter I would probably not only have been
insulted for my officiousness, but also reported to the department for
usurpation.
Your obedient servant,
CHARLES K. GRAHAM.
Hon. HORACE F. CLARK.
CONSTRUCTING ENGINEER'S OFFICE,
Navy Yard, New York, October 9, 1857.
SIR: In answer to your inquiry as to the selection of workmen
under me, I am pleased to state that since I received the circular
bearing on that point issued from the chief of Bureau of Yards and
Docks, and dated July 8, 1857, my recommendations for the employment and dismissal of men have been invariably approved by you.
Yours, respectfully,
L. COHANE, Master Carpenter.
CGAS. K. GRAHAM, Esq., Constructing Engineer.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      285
NOVEMBER 6, 1857.
SIR: In the report of Messrs. Sanger, Brown, and Murphy, of date
June 21, 1856, in alluding to the proper method of laying the launching-ways in ship-house No. 2, the use of a diving-bell was recommended,
and the work of tearing up the old timbers has commenced, with the
understanding that such was to be the course of procedure in the reconstruction. I am inclined to believe, however, that this conclusion
was arrived at without considering the impediments existing in the
old works, which, as far as the ways themselves are concerned, would
render the working of a bell almost impossible, or at any rate, by its
tediousness, very expensive.  Two-thirds of the work, both of the
ways and the ship walls, will be in water too shallow for a bell, and
the old piles which are mostly sound, (and when cut to the necessary
depth may remain to form the new foundation,) are so thick that the
necessary excavation for lowering the ways cannot be proceeded with
conveniently without the construction of a dam and the pumping out
of the water.
The construction of a projecting pier at the northeast corner of the
ship could alone be satisfactorily accomplished by the diving-bell. I
believe, however, in view of the amount of work to be done under
water, and the peculiar nature of it, that much the most economical
way would be to build a dam, which, if done immediately, would
afford facility for pushing the work ahead during the winter.  The
depth of water will require square piles, and of these there are about
dnough on the schedule, while for puddling the stiff, tenacious mud
eredged from the channel, which is in fact clay, may be used to advantage.
I respectfully offer this suggestion to the consideration of the bureau,
and enclose a tracing of the proposed work, which will, together with
what I have said, explain the advantage of the dam and the advisability of adopting it.
The cost of such a dram would be from $8,000 to $10,000; but as
the piles could be used again for the ship-house, the actual cost would
be only the half of this estimate.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHARLES K. GRAHAM.
Commodore L. KEARNY,
Commandant.
NEw YORK, November 20, 1858.
DEAR SIR: It is represented to me that you have directed the masters
in the yard not to employ any persons upon my recommendation.
Will ou be kind enoughinfor by let m'meyuter whether the statement ths made to me is reliable?
Yours, very truly,
H. F. CLARK.
CHARLES K. GRAHAM, Esq.




286                BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 81. —BENJAMIN F. DELANO, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
BENJAMIN F. DELANO called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your official position under the government?
Answer. Naval constructor in the Brooklyn navy yard.
Question. How long have you been acquainted with that yard?
Answer. I was appointed there this time in 1850; I have been more
or less acquainted with the yard since 1826, for I served my apprenticeship there.
Question. What changes for better or for the worse have taken
place in the management of the affairs of the Brooklyn navy yard
since you have been acquainted with it?
Answer. I have been employed in the navy yards for 25 years,
and I think the plan of selecting the master workmen which prevails
in the yards now is not so good as it was in former times. Then,
when a master workman was required, the naval constructor would
select the proper individual, with the commandant of the station, who
was always, and who always should be, consulted in these matters,
and they would appoint him with the sanction, of course, of the
powers at Washington.  This master, thus appointed, was retained
during good behavior; he was, in other words, subject to the naval
constructor, who was the head of the mechanical part of the navy
yard. And I wish to observe here that, in my opinion, a change in
the present discipline of the mechanical department of the navy yard
could be advantageously made.  The system  of having so many
departments independent of each other and not subject to one head
is a bad one. Let there be one mechanical head, and let everything
connected with his department emanate from him, through the commodore. I think such a plan as that would make a very material
difference in the way in which business is conducted and the cost of
your ships, your houses, and your docks.
Question. Who would superintend the working of the subordinate
mechanics, if there were no masters?
Answer. I do not say that there should be no masters, but that
they should be under the control of the mechanical head, whoever
he is, and subservient to him. I say that the commodore of the
station, with his proper officer, should have the power to change
these masters when they do not conduct themselves as they should,
subject to the approval of the department.
Question. Suppose a master workman should not conduct himself
as he should now, what do you do under the custom that now
prevails?
Answer. All the master workmen that have been appointed of late
have been appointed without the knowledge of the naval constructor
or the commandant of the station, except during the last year and a




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   287
half, when there has been an examination. I mean that these masters
should be selected by the mechanical head and the commandant of
the station, and examined by any board that he may chose to select
for that purpose, and let them know at the same time that they are
to be under the control of the officers of the yard.
Question. Under the system that prevails now, suppose a master
workman does not do his duty; what is your duty in the premises?
Answer. To report him, I suppose.
Question. To whom?
Answer. To the commandant of the yard.
Question. The opinion you have expressed is in regard to the
proper way of appointing those men; have you been heretofore consulted in reference to the appointment of master workmen under you
in the yard?
Answer. No, sir; nor in the appointment of the workmen, except
the number to be employed.
Question. When a master workman makes a requisition for the
appointment of new men, and makes out the list he wishes selected,
is not that list submitted to you?
Answer. Always.
Question. Suppose you do not approve the selection which the
master has made; does the submission of the list to you give you the
right to approve or disapprove the number of the men and their
qualifications?
Answer. It gives me the right to disapprove of it. In carrying
on the work of the yard, when I think there is any necessity for it,
I direct the master to take on a certain number of men. I do not
name these men myself. I invariably tell them to take on the best
workmen-those who know  how to work.  They have, by authority, the selection of the men, subject to the approval of their
chiefs.
Question. What change could properly be made in turning out these
master workmen and the men under them? Would you have them
put solely under the control of the mechanical head you speak of,
without the approval of the commandant or the bureau?
Answer. No, sir; I think all business of that sort should be done
through the commandant. I have always found those gentlemen
ready and willing to act with the constructors; they have left many
things of that sort to their judgment and opinion.
Question. Do you know anything about incompetent men having
been employed and kept in the yard by any of the master workmen?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Is Mr. Merrifield a master workman under you?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Has he complained to you that he had incompetent men
under him?
Answer. No, sir; he has made no complaints. There have been
several instances where he has discharged men for incompetency.
He brought them before me, and they were dismissed forthwith.




288                BROOKLYN-NAYY YARD.
Question. By whom were they dismissed?
Answer. Through me; the commodore approves of all requisitions
for the taking on or the discharging of men.
Question. Now, do you not practically discharge the men in the
yard just when you choose?  And if you find out that a workman
is incompetent, do you not practically discharge him?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have always directed the master to discharge
them when they have been complained of. I have stated to some of
the master workmen, when I have been watching how their men were
working, tha tsuch a person was not worth the wages he was receiving,
and that he must be reduced. The master workmen have invariably
done so when I have directed it to be done.
Question. Have the master workmen under you recently proved
themselves efficient?
Answer. They have not all been so efficient as I could wish.
Question. Can you mention particular persons?
Answer. I do not know that I can particularly. There are several
who have not done as I would wish them to do; who have not been
so attentive to their business as I would have made them to be if they
had been subject more particularly to my control.
Question. Could you not report them?
Answer. I have repeatedly mentioned cases of neglect to the officers
of the yard, and they have stated to me that I must report them; that
is, in relation to the men leaving the yard; they must be reprimanded
and not allowed to leave the yard. I have told the commandant
that that was a police regulation with which I had nothing to
do. My business was an active one in all portions of the yard,
and I have nothing to do with who goes out or who comes into the
yard.
Question. Is it not your business to superintend these master workmen and see that they work properly?
Answer. Yes, sir; all their work should come under me.
Question. Have any of them been in the habit of going off and
neglecting their business?
Answer. There have been instances of it.
Question. Can you speak of it as a general custom?
Answer. No, sir; two-thirds of the master workmen there have
been very attentive to their business, and have been constantly there.
I know it, because I have been there myself, and though I perhaps
should not so say, still I have given my whole time to the business of the
navy yard. I know that two-thirds of the master workmen are always
at their posts, and are very good men. There are exceptions, who,
had they been placed more particularly under the control of the commandant and the naval constructor, would probably have been
more attentive to their business.
Question. If you have, through the commandant, practically exercised the power of dismissal, what more could you have done?
Answer. Their appointments come from sources which I could not
interfere with.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     289
Question. By what influences have their appointments been dictated?
Answer. I do not know.Question. Political or not?
Answer. I really do not know; I am not a politician myself, and I
do not know anything about it.
Question. How far have political influences determined the appointment of master workmen in the navy yard?
Answer. I could not say, for I do not know.  I know  that
previous to a year and a half ago, when we were directed to examine them, they were sent there and appointed as master workmen at once.
Question. How long had that previous custom of appointing master
workmen prevailed in the yard?
Answer. I do not know positively; some fifteen or twenty years.
Question. Does this custom  of examination generally prevail
now?
Answer. It has been so in New York about a year and a half; but
all the master workmen there have not been subjected to an examination. There is a master workman there, a very worthy man, who
has been there thirty years; an exceedingly fine man.
Question. Who is he?
Answer. Our master cooper; he is an excellent man and master of
his business.
Question. Has he taken any part in politics?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. When was this custom of subjecting master workmen to
an examination instituted in this yard?
Answer. About a year and a half ago.
Question. Who are the examiners?
Answer. The executive officers of the yard; that is, the commander,
the naval constructor, and the civil engineer. There are two master
workmen in my particular department who have been examined, and
eight of them have not been.
Question. Why were not those eight examined?
Answer. They were there before this order was given. All who
have been appointed since that time have had to undergo this examination. There have been other master workmen examined in the
constructing engineer's department.
Question. Has every master workman appointed there since this
order was given been subjected to this examination?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you make a pretty rigid examination?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.
Question. Then no master workman who is incompetent to discharge the duties of his office can be appointed while this regulation
is in existence?
Answer. If the board do their duty he cannot.  However, there is
one other thing that has a bearing upon this subject. These persons
who are examined by us are sent to us for examination. Now, it
19 D




290                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
would be very much better for us if we could select a man whom we
know to be a good workman, and who has worked for years in a naval
establishment, without being forced to confine our choice to those
who are sent to us by others.  Let us make master workmen of those
we know, rather than have a perfect stranger come to us who may,
perhaps, be mechanically qualified and not morally so; which, in
my judgment, should be taken into consideration with his other
qualities.
Question. When you make an examination of a man, do you merely
inquire in regard to his mechanical skill, or do you inquire into his
personal character for integrity and honesty —-his standing as a
man?
Answer. I drew up a certain set of questions, some twenty or thirty
of them-as many as I saw proper to ask-which, when answered,
embrace a kind of history of the man. Then I examine him mechanically by asking him questions, and requiring him to make illustrations
upon the black-board, in order to see if he understands his business.
But we have never sent for persons or papers to know how he stood
in the community.
Question. By whom are these men sent to you to be examined?
Answer. By the commandant of the station. I cannot answer that
further, though I suppose they were from Washington.
Question. Do you mean to say that the men are sent from Washington, or that the orders for their examination are sent from Washington?
Answer. No, sir; the order emanates from Washington to examine
such an individual in reference to his being made master of such a
department.  We have not passed all we have examined; we have
condemned some.
Question. Have any men that you have condemned been forced
upon you by political or other influence?  Have you been forced to
appoint a man as a master after you have condemned him upon an
examination?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know of any cases in which political influences
have required the continuance in place of incompetent men under
the masters?
Answer. I do not.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Has any person a right to be examined-to present himself before this board for examination-except persons whose names
are sent on from Washington, with directions to be examined?
Answer. No, sir; no person has been examined except under orders
to examine him.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you been directing the building of some launchingways during the last year or so?
Answer. There have been launching-ways building at the yard
under the supervision of the constructing engineer.
Question. Mr. Graham?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      291
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are you able to speak of that work; to state whether
is good or not?
Answer. I made the original design myself, and it is being built
after that, so far as inclination and size are concerned. It was commenced last year, and is not completed yet, as it is a work of considerable magnitude.
Question. What do you say of the character of the work, and the
skill with which it is being done?
Answer. It is good, solid, strong. I should not be afraid to put
the biggest ship upon it that ever was built, so far as it has gone.
Question. Has Mr. Graham  fully discharged all his duties satisfactorily in regard to that work?
Answer. I have taken no note or survey of his work.  I merely
see it as I pass by it. The work has certainly been constructed very
permanently and solidly as far as it has progressed.
Question. Do you know how far Mr. Graham  has control of that
work?
Answer. I know that he is the head of that department, and that
it is being built under his supervision. It is an affair that I am particularly interested in.  It is to build ships upon, which is my business; and having made the design, I have taken pains to talk with
Mr. Graham upon the subject, so as to get it done in the most permanent manner. I do not see, myself, wherein he has not carried the
work on properly. There is a difficulty at the lower end about making
the work permanent.  He has talked with me upon the subject, and
my advice was that there should be a coffer-dam built there to enclose
the whole of it, so that he might build the work properly. I advised
this because the ground is soft there, and it is important to have a
solid and permanent foundation. I see that Mr. Graham is following
my advice.  The work commenced at the upper end of the ways, or
rather is being carried on there, for it could not be carried on economically at the lower end at this season of the year. And I advised
him to commence the lower part in the spring or summer. The other
part he could build economically in the winter season.
Question. Are you able to speak, of your own knowledge, of Mr.
Graham' s efficiency in his department?
Answer. I am not.
Question. Is the master painter in your department?
Answer. He is.
Question. How does he discharge his duties?
Answer. He has not been there a great while-nearly a year,
perhaps.  There is not so much energy about him as I should like to
see.  But his work is done and the duty is discharged very well, so
far as painting ships is concerned.
Question. Do you know anything about the loss of paint from the
navy yard?
Answer. Only from hearsay, and that within a day or two.  The
master painter requires all his material through me; that is, he makes
a requisition for it through me.




292                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. When it passes from your keeping into his hands do
you keep a supervision over it?
Answer. As much as I can. I know about what it would cost to
paint a ship; for I can refer to the accounts of other ships which
have been painted, and if I should find any discrepancy I should
want to know where the paint had gone to.  When the painting is
similar there would be no great variation.
Question. Then a master painter who was a rough, careless man,
might destroy a small portion of the paint; but if it was a large portion you would be likely to discover it?
Answer. Yes, sir. The painter estimates that he will want so
much paint for the ship. He makes to me a monthly return of what
he has expended, and when the whole is done I can tell whether the
amount is much out of the way or not.
Question. Did you ever hear of the loss of a keg of zinc, 100
pounds, from the yard?
Answer. I never have until within a day or two; I heard here that
there had been a loss of some paint. They are very particular at the
yard, under regulations of the commandant of the station, about allowing articles to be passed out of the yard. I do not know how they
could get it out very well, without it was passed out by the proper
officer. Nothing goes out without a pass, and workmen are sometimes examined, where there is any suspicion, in order to see if they
have any articles secreted about them.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Could not articles like this keg of paint be put on board
some water craft, and carried off in that way?
Answer. I do not see how it could be done very well.  There are
watchmen all around the wharves at the navy yard, about every
fifteen hundred feet, and all within sight of one another; still it might
be done.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Has there been a surplus number of men in your department during the last year?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you had work for all the men in your department?
Answer. I have.
Question. Were they well employed?
Answer. I think so, and I think we have the work to show for it.
We have repaired-some vessels slightly and others thoroughly, some
repairs being very heavy-about 12 or 15 different vessels during this
last year in the yard; we are building one new one, and we almost
rebuilt the St. Louis last summer. There were very extensive repairs
upon the San Jacinto, which are now pretty well completed. Last
summer we had a great many men at work, more than I have had
since; in winter I reduce the number of men, and intend that the
number shall agree with the amount of work which is in progress.
Question. Was there any considerable number of men added to the
yard just before the election?
Answer. In my department I had more men in September than




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                           293
about election times.  I heard before I came on here that there had
been some such intimation as that, and I took the following list from
the rolls in my department before I started to come on here:
Memorandum  showing the number of men employed under the naval constructor on August 1 and November 1, 1858, and February 1, 1859.
Departments.               August 1,  November 1, February 1,
1858.      1858.      1859.
Ship carpenters, &c —........ —- -_-234-  234             261         292
Smiths-  -----      -----        ----           129        135         115
Joiners  -------      ------------— 162                    139         106
Calkers --------    ----------                  141         87         144
Mast makers -------   -------— 27                           27          27
Painters —-. —..    ----------               80          74          39
Boat builders ----   ----------                  33         35          32
Coopers —. — -—. —-----—.. —-------..       20          20          20
Block makers —-----     -----    ----           30          32          31
Gun-carriage makers —--     -------     -        23         15          11
Saw mill —----       ---- -.-                    43         59          58
Timber inspector's laborers. —-. —-----—.. —  111         116         86
1,033      1,000         961
So far as I am concerned, I have always made it a point to take on
men when they were required for the work ordered; who the men
were I have had nothing to do with. All there was about it was, that
they were subject to my approval. The selecting and appointing of
the men were with the masters, which is all very proper, only I think
the regulation ought not to say that they shall have that power. Sometimes I could recommend good workmen myself-I could do so nowbut the masters might not take them; they would probably prefer to
make their own selections. If I object to the selections they make,
I can check them off; but, as a general thing, I do not do it, because
I do not wish to make trouble.  If the master blacksmith wants half
a dozen hands, I tell him to go and get them, because he is the best
judge about them, and ought to be allowed to choose. But still I
think there should be a check where there is now none.
Question. Do you keep all the men in your department in good
employ?
Answer. Yes, sir. I will say this about the number of men in my
department: there may have been some departments which were increased when we got to work upon the new vessel; but in the aggregate
there were more workmen in August last than now under my charge,
or since that month.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What proportion do the men in your department bear
to the whole number in the yard?
Answer. I think nearly one-half.  There were 2,500 men at work
in the navy yard last fall, and I had 1,003, not quite one-half, at that
time; but generally I think it is about that.




294                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were all the others under Mr. Graham?
Answer. Not all of them. The common laborers of the yard are
not under him; they are under a master laborer and the officers of
the yard more particularly.  I have nothing to do with them, only
that the object upon which they are to work is assigned from my
office.  The work of the others are under Mr. Graham. There are
some under the ordnance officer, and some in the department of provisions and clothing.  Hence I say that there are so many departments in the navy yard that it makes confusion; to do away with
which there should be but one mechanical head.
Question. Do you mean that Mr. Graham's business and yours
should all be under one head?
Answer. I think it should.  I do not wish the place, I am sure,
though formerly I had it all under my charge until 1852. I know
that other naval constructors, Mr. Hart and Mr. Grice, did all this
work for twenty years.  I look at the navy yard as a gentleman who
was doing a large business in a private establishment would look at
that. He would hardly have a certain number of heads all equal, as
it is in the navy yard. I refer particularly to these heads of departments, not master workmen; for instance, the blacksmith under me
does work for all the other departments, and all the other departments do work for me, but I have no control over their men; that, I
think, is all wrong.  The finishing of my iron work, and all that sort
of thing, is done under another person.
Question. Could we not arrange to get a great deal more work done
for a great deal less money in our navy yards?
Answer. I think we could.
Question. How can we accomplish that?
Answer. I do not think that the naval constructors-myself, for
instance-are in the position we ought to occupy. I think constructors
ought to be more permanent than they are now. You are aware that
there is no law for our provision when we get old-no place for us.
I hate known an old constructor to be turned adrift without any resources from the government when he got to be seventy or eighty
years old. I think, myself, that there should be some sort of halfpay provision made for us; something that we can look to for our old
age and sickness; something to make us feel, if possible, more like
doing our duty while in active life. What you give us now is liberal -
$2,600 a year-and while we are in active life it supports us handsomely, but nothing more. I think there should be a half-pay provided for us when we get old and incapacitated from doing our duty,
whether from sickness, or otherwise, to make us feel as though we
were properly cared for.
Question. How would we be able in that way to have more work
done?
Answer. In this way: I was just putting in a word for the constructors, for I wanted to say that much because I think it right, and
proper, and necessary. Personally, I care but little about the matter,
but I think it should be as I have said.  I think these master work



BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     295
men should be subject entirely to the constructors; that the whole
preparing and constructing of ships should be under their control
entirely, with that of the commandant of the station, of course; and
then I think the constructors should be held responsible for all that
is done under them, for the cost of the ships built, in labor and
material both. He should have the appointing power of the master
workmen, so as to have the best of men at work under him.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Do you think there is ever any hope of doing anything
either properly or economically in the yard as long as the men are
taken in and put out according to their politics, being judged by
a different rule or standard of politics, even then, every four years?
Answer. I do not think that politics should ever have anything to
do with the management of a navy yard. Our work in the navy yard
is done more thoroughly than in outside yards; but if you want to
make your ships come cheaper, let the power be given to the constructor, and hold him personally responsible for the cost of the ships.
Give him the power to select the men, that he may have proper
workmen upon his ships, both masters and workmen. If he has
a master workman whom he has confidence in, of course he will let
him select the workmen.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. And I suppose you think the constructors should not be
removed at the will of the Secretary, but only upon good cause
shown?
Answer. I do think so.
Question. And if there are good grounds and charges against them
let them be preferred, and if proven, let them be dismissed?
Answer. Yes, sir; the same as any other officer.
Question. In other words, you would put them  upon the same
footing as an officer of the navy?
Answer. Yes, sir; I want to raise one corps and make them responsible. When you give us power to select the proper men and masters
to do the work your ships will then be built and fitted twenty-five
per cent. cheaper than now.
By the Chairman:
Question. H-as your attention been particularly called to the cofferdam being built under the supervision of the constructing engineer,
for the launching ways?
Answer. Yes. sir.
Question. Will that answer the purpose for which it is being built?
Answer. I have not examined it thoroughly. I notice the cofferdam, for I pass by it ten or fifteen times a day. It looks to me as
though it was going on in a proper manner.
Question. In your judgment, will it answer the purpose for which
it was intended?
Answer. If it is completed as it has gone on thus far, I think it
will.
Question. In your judgment, should the launching ways have been
commenced upon the outer or the upper part?




296                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I think the construction of the outer or lower end of the
launching way was properly commenced in the spring of the year, so
that the work upon it could be done in summer, and more economically than in winter.
Question. How was it commenced?
Answer. I think that both ends were commenced about the same
time.
Question. When were they commenced; in the winter?
Answer. I think they were commenced summer before last. I know
they were at work upon them last winter during cold weather.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Is there any other point you desire to explain or to state
to the committee?
Answer. I do not think of any.
Question. From your knowledge of the amount of work annually
done for the United States navy in the way of construction and repairs, would it be practicable to have that work done at three or four
yards at much less cost than it is now done at all the yards, and thus
to dispense with several yards?
Answer. I think it could, but do not think it would be politic to
dispense with any of the yards, for this reason: contingencies might
arise when it would be necessary to employ the principal number of
our ship artisans who are located throughout our whole extent of seaboard.  Certainly we require no more navy yards.
B. F. DELANO, N. C.
No. 83.-ARTEMAS B. JONES, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
ARTEMAS B. JONES called and examined.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your official position in the Brooklyn navy yard?
Answer. I have no official position; I am a workman under Mr.
Tunrer.
Question. Did you perform the duty of clerk for Mr. Turner?
Answer. I kept his books for him, attended to the getting of the
material, &c.
Question. Do you know at what time it was that John White and
another man there carried off some zinc paint from the yard?
Answer. There was some material carried over to the shell house;
I will not be positive whether it was zinc or lead.
Question. Why was it carried there?
Answer. For the purpose of painting that building.
Question. Is that shell house over at Williamsburgh?
Answer. It is on the Williamsburgh side, but disconnected with
the shore.
Question. Do you know anything about some zinc being taken from
the shell house to the Willianmsburgh shore?
Answer, Only from what I have heard?




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                      297
Question. Do you know anything of Mr. White and 3Mr. Craig
working for Mr. Searing?
Answer. Only that they told me they were going there for that
purpose.
Question. Do you know whether they received pay for working
in the yard for government while they were working for Mr. Searing?
Answer. Their time was docked off while they were there.
Question. Is the time while they were there blank upon the pay
book?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Have you that book here?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Produce it, and show to this committee the pay accounts
of Craig and White?
[Witness produced the book and showed the committee that the
working days of the 2d, 3d, and 5th of July were blank, together
with one-fourth of the 1st.]
Question. Do you know that this was the time they were at work
for Mr. Searing?
Answer. Yes, sir; Mr. Turner spoke to me first of going off to do
it, but then he had occasion for my services in the yard, and he sent
Mr. White in my place.
Question. Have you taken any steps to ascertain when Mr. Turner
was in Washington?
Answer. I knew he was here some time in June last.  I looked at
the register at Willards', and find his name there on the 9th of June.
I remember distinctly of his going on; I think he started on the 8th,
and returned somewhere about the 13th or 15th.
By the Chairman:
Question. Did Mr. Turner receive pay for the time he was in
Washington?
Answer. Yes, sir; it is usual to give masters their time while
absent, if they have leave of absence.
Question. Then, whether present or absent, if absent with the permission of the commodore, they still draw their pay?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is that the case with workmen?
Answer. No, sir; they must answer their call, or their pay is
stopped.
Question. Do you know any cases where men have answered at rollcall in the morning and then absented themselves from work until the
next roll-call, without complaints being made in regard to it?
Answer. That may have been, but not to my knowledge.
Question. At what time is roll-call in the morning?
Answer. An hour after sunrise.
Question. When is the next roll-call?
Answer. At noon; five minutes after the bell starts to ring.
Question. Is there any roll-call at night?
Answer. No, sir.




298                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Then if a man answers to his roll-call you do not look for
him any more?
Answer. No, sir, I do not; I have no business with him any more
after that. As soon as he comes into the yard and answers his rollcall he is then under the orders of his foreman.
Question. If a man went away after roll-call would you necessarily
have any knowledge of it?
Answer. No, sir; but if it was found out that a man had left in that
manner the constructor, commodore, or clerk of the yard would discharge him.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Is it difficult to leave the yard without being noticed?
Answer. Yes, sir; there is but one entrance through which persons
can come in or go out in the day time, and that leads right past the
muster office.
[Recalled after Mr. Crawford testified.]
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you know anything about Mr. Fitzgerald painting his
house last year?
Answer. He told me he was about painting it, or a portion of it.
Question. Can you fix the time?
Answer. No, sir; not exactly.
Question. Was it last spring, or summer, or fall?
Answer. It was some time during last summer; I will not be positive about the time.
Question. Did Mr. Turner paint his house last year that you
know of?
Answer. Not that I know of.  His house is some ten or fifteen
miles from the navy yard, and I would not be likely to know anything about that matter.
Question. Where does this Mr. Fitzgerald live?
Answer. In South Brooklyn, down at what they term Red Wood
Point.
Question. Did Mr. Crawford come on here with you from  New
York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Do you know how he came to be summoned?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. How did Turner find out that Crawford knew any thing
about this private matter?
Answer. Crawford was working there at the time, I suppose.
Question. How did Turner find out that Mr. Crawford knew anything about it?
Answer. It was a common report around that the thing had been
done, and I suppose that Crawford stated what he knew about it?
Question. To whom did he state it?
Answer. I suppose to Mr. Turner.
Question. Do you know that he stated it to Mr. Turner?
Answer. No, sir.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    299
Question. Were you aware that Crawford knew anything about it?
Answer. He told me.
Question. When?
Answer. Last week.
Question. Not before?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. At what time did this rumor get out that this paint had
been carried off?
Answer. About the time that Mr. Fitzgerald was subpoenaed to
come on here.
Question. Did you never hear of it before?
Answer. I saw Mr. Fitzgerald about three or four days before he
came on here; and the next thing I heard he had a subpoena and was
coming on to Washington.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Did Crawford tell you he had ever said anything to
Turner about this matter?
Answer. No, sir; he told me he knew something about it, but he
did not tell me what it was.
Question. Did he say whether he had communicated it to Turner
or not?
Answer. I do not think he did.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did he tell you when you were coming on here what he
had been summoned to prove?
Answer. No, sir.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. You knew he was coming on here as a witness?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you talk with him about his coming on here as a
witness?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he say anything to you about this subject?
Answer. No, sir; I was in company with Mr. Vandervort, and he
was with Mr. Hamilton, deputy sergeant-at-arms.
ARTEMAS B. JONES.
No. 84.-TESTIMONY OF JOHN S. CRAWFORD, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
JOHN S. CRAWFORD called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where are you employed in business?
Answer. In the painters' department in the New York navy yard.
Question. How long have you been there?
Answer. Since along in the fore part of May, 1858.
Question. Do you know anything about the carrying away of some
zinc from the navy yard?
Answer. I do not know anything about the carrying away of any




300                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
zinc from the navy yard, but I was sent around to Williamsburgh
to get a keg of paint to take to South Brooklyn.
Question. By whom were you sent?
Answer. By Mr. Fitzgerald, our foreman.
Question. Can you fix the time when that was?
Answer. I could not fix the time exactly, for I never took any note
of it. I should think I had been there about a month or a little over a
month when it transpired.
Question. Was Mr. Turner in the yard at that time?
Answer. No, sir; not for one or two days previous to that. I know
that on that day he was not there.
Question. You say you were directed by Mr. Fitzgerald to get this
keg of paint from Williamsburgh and carry it to South Brooklyn?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did Mr. Fitzgerald say what it was to be carried there
for?
Answer. He approached me between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock,
and called me one side. I was out of the gate then. Says he, "Here,
Jack, you are a pretty good sort of a fellow, I want you to do a job for
me."  Says I, "I will do it after muster."  Says he, "I want you to
do it right away." And then he went on to tell me that he wanted
me to jump in the cars and go around to Williamsburg by the Washington hotel, and I would find some paint on the dock. This he
wanted me to take down in the cars to Fulton street, then get out
and take the Greenwood cars, go up to Hamilton avenue, and then
take the Hamilton avenue cars and go down to the corner of Hamilton
avenue and Van Brunt street, where there would be a man waiting
to meet me. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I had no money to ride on
the cars. He put his hand in his pocket and took out a 25-cent piece
and gave it to me. Says I, "You will make my muster right?" Says
he, "I will after you go out. " I was glad enough to get out; so after
I had answered to my name I walked around and out of the gate, and
went up and staid around the corner some time talking to some of
my friends. I then jumped into the cars and went around by the
Washington hotel, but I did not see anything there. I then went up
as far as Peck Slip ferry, and staid up around there until nearly three
o'clock. I then went down again and went down on the docks. There
was a place of amusement there-a kind of public garden-and there
was a boat-house there.  I saw a bag there, and I took it up, opened
the mouth of it, and saw what it was; there was a keg of paint in it;
I thought it was white lead. I took it up around through the garden;
there is a gate made there in the fence, and I came out of that into a
vacant lot, and on out into the street. I then jumped upon the cars
and went up to the corner of Van Brunt street according to directions.
I waited there some ten minutes, I guess, when I found that I had a
pretty heavy load for a warm day. I did not know exactly where to
take it. I knew that Fitzgerald lived about there somewhere, but
where I could not tell.  However, I put the bag on my shoulder and
walked away nearly a block, when a man came up to me. Says he,
"Have you anything there for Mr. Fitzgerald?"  Says I, "I believe




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    301
so."  Says he, "He sent me for it."  Says I, "What is it?"  Says
he, "It is some paint."  Says I, "I guess you are the man who is to
have it."  I said that, when he described the thing without knowing
what I had in the bag, and I was glad to get rid of it.  So I made by
the operation half a day's work and five cents, which I saved out of
the quarter that Mr. Fitzgerald gave me, for I did not go near the
navy yard that night. I asked him the next day if he had got it, and
he said "Yes; don't say anything about it."
Question. Did you ever inform Mr. Turner about it?
Answer. No, sir. I knew there was a bitter hard feeling between
Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Turner, and if I gave information of this I
would slip out of work, and I did not know where to go for other
work at that time as work was dull.
Question. Where does Mr. Fitzgerald live?
Answer. He lives in South Brooklyn.
Question. Close by where you delivered that paint?
Answer. I did not know at the time where he lived; but I made
inquiries afterwards, and they said that he lived some eight or ten
blocks from Hamilton avenue.
Question. Did you know that that was government paint when you
were carrying it off?
Answer. I did not.  I had my own suspicions about it afterwards.
I have thought a great deal about it since; more within the last two
or three weeks than before. I never gave a thought to the matter
until after this committee was raised, and I heard that there had been
some charges made about it.
Question. How did Mr. Turner find out that you knew anything
about it?
Answer. I told Mr. White that I could be of benefit to Turner in
that way.
Question. Was that the White that testified here?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you never speak to Mr. Turner upon the subject
at all?
Answer. No, sir. I thought that if I said anything to him, if he
did not discharge me it would create ill feeling between Mr. Fitzgerald and myself, and be the means of my being discharged through
him.  I had to look out for my situation; I have a large family to
support.
Question. You described the manner in which you went up through
that garden round through the vacant lot into the street; did you do
that to avoid being seen?
Answer. I did. Mr. Fitzgerald told me to let no one see me. I
supposed it was because he did not want me to be seen out of the
yard; I know that was my object in trying not to be seen; I rode out
on the front of the car, and if I saw any one that I thought would
recognize mae I would slip into the car until we got by, so that I might
not be discharged for being seen out of the yard, I getting pay at the
same time.




302                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Did you not have some suspicions that it was government property that you were taking away?
Answer. Well, I did not think it was altogether right.  Mr. Fitzgerald was in the yard then, the head of the shop, and I thought he
knew his own business. I did not ask him any questions.
By Mr. Ready?
Question. When did you first tell Mr. White about this thing?
Answer. Since he returned to New York from here.
Question. Did you ever tell Mr. Turner anything about it?
Answer. No. sir; only since I have been on here this time.
Question. Who requested you to come on here?
Answer. I was subpoenaed; I do not know by whom.
Question. Were you subpoenaed at New York?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bocock?
Question. Did you see Mr. White after he was subpoenaed and
before he came on here?
Answer. No, sir; I was working on the same vessel with him. I
think it was about half-past four in the evening, I was working up
aloft, and I saw him go ashore and speak to some gentleman who was
standing there with Mr. Turner, and that was the last I saw of him
after that until a week ago yesterday.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. White has written to Mr.
Turner since he got back to New York?
Answer. Not that I know of.
Question. How could what you told Mr. White after he got back
have got here to Mr. Turner?
Answer. That is more than I can tell.
Question. In your conversation with Mr. Turner, since you came
on here, did he tell you that he had had you summoned on here?
Answer. He did not say who had me summoned.
Question. Did he tell you for what you had been summoned here?
Answer. Nothing more than that they wanted me to tell what I
knew.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Did you know when you came into this room what questions would be asked you?
Answer. No, sir; that is what bothered me. I did not know who
I was coming here for or against.
Question. When did you arrive in this city?
Answer. Yesterday morning.
Question. When did you first see Mr. Turner after you got on here?
Answer. I saw him here yesterday, and I have seen him this morning, outside here.
Question. Have you had any conversation with him about your
testimony?
Answer. No, sir; he never asked me what I knew nor what I was
going to say.
Question. How did you come to tell Mr. White what you knew
about that paint matter?




BROOKLYN NAVY VARD.                   303
Answer. I asked him after he got back, what he had been on
here for; and he said he had been on here about some lead that was
carried over to the dock of Williamsburgh. I said to him that I
guessed I knew a little about that lead myself. He asked what I
knew.  I said I knew where it went. He asked where it went to;
and I said I guessed that that was the lead I had taken to South
Brooklyn. He said that I ought to have told Mr. Turner about it;
and I said that I had never been asked anything about it.
Question. How came it that you did not tell Mr. Turner anything
about it; were you afraid you would lose your place?
Answer. That was my object in not saying anything to him
about it.
Question. Were you afraid you would lose your place because you
gave information to protect the government against loss of this kind?
Answer. I did not look at it in that light; I considered that if I
had told him it would have caused ill feeling between Fitzgerald and
me, which probably would have been the means of having me discharged.
Question. Did you not suppose it would lead to Mr. Fitzgerald's
discharge at once?
Answer. I was not so afraid of him as of his friends.
Question. Has he influential friends?
Answer. I believe he is a man that runs around a great deal to
political meetings and the like of that, and he professes to be quite a
politician.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Did you get your full pay for that day?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did Mr. Fitzgerald make you the payment?
Answer. No, sir; I got my time credits upon the books, and I received my pay at the pay office.
Question. You took your pay for that day?
Answer. Yes, sir.
JOHN S. CRAWFORD.
No. 85.-JOHN VANDERVOORT, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 15, 1859.
JOHN VANDERVOORT called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What position do you hold in the navy yard at Brooklyn?
Answer. I am master laborer.
Question. How many men had you under your employ in November last?
Answer. There were a hundred, or nearly that number.
Question. Upon whose recommendation were you appointed?
Answer. I think it was on the recommendation of Mr. Cochrane.
Question. Under whose immediate orders are you?
Answer. I am under Mr. Graham.
Question. I wish to call your attention to an occasion when you




304                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
and some of your men attended a primary election in New York.
How many men went with you at that time?
Answer. There were probably twenty or thirty.
Question. What time did you leave the yard?
Answer. I took the men after muster, several times.
Question. Have you ever taken them before muster on an occasion
of this kind?
Answer. Once I did.
Question. What occasion was that?
Answer. It was on the occasion of an election of a delegate to
Syracuse, to the State convention.
Question. What time did they leave the yard then?
Answer. About five o'clock, I suppose.
Question. Were they rated as being paid for the whole day?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. At whose request was this done?
Answer. At the request of a gentleman by the name of Fields.
Question. State whether or not Mr. Graham went?
Answer. He did not, sir.
Question. Did he know that you were going or had gone?
Answer. I think not; he usually leaves the yard before that time.
Question. When was he first informed of it?
Answer. I never informed him; I do not know that he has been
informed of it at all.
Question. Do you not know that he knew it?
Answer. No, sir; I do not. I could not swear that he knew it.
Question.  What meetings have you attended?
Answer. They were usually democratic meetings.
Question. In what congressional district?
Answer. Sometimes in Mr. Sickles' district; likewise in other
districts where the men lived.
Question. Was there only one occasion when they left the yard
before the time?
Answer. Only one, sir.
Question. About how many men went at that time?
Answer. I should judge that there were twenty or thirty.
Question. Have you at any time detailed Patrick Larkins to leave
the yard after roll call to attend to your business?
Answer. Never, sir. I let him go once on account of the sickness
of his family, and that was explained in the yard. At another time
he left on his own account, and was suspended for so doing.
Question. Did you not detail him to attend to any matter for
yourself?
Answer. Never, sir.
Question. I will ask you whether you have attended constantly in
the yard since you were appointed?
Answer. I cannot say that I have.
Question. What portion of the time have you been in the yard?
Answer. I generally go there every day, but I do not always
remain there all day.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   305
Question. How long do you usually remain?
Answer. Sometimes all day and sometimes half a day, sometimes
not an hour.
Question. What other business have you been engaged in since
you have been employed in the yard?
Answer. When I was appointed I was in the copper and tin business; I had a contract with the city of New York.
Question. Do you still continue in that?
Answer. No sir; I have finished that contract.
Question. When were you appointed in the yard?
Answer. I think it was in June last, or July, I am not confident
which.
Question. Have you been engaged in any other business since you
have been in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; I have finished up the contract that I spoke of.
Question. When did you finish it?
Answer. It ended in the fall, when the stoves were put up, in cool
weather.
Question. Have you been engaged in any other business besides
that?
Answer. No, sir; no other business.
Question. Where was your store?
Answer. No. 111 First street, New York.
Question. How far is that from the navy Tard?
Answer. I should judge that it was two miles; it is in the seventeenth ward. I will state that I was in partnership with a gentleman
by the name of Kelley at the time.
Question. Were you required by your duty to sign papers certifying to the reports of time?
Answer. In my department we have quartermen over every twenty
men; they had a dollar Eand twenty cents a day, and the laborers had
nine shillings. These quartermen were put in charge of the men,
and at half-past three they would come in and make a report of the
men and say they have been to work upon the dry dock, for instance,
or any other place. I was informed that it was the custom for the
master laborer to sign his name to the blank reports, and the clerk
would put the time on and send them in with the time attached.
Question. You were in the habit of signing these blank forms, and
then they were filled up by others?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were filled up by the clerk.
Question. Do you know whether these blanks have been abused?
Answer. I never heard a word of it until the other day. I understood that there had been a wrong report made by a quarterman, but
on investigation in the yard I found that it was not so. The books
in the yard show that.
Question. How many hours in a day, upon an average since June
last, do you think you have attended upon duty in the yard?
Answer. It is almost impossible for me to state-two or three
hours, or about that average.
20 D




306                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. Upon whose recommendation is the number of men
increased or diminished?
Answer. Mr. Graham has the charge of that. He gives me the
order to increase or decrease the number.
Question. Do you first report to him the necessity for an increase
or diminution.
Answer. It is according to the work. He would send to me that
he needed ten or twenty more men, or to decrease that number, as
the case might be.
Question. Who selected these men when you made an increase?
Answer. I did usually.
Question. If you were there so little, how could you tell whether
more men were needed or not?
Answer. By the representations of the foreman and quartermen.
Question. I will ask you whether you removed quarterman Gallon
from the marine barrack grounds, where he was in charge of a gang
of men, and put in his place David Gow?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. I will ask whether you and Gallon did not make a false
report of time?
Answer. No, sir; I deny it.  That is what I alluded to before.
Question. In whose congressional district do you reside?
Answer. In Mr. Cochrane's, the sixth.
Question. What do you know about Mr. Graham's qualifications as
a civil engineer?
Answer. Personally I know nothing; I am not much acquainted
with him.
Question. I will ask whether at any time he proposed to allow you
to increase your force if you would give one-half of the increase to
Mr. Sickles, or something to that effect?
Answer. I do not know as he has ever made a direct proposition,
but yet it was done.
Question. What was the proposition?
Answer. He said that he would like some of the men.
Question. Did he propose to allow you to increase the force in case
you would allow him some of the men?
Answer. I went to him to increase the force, and he said I could
put on so many and he would put on so many.
Question. Did you agree to that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did he name some of the men?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many men in your department has he named altogether?
Answer. I could not tell.
Question. How many men did he name on this occasion that you
spoke of?
Answer. We put on ten apiece.
Question. When was that?
Answer. It was soon after I went there and took possession.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    307
Question. Were those men needed at that time?
Answer. I suppose so; we had work for them.
Question. Did he allow men to be absent from the yard to attend
political meetings at any other time than the one you have named?
Answer. Never, to my knowledge.
Question. State whether any incompetent men were employed by
Mr. Graham or by you?
Answer. I do not think I could employ any for the work I have to
perform; all laborers are competent for digging.
Question. Do you know of incompetent men being employed by
Mr. Graham?
Answer. I do not know of my own knowledge, sir.
Question. Do you know whether men were allowed by him on the
rolls who received pay without peforming labor?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. Do you know whether men employed at the navy yard
voted in any other district than their own?
Answer. No, sir; I do not.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. You say that you have only spent at the yard some two
or three hours a day?
Answer. That is about the average until lately, when the new
orders were issued. I am at the yard all the time now.
Question. Have you had more men under you than you could conveniently work?
Answer. No, sir; I have never had as many.
Question. When did you have the most men?
Answer. It was sometime previous to the election.
Question. How long before the election?
Answer. A month or so, perhaps. 
Question. Had any 9f them been discharged before the election?
Answer. Of that number, no, sir.
Question. When were they discharged?
Answer. They have been discharged since the election.
Question. Did you recommend their being kept there in reference
to the election?
Answer. No, sir, I had no occasion; the men were there at election
time, and there was no necessity for me to recommend their being
kept there.
Question. Did you put on any men in order to have them there at
election time?
Answer. I was anxious, certainly, to have as many men as I could.
Question. When you and these thirty men went off to attend a
political meeting, did they all belong to that ward where the meeting
was held?
Answer. This was a primary meeting.
Question. In primary meetings, do they not confine themselves to
their own wards?
Answer. They are not particular about it.
Question. Did you vote in that primary meeting?




308                BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Answer. I belonged there.
Question. Well, did these other men vote?
Answer. I suppose they did; they never refuse anybody's vote.
Question. Whether they belong to the ward or not?
Answer. They never make it a question.
Question. Did you ever have more men under you at any time in
the yard than you had work for, or could conveniently and profitably
work?
Answer. No, sir; I never had as many as I could employ in the
yard.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. If it had not been that the election to which you refer
was coming on, would you have taken on the additional number of
men that you did?
Answer. I should, sir, with the recommendation of Mr. Graham.
I had not been in the yard, and, in fact, ever in a navy yard, previous to my appointment, and then only for a couple of months
previous to the election.
Question. You say you should have taken them on upon the recommendation of Mr. Graham?
Answer. I should, sir. He is the one who lays out the work for
my department to perform.
Question. Did you propose it, or did he?
Answer. I have at times proposed to him, and he has at other
times sent to me and told me that it was necessary to put men on.
Question. How was it with regard to these men who were put on
previous to the election? Who proposed that first?
Answer. I suppose Mr. Graham himself did, but I cannot exactly
tell now. I have recommended men to be employed.
Question. And Mr. Graham approved of it?
Answer. Yes, sir, and likewise the commandant.
Question. You recommend the men, and Mr. Graham approves,
and then the commandant approves-is that the way they are appointed?
Answer. Yes, sir, and then the requisition comes back and gives
me notice what time to call these men. I notify the men, and they
come there and answer to their names on the roll, and go to work.
JOHN VANDERVORT.
No. 12. JOSEPH SMITH, NAVY DEPARTMENT.
FEBRUARY 15, 1859.
JOSEPH SMITH recalled.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Are purchases made in the navy yards, and particularly
in the New York navy yard, by the masters and other persons in the
employment of the government, without the intervention of the navy
agent? and if so, what proportion of the purchases are so made?
Answer. The amount I could tell you, but not the proportion. The
bills do not show it. I know that a large amount of purchases are




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                   309
made without his action upon them. For instance, there is a great
deal of machinery there which he did not purchase.
Question. What other article is there which is purchased without
the intervention of the navy agent?
Answer. He has nothing to do with the labor; there is a good deal
of cart-work done, and also repairs at the hospitals. He pays the
bills.
Question. To what extent are the purchases made by others and
not by him?
Answer. The commandant has a requisition made upon him, and
if he thinks the purchase should be made by the master workman, he
marks upon the requisition "to be selected," and a person is sent
over to select the article purchased.
Question. Is that by direction of your bureau or of the commandant?
Answer. By direction of the, commandant, under the general order.
The bureau seldom gives directions to purchase anything of any importance, excepting large pieces of machinery. Sometimes I have
made bargains for heavy pieces of machinery myself.
Question. Why do you not send to the navy agent to make these
purchases?
Answer. We can get them better; we could not rely upon a navy
agent to judge of the value of machinery.
Question. What check is there to fraud and collusion when the
master workmen make the purchases and inspect the articles themselves?
Answer. If the man is dishonest; if he agrees to pay too high
a price, or makes an improper selection; if the inspectors and commandant do not check it, and if the bureau does not check it, it is
a sort of fraud. If we should find out that a man was dishonest in
that way we should try to displace him.
Question. Is there any other inspecting officer than the master
workman, when the master workman himself purchases the article?
Answer. There is a lieutenant there in the yard usually that
inspects generally; but as to machines his opinion would not be valuable upon an important machine.
Question. Do you say that it is chiefly machinery and other mechanical works, which the navy agent is not a judge of, which are purchased
without his intervention?
Answer. Yes,sir; machinery and such articles as tools, &c., "to
be selected."
Question. May not a great many other purchases have beenmade
by those master workmen without you knowing anything about it?
Answer. I dare say there are many small articles bought on open
purchase, such as tools which a man wants to use himself and selects
for himself. He may be sent over by the proper officer to select
them. If the master workman is not an honest man, and chooses to
collude with the seller, he can do so to some extent, but not to a very
large extent. The formal bills have to be rendered and certified,
and that is a check upon him.
Question. During the last two or three years, how long has it




310                BROOKL N NAVY YARD.
usually been after the expiration of the quarter before the navy
agent settles his quarterly account?
Answer. I have nothing to do with the settlement of his accounts.
The Treasury Department do that. I understand that the Treasury
Department allow him one quarter to make up his returns for the
previous quarter.
Question. Under that system, would it not be practicable to bring
into the settlement of a former quarter what had happened during
the current quarter, by making a false return?
Answer. I do not see how it could be done, unless he committed a
fraud, altering figures and dates.
Question. If that were done would it be likely that complaints
would be made?
Answer. The person who is to receive the money upon the bill
which has been approved would certainly make a complaint if he did
not receive his money, unless he had made a bargain with the navy.agent to allow him to retain the money upon paying for the use of it.
If he did that the navy agent might charge upon a previous quarter
the payment of a bill which he had not paid, excepting by a promise.
In case the navy agent should fail in the mean time, this debt would
be still good against the government, I suppose, unless a fraud by
collusion could be established. I recollect a case where the navy
agent gave to the contractor a check, and the check was never paid;
but the contractor receipted the bill.  The contractor made an
informal application for the payment of this bill, and was told that
the government would never pay it, and it never did pay it to my
knowledge.
Question. What check have you to false returns from the navy
agent?
Answer. All the check we have is that he sends his monthly
exhibit and we compare it with our book. We know what money he
has drawn and we know what his returns show as expended, and the
exhibit shows the balance in his hands; if it does not agree with our
books we let hil know it. We see that his exhibit to the bureau is
made correctly, but the accounts are adjusted by the Treasury Department.
Question. Does he send requisitions before the money is drawn?
Answer. The navy agent receives a certain number of bills, and
then makes a requisition upon the bureau for the amount. Each bill
specifies under what head it is to be charged. With that requisition
he is required to send the approved certified bills for the amount,
which must agree with the amount of the requisition before the money
is drawn by the bureau or remitted to him by the Treasury Department.
Question. Are the bills made out in duplicate?
Answer. They are made out in triplicate, and that triplicate bill
must be sent to the bureau before the money can be drawn out of the
treasury; further than that the bureau has nothing to do with settling
his accounts.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD                     311
Question. Do you not furnish to the proper accounting officer of
the treasury a statement of the amount you send to the navy agent?
Answer. No, sir; the requisition of the bureau goes to the Secretary of the Navy, and the amount is charged to the navy agent at
the Treasury Department on the warrant of the Secretary.  The
moment a requisition from that agent comes in, if found correct, he
is charged with the amount on the bureau books; then he must account to the Treasury Department for that amount. This triplicate
bill is not receipted that comes to the bureau, but is approved and
authenticated. When the return is made the navy agent pays the
bill, and the other two copies are receipted; one he sends to the
Treasury Department as a voucher, and the other he keeps as his
own voucher.  The bill sent to the bureau is only an evidence that
he is called upon to pay certain bona fide claims against the government.
Question. Is Mr. Chandler, of the Portsmouth navy yard, a relative of yours?
Answer. Not at all, either by consanguinity or marriage.
Question. Have complaints been made of Mr. Chandler for the
last two or three years? if so, what has been done with those complaints?
Answer. There have been complaints made to the Secretary of the
Navy of Mr. Chandler, anonymously and otherwise, which were re 
ferred to me. I sent them to the Portsmouth navy yard for explanation, and, so far as I remember, they were satisfactorily explained.
By the Chairman:
Question. At the end of schedule B, attached to your deposition,
of the amount of purchases under contract, and by open purchase,
you add that this includes the cost of coal; please to state whether
it includes any purchases of coal at New York?
Answer. No, sir; that coal was not purchased by the navy agent;
it was purchased by the coal agent at open purchase. It appears in
the navy agent's accounts, although not purchased by him. Bills are
frequently paid by navy agents for articles purchased and delivered
at other yards.
Question. Does it appear in the accounts of the navy agent at
New York?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think it does.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Had Mr. Tyson, the former navy agent, a partner in the
business?
Answer. I do not know.
By the Chairman:
Question. At the time the oakum spinners were put on in the navy
yard last fall, did you receive any orders from the Secretary in regard
to it?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. What were those orders?
Answer. To employ them.




312                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were those orders verbal or written?
Answer. Written.
Question. Are' they on file in your office?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By the Chairman:
Question. Please state the circumstances connected with the order.
Answer.. Mr. Florence said the master workman wanted more men,
that there was a great call for men there, and asked me if I would
order them on. I told him it was not the province of the department to put men on to the work or to give directions with regard to
it. The authorities at the yard employed the men. He said they
wanted more men; I said that if an order was wanted, he must go to
to the Secretary. He addressed a letter to the Secretary, which the
Secretary sent over to me, with an endorsement upon it requiring
that the men should be employed. I do not remember the wording
of it exactly.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Please furnish a copy of that letter, with the endorsements upon it.
Answer. [See Appendix attached to this deposition.]
JOS. SMITH.
"WASHINGTON, August 4, 1858.' MY DEAR SIR: The severity of the times prompts me to solicit that
eighty persons may be employed in spinning oakum in the navy yard
at Philadelphia. No detriment to the public interests will result
from this, the only effect being to provide enough oakum in a shorter
space of time than if a less number were now given employment.
The relief given by this employment for several weeks will be hailed
with joy by those who are the recipients of its advantages.
"Very respectfully,
"THOMAS B. FLORENCE.
" Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
"Secretary of the Navy."
Endorsed on back of this letter:
"Referred to Bureau of Yards and Docks, by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, to dispose of accordingly.
"C. W. W."
"NAVY DEPARTMENT, August 5, 1858."
Endorsed: " Order accordingly.
"J. S."
Endorsed on a slip of paper, in pencil:
"The master workman having made a requisition for eight) additional pickers, you will see that it is complied with."




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     313
No. 90.-WILLIAM B. MACLAY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 16, 1859.
WILLIAM B. MACLAY called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What is your residence and official position?
Answer. My residence is in the city of New York; I am  a representative in Congress from the 5th congressional district in that State.
Question. Is there any explanation you desire to make with regard
to any matters connected with this investigation?
Answer. There has been a good deal said in the papers in which
my name has been mixed up, much, if not all of which, has been very
erroneous and unfounded. If there has been anything in the course
of the testimony requiring explanation, I am desirous to testify upon
it.  One thing I wish to state; Mr. James Murphy, who is the contractor for the house to which was awarded the building of the boiler
and engines of the Brooklyn, is one of my constituents; he is a neighbor of mine, and a personal and political friend; in justice to him, as
well as to myself, I wish to say, that for none of his contracts, and
he has had several, I think, have I ever applied to any one in his behalf, or interfered in any way. He said to me one day, upon my meeting him, I have made an application so and so, or intend to make an
application, do me what good you can if you should be in Washington. It so happens that I have never made any application for him.
I suppose there is testimony here with regard to the charge that the
number of men in the Brooklyn navy yard was increased previous to
the elections; I wish to state that I have never sought any increase of
the men in our navy yard in any way, nor have I ever interfered with
the discipline of the yard; when a person comes to me for employment, I write a note suggesting his name to the master workmen; but
I have been very careful on such occcasions, when I was ignorant of
the state of the work, to inquire whether they were taking on hands
in that department in which employment was sought; if they said that
they were, I would give them a note; but if they said they were not,
I would refuse, invariably. I have been elected many times from that
part of the city; and it has often been asserted that I was very much
indebted to that influence for my several elections. So far from that
being the case, it is an injury always to any candidate.
Question. Have you ever had any controversy with the other members from New York about the division of patronage there?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you taken pains to learn the qualifications of men
before recommending them?
Answer. I am acquainted with most of the men; I was born in that
part of the city, and have represented it for a long time; I have been
five times elected their representative in Congress, and six times a candidate; and was previously four times a candidate for the State legislature, and three times elected; in most cases, I knew the men. I have
never recommended a man whom I knew to be incompetent or not
qualified.




314                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Question. When a. man has been recommended by you, and has
afterward been found incompetent, have you ever insisted upon keeping in the man?
Answer. No, sir; on the contrary, when the master was making a
discharge, and wished me sometimes to designate the men whom I
wished retained, I have always said, "retain those who are best for
the service, and who are men of families," and would sometimes, but
very rarely, indicate those personally known to me as coming under
this description.
Question How long have you been acquainted with the mangement
of the yard?
Answer. Since 1842.
Question. What change, if any, has taken place in the meantime
in the management, mode of making appointments, &c.?
Answer. I do not think there has been any change.
Question. How long have appointments been made there upon political recommendations?
Answer. I cannot speak of it previous to the date I mentioned; at
that time, 1842, or 1843, Mr. Henshaw was Secretary of the Navy, I
was representative in Congress; upon one occasion there were a great
many applications for the place of masters; the Secretary finally concluded that he would make the appointments upon the recommendation of the then members of Congress from Brooklyn, who were Henry
C. Murphy, and myself; he said if we would look carefully over the
matter, and write a joint letter making recommendations, he would
make the appointments. Mr. Murphy and I, thereupon very carefully
selected some ten or twelve masters, who remained in office during
the remainder of the administration of Mr. Tyler, and the whole of
Mr. Polk's. They were removed after the incoming of the succeeding
administration, that of Mr. Fillmore.
Question. Do you know whether appointments were made upon
political grounds during the administration of Mr. Fillmore?
Answer. Yes, sir; they were made on that ground.
Question. How does the efficiency of the yard, at the present time,
compare with what it was when you first knew it?
Answer. I have seen no change in that respect. There is a greater
pressure for employment; but whether it is owing to the depression
in the different trades or not, I cannot tell; or whether it is owing to
a more extended practice of calling upon members of Congress for
employment.
Question. Do you think that the men work as much now as they
formerly did?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think they do.
Question. Do you think as much work is done in proportion to the
number of men in the yard?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Are you frequently in the navy yard?
Answer. I go there occasionally, not frequently. I live right opposite, and I go over there in any case of peculiar hardship. There
were many such cases among the ship-carpenters for instance, from




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     315
their want of employment, and when they were men of families, I
would sometimes go over and make application for them.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Have you given this subject sufficient attention to be able
to suggest any change which might properly be made?
Answer. I have not given much reflection to the subject, but it has
occurred to me that the number of masters might be reduced with advantage to the government. I think all those that are in what is
called the department of construction, the ship-carpenter, joiner,
blacksmith, &c., might well be retained, and the others might be dispensed with.  The duty of employing those who work at the yard
might be also devolved on one person-the commodore or naval constructor. In this way, two important objects would be secured-system and responsibility.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question A great deal has been said with reference to giving the
patronage to democrats, I wish you to state what has been the practice
ever since you have been acquainted with it in that particular? Do
you know of any difference in the practice upon either side?
Answer. No, sir; the democratic party has the advantage in this
respect. Society in New York is divided politically by geographical
lines, and by divisions of employment. Upon the one side the commercial and trading classes are enlisted, uniformly almost in opposition to the democratic party.  On the other hand the mechanical and
laboring classes are as uniformly democratic.  My district is opposite
the navy yard. If you draw a line running along by the river, and
around the point of the block between the line and the river, the
mechanical and laboring classes reside, and the democratic party is
found in great strength.  In Mr. Kelly's former district, and in my
own, living near the navy yard these men would naturally seek for
employment there when not employed elsewhere. In a political point
of view, I regard it as of no service to any party.  There is an incidental advantage to the democratic party when trade is depressed,
because furnishing these men with employment in the navy yard prevents them from seeking it abroad, and they do not lose their votes.
But that advantage is more than counterbalanced by the ill-blood and
disappointment among the masses in want and unemployed. A discrimination must be made, and where employment is found for twenty
men, for example, 80 or twice that number are necessarily disappointed.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Would it not be better for the yard to have done with
that business of politics upon both sides in the employment of men?
Answer. Yes, sir, I think it would; it certainly would be much
more pleasant for the representatives, to whatever party they may
belong.
W. B. MACLAY.




316                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 92.-ROBERT LEIGH, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 17, 1859.
ROBERT LEIGH called and examined.
By the Chairman:
I have been requested to ask you some questions in this list: we
have about closed up our testimony, but you can take these questions
and write out the answers yourself.
Question. What is your business?
Answer. I am a civil engineer, but am acting as draughtsman in
the office of Mr. Graham, constructing engineer, navy yard, New
York.
Question. How long have you been attached to that navy yard?
Answer. About four years; a portion of the time as draughtsman
and a part of the time as assistant engineer.
Question. How does Mr. Graham's management of his department
compare with that of his predecessors?
Answer. It is, I think, fully equal if not superior to theirs.
Question. Is he careful in the selection of the men he employs?
Answer. He is as far as the choice rests with him; and I know that
his great anxiety and difficulty has been to get good workmen.
Question. Have you ever known him to retain a man on political
grounds alone?
Answer. No. On the, contrary, I have often known him to discharge men, when circumstances required it, in spite both of the
strongest friendly and political feelings.
Question. In his difficulties with the master workmen has he been
influenced by political ambition or a sense of duty?
Answer. I think entirely from a sense of duty.
Question. Is Mr. Graham regular in his attendance at the yard?
Answer. He is very regular; never, in fact, absent a day unless
detained away by sickness, or, as in the present instance, absent on
leave.
Question. Does he attend to any private business away from the
yard?
Answer. I am satisfied he does not.
Question. Does he appear to understand his duties as constructing
engineer?
Answer. I think he does sufficiently well, and is undoubtedly well
qualified for the position he occupies.
Question. Are you familiar with the method he has adopted in constructing the " launching-ways?"
Answer. With respect to the launching-ways, I have to say that
the construction is perfectly correct and the work has been well conducted. I have, moreover, heard many express their appreciation;
and the naval constructor, who may be presumed to be an authority
in such a case, has often expressed his approbation.
Question. Was it judicious to commence the work in the ship-house
first?
Answer. I have heard it charged that Mr. Graham commenced the




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                      317
work at the wrong end; but as that could not have been made by an
engineer, it is not worth noticing, other than to say that the chief
reason why the work inside the house was first commenced was that
it was considered politic to advance in such a way that a vessel could
be built at short notice, and may, in fact, be constructed now; whereas,
had the outer end been first commenced, it might have taken three or
four years to complete it sufficiently.
Question. What do-you think of the relative merits of the coffer
dam and diving-bell?
Answer. I have no hesitation in saying, and I have consulted
eminent engineers on the subject, that the use of a dam in building
the launching-ways, is perfectly proper, and to be preferred to a
diving-bell. A diving-bell is advantageous where a dam cannot be
used, or is too expensive, and it should have the essentials of clear
water, sufficient depth, and freedom from obstructions below. In the
present case the old piles which are sound enough to remain are in
the way, and the foundation having to be lowered, at least five or six
feet of gravel will have to be dredged up from between them, while,
on the other hand, to pull all of them first would be attended with
great cost. The most vital objection, however, to the diving-bell is to
be found in its use in laying the masonry. Launching-ways require
unusual and unquestionable stability, and I would be unwilling to
trust any man to lay stone for such a purpose out of the reach of my
own eye, as the depth of water to be worked in will vary from nothing
to fourteen or fifteenfeet in a distance of about 200 feet, it is evident
that a dam must be used for a portion at least; and Mr. Graham, in
a just discretion, has availed himself of this plan as far as was judicious.
Question. Is the coffer dam now being built constructed on correct
principles, and calculated to answer the purpose for which it is
intended?
Answer. Yes; it is properly formed and can be made to sustain
any amount of pressure.  To insure the proper construction of this, I
am aware that Mr. Graham insisted upon the appointment of an old
and experienced dock builder as foreman over it.
Question. What are the apparent relations of Mr. Graham and Mr.
Hastings?
Answer. They are simply those of ordinary civility, and there is
little official intercourse between them.
Question. What duties does Mr. Hastings perform?
Answer. He inspects all articles sent into the yard for the department and supervises the machinery, &c.
Question. Are those all the duties of an assistant?
Answer. They are not.
Question. What are they?
Answer. To prepare plans, estimates, and reports, and superintend
the various works in progress, under the direction of the engineer.
Question. Who performs those duties now?
Answer. I do.
Question. What experience have you had in engineering?
Answer. I have been an engineer for some twenty years, and have
been engaged in the usual variety of works belonging to that position
for such period.                             ROBERT LEIGH.




318                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 93.-SIMEON COAPMAN, BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
FEBRUARY 18, 1859.
SIMEON COAPMAN called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Brooklyn..
Question. In what business are you engaged? 
Answer. Dock builder.
Question. Who is the head of your department?
Answer. Mr. Murphy is master dock builder; Mr. Graham is the
Chief engineer.
Question. Have you been engaged in the construction of some
launching ways?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are you a judge of such work?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How long have you been engaged on that sort of work?
Answer. I commenced at it more than a year ago, and better.
Question. How long have you been employed on similar work?
Answer. For the last year back; I do not recollect exactly at what
time I commenced at it.
Question I do not think that you understand me exactly.  How
much of your life have you been employed at that business?
Answer. About thirty-five years; I was master-workman for thirtythree years, and I was master dock builder in the navy yard from
1844 until now, with the exception of some two years.  Mr. Murphy,
after he had been in about a year and a half; sent for me to be foreman under him.
Question. What do you think of the launching ways in plan and
in execution?
Answer. The plan is proper enough; it is not compl ted yet, but I
see no difficulty in the work so far as it has gone. It is a very difficult undertaking. A wharf has been there for some thirty or forty
years, and it must all be taken away; some portions from thirty
feet under water and mud, and that makes it a very tedious piece of
work.
Question. Now in regard to the place where you commenced the
work; was it commenced at the right or at the wrong place?
Answer. The principle is the right one. I have done such things
before. I have built coffer dams before, and have always constructed
them in that same manner.
Question. What I mean is, did they commence building the ways
at the right place?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Would you not have saved expense and material by commencing at the other end?
Answer. As to that I could not say exactly. It would be as well
constructed in one way as the other. The idea of the plan, when it first
commenced, was to have put it down with a diving bell, but they




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                    319
found that they could not do that. Then they had to put down this
coffer dam around the work, because the old dock cou'd not be removed
-with the bell.
Question. Did you fail with the diving bell because it was unsuited
to the work, or because your master-diver was an unskilful man?
Answer. He was a skilful man enough, but the end of the ways had
to be built right where the old dock stood, and where there was a
large amount of mud, which could not be removed under the bell. All
this had to be removed, in order to prepare a place to put down the
stone.
Question. And under the circumstances, you say it was necessary
to build a coffer dam?
Answer. I think it was. I was down in the bell frequently, and I
concluded that that would have been a very poor mode to carry on
that work. It might have been because I was not so accustomed to
the diving bell as other men were, but I had laid down such ways"
as this one was. Removing the old dock with the bell was the difficulty. There was some thirty or forty feet of earth, mud, and stone
to be removed, and the bell could not do it.
Question. How far has that work progressed now?
Answer. The coffer dam is rather more than half built. But we
did away with the bell. We took a new dredge we have there, and
that works a great deal faster than we could have done the other way.
Question. Has there been much loss of material and labor in the
construction of that coffer dam?
Answer. I do not think there has been anything wasted there. I
do not think there will be any loss. The material there used will certainly be fit to be used again when it comes to be removed.
Question. Has this work of the coffer dam and the launching ways
advanced so far as to enable you to say that it will be a successful job?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think so. I have constructed enough of such
work to be able to judge, I think. Mr. Murphy is the master dock
builder, however; I am merely foreman.
Question. Do you know who planned this work-Mr. Murphy or
Mr. Graham?
Answer. It was planned before Mr. Murphy was appointed master
dock builder.
Question. Who planned it?
Answer. I think it was planned through the means of the draughtsman of the yard, and the naval constructor, Mr. Delano. That is
what I have understood, but I cannot say of my own knowledge.
Question. Have you enough knowledge about the matter to be able
to say what, in a general way, is the character of the work done under
Mr. Graham since he has been there?
Answer. So far as the launching ways have been completed, everybody remarks that it is a splendid piece of work.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Graham  has ever planned or
conducted any work wholly by himself?
Answer. I cannot say. I have not been in the office much since I
was master dock builder. I am now only foreman, and have no particular business about the office.




320                 BROOKLYN NAYY YARD.
Question. How often do you see Mr. Graham there superintending
that work?
Answer, Generally about, say four days in the week, but he passes
frequently.
Question. Where is he on the other days of the week?
Answer. He is in his office. I mean that he comes down to examine the work four days in the week. As I am never in the office,
I cannot say what he is doing there. Since I have not been master
dock builder I do not frequent the office as I did before.
Question. Do you know what Mr. Graham's general reputation is?
Answer. No, sir; I never heard of the man until he was spoken of
in connexion with the office of engineer in that yard.
SIMEON COAPMAN.
No. 94.-GEORGE A. BLOOD, FAIRMOUNT, NEW YORK.
FEBRUARY 18, 1859.
GEORGE A. BLOOD called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Where do you reside?
Answer. In Fairmount, Westchester county, New York.
Question. What official position do you hold?
Answer. I am chief clerk in the navy agent's office, New York city.
Question. How long have you held that position?
Answer. For five years.
Question. The same position-that of chief clerk?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. As chief clerk at that office, do you have the superintendence of the keeping of the books, and the making out of the
accounts?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Are you entirely familiar with the manner in which the
accounts of that office have been kept?
Answer. Entirely so.
Question. What have you to say about the general manner in which
the business of that office has been conducted, and the accounts have
been kept?
Answer. It has always been conducted in the most proper manner,
Question. Have all the accounts been kept strictly, accurately, and
correctly?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is it not the fact that your quarterly returns are delayed
very much, some times after they should have been sent in; for
instance, the accounts for the quarter ending in December, are they
not sometimes delayed until the 15th of the month, or until January
and even February?
Answer. Yes, sir; we have three months allowed us in which to get
up our accounts. There is an immense deal of work to be done about
them, and we cannot get them off sometimes for two or three months.
There are two or three of us at work, and it takes us all two or three
months to get the accounts made up and sent off.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       321
Question. How often has it been the case that in stating your
quarterly returns, and in sending in your vouchers, consisting of
receipts for moneys paid to the department, you have entered in one
quarter as credits to the navy agent accounts paid subsequently to that
quarter?
Answer. That has never been the case.
Question, Do you say it has never been the case within your
knowledge?
Answer. Yes, sir, I do.
Question. When was Mr. Swackharmer in your office as subordinate
to the chief clerk?
Answer. His brother brought him  into the office when he was
appointed navy agent.  He had been previously brought up on a farm
until his brother took the office, and he knew nothing at all of accounts
when he came into the office. I had the sole control and keeping of
the accounts of the office, and always have had since I have occupied
the position of chief clerk.
Question. Do you say he knew nothing of accounts?
Answer. Yes, sir; I may say so.  He knows very little indeed of
accounts.  He is a person who has not been brought up to any such
business.
Question. What particular branch of the duties of the office did he
have in charge?
Answer. He was employed principally to make out requisitions.
Requisitions are made in the yard upon us, and we make requisitions
upon contractors or other parties for the furnishing of articles.
Question. Have you never ante-dated receipts for money paid; or
post-dated them?
Answer.  We have sometimes dated them in this way, and that is
probably what led Mr. Swackhamner to make the statement hedid,
according to what I saw in the New York Herald-that the navy agent
had mis-stated his accounts. In the hurry of business, we frequently
pay bills without entering them  at the time they are paid.  For
instance, a person comes in with some bills for payment, I draw the
check for the money, and he receipts the bills and goes off, while tha
bills themselves may not be charged in the books for two or three days.
Still that is no reason, so far as I can see, why Mr. Swackhamer should
have made the statement he did.
Question. You say that those bills are sometimes entered in the
book several days after they are paid, and in that way the receipts
appear to have been ante-dated?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Is that only because they are not entered in the book at
the time they are paid?
Answer. Yes, sir; they are not entered on account of the hurry of
business. Sometimes one party may have twenty or thirty bills. The
entering of these bills requires a great deal of labor, as a great portion of each bill must be included in the entry made. Each entry must
state the articles furnished, the contract under which it is furnished,
the station where delivered, the appropriation from which it is to be
paid, the bureau under which it has been ordered, the gross amount
21 D




322                  BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
of the bill, the amount reserved, if any, and the amount paid.  Each
entry must state all that. It is necessary that it should be entered
in that way; and sometimes, in the hurry of business, bills are paid
without being entered upon the books for several days.
Question. How often has it been the case that, when you have sent
on requisitions here and obtained the money to pay particular bills,
you have used that money, not to pay the bills sent to the department,
but to pay other accounts which have not been stnt on to the department?
Answer. We have not done that.
Question. In no case?
Answer. No, sir; I think not. The only time that there has been
any disarrangement about the payment of bills was the time the
treasury not(s were issued. Then the Secretary sometimes embodied
two or three different requisitions into one; I would run on the specie
for one requisition, and the treasury notes for another.  Mr. Sanders
was requested to have the specie divided among the different creditors,
and, therefore, upon our receiving the specie, we have paid each one
their proportion of it, and then they had to wait a few days until the
treasury notes were received, when they would be paid the balance.
Question. In what way has the navy agent, so far as you know,
ever used the money of the government for his own benefit or advantage, beyond the strict requirements of his duty?
Answer. In no way that I am aware of. I think I should certainly
have known it if he had done so.
Question. In what way has he used the money of the government
for his own advantage?
Answer. He has never used it to his own advantage that I know of.
Question. Has he not paid accounts before they were due, and got
a percentage upon them?
Answer. No, sir; not that I am aware of.
Question in how many cases has the navy agent received a part of
the profits upon articles purchased in open market?
Answer. He has never received any profit at all that I am aware of.
Question. Not from Secor & Co?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Is there any understanding that any of the parties of
whom purchases are made shall divide a portion of the profits with
the navy agent or anybody under him?
Answer. No, sir; there is not; I never heard of any understanding
of the kind; I never heard it mentioned or breathed by any one.
Question. Has he received money, so far as you know, from persons
of whom these purchases are made?
Answer. No, sir; not for that purpose.  The only way that he has
received money has been from contractors for having their contracts
signed.  As regards their sureties, it is requested that the navy agent
should certify, to the best of his knowledge and belie', that he has
made due inquiry in regard to them, and believes them to be responsible.  In the advertisements for these contracts it is stated that sonic
one of the officers of the government therein named shall state something of this kind; otherwise, their offers will not be entertained.




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                       323
In some cases Mr. Sanders has charged three dollars for doing this.
Sometimes one man will call upon him to certify as to his sureties in
four or five offers, and then he charges three dollars for the first one
and a dollar each for the others.  It is the usual custom, so far as
I understand it, for those officers of the government who are authorized to make this certificate to make a charge for doing so.  One man
told me that he had paid the district attorney seventy-five dollars for
certifying to his sureties in fifteen offers.
Question. What personal supervision does the navy agent give to
the duties of his office?
Answer. He gives a general superintendence to the duties of his
office.  We have, ordinarily, every day a letter or several letters from
the auditor authorizing the stoppage of allotments.  We term that
the ordinary duties of the office, to which Mr. Sanders gives no attention, but lets the clerks attend to it. But if any matter arises with
the bureau to demand his attention, he always directs the writing of
the letters, &c.  He keeps a general supervision of the business of the
office.
Question. Does he spervise the keeping of books and accounts?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How often is he in his office?
Answer. He is there every day when he is in town; I do not know
that I ever knew him to miss a day when he was in town since he has
been navy agent, except on one or two occasions when he was sick.
Question. What portion of the time has he been absent irom the
city since he has been navy agent?
Answer. It would be difficult for me to say, as I never took any
note of it. I cannot tell you exactly what part of the time he has
been away, because I have never given the matter any thought.
Question. In his absence who performs those duties which he performs when there?
Answer. Mr. Forrest supervises the business' of the office when Mr.
Sanders is away.
Question. Who determines, in Mr. Sanders' absence, the persons
for whom purchases in open market are to be made?
Answer. Mr. Forrest; he says to whom the requisitions are to be
sent.
Question. Are they all sent to Secor & Co?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are not a greater portion of them sent there?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Are not more sent to Secor & Co. than to any other
house?
Answer. No, sir; there is not.
Question. What house gets the most of them?
Answer. Mr. Kennedy, a contractor, receives the greater portion
of them.  He is a very heavy contractor; I suppose his contracts are
larger than those of any other contractor who has dealings at our
office.
Question. Do you say that the greater portion of the articles bought
from your office are bought from Mr. Kennedy?




324                   BROOKLYN NAYY YARD.
Answer. Yes, sir; because most of the articles bought are embraced
in the line of his contracts. All articles of hardware and such like
go to him.
Question. Do you know what proportion of the articles purchased
in open market are purchased by those connected with the yard without the intervention of the navy agent?
Answer. Yes,, sir; I made up a statement the other day, and it
quite exceeded my expectations, for I found that three-fourths of the
articles bought in open market were purchased by the yard, either
with or without the immediate order of the bureau, and cases have
frequently occurred where they have made requisitions upon our office
for articles and we have directed certain parties to furnish them, and
upon their going to the yard they find that the articles have been
furnished by some one else under order from the yard.  Sometimes
the requisitions sent to us indicate that such and such a person is a
contractor for the articles required, and afterwards we find out there
is no such article in his contract. There is a great deal of irregularity
in that way.
Question. Do you know  of any irregularities and abuses in the
navy agent's office?
Answer. No, sir, I do not. The reason why I referred particularly
to this matter of requisitions is, because it has caused us a great deal
of trouble. Persons to whom we have sent these requisitions, upon
hearing at the yard that the articles have already been delivered there
by other parties, have blamed us, in many cases, for trifling with
them.
Question. You have no means of knowing then, when these requisitions are sent to you, that the articles called for have been previously
furnished?
Answer. Nq, sir.
Question. What steps are taken when articles are purchased in open
market, to see that they are put at fair prices?
Answer. I do not know about those purchased in the yard; that is
beyond our office. The first knowledge, generally, we have of things
purchased at the yard is the presentation of the bill to us, approved
by the proper officers of the yard.  In one instance Mr. Sanders did
take exceptions to a bill for some beef and pork, for some $17,000, and
referred it to the department, but it afterwards appeared that the
purchase was ordered by the bureau, and the department sent on the
money to us to pay the bill.
Question. What do you say of Mr. Swackhamer's knowledge of
books and accounts, and his liability to be mistaken in regard to
them?
Answer. I have been in the office with him for five years, and I
must say that I never saw a person more entirely unacquainted with
accounts than he was when he came there. It seemed as if his mind
was not at all adapted to accounts.
Question. Then why was he kept there so long?
Answer. I can hardly give any reason, except that it was a desire
on Mr. Sanders' part not to offend Mr. Swackhamer's brother, or to
cause him any hard feelings.  Mr. Sanders has always appeared to




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                     325
me to be a man of very kind feelings, and in no way inclined to cause
a person any trouble or pain. I will say this, that Mr. Sanders intimated to me, I think the first week he came into office, that it was
not his intention to keep Mr. Swackhamer.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Are the duties of the navy agent such as to require his
daily attendance through the year at his office?
Answer. I should think not.
Question. Are there seasons of the year when his presence is required in his office more than it is required at other seasons of the
year?
Answer. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Is there more or less business done in the office of the
navy agent every day?
Answer. There is a great deal of business done there every day.
Question. Does Mr. Sanders reside in the city?
Answer. Yes, sir; his residence is in West Fourteenth street.
Question. What proportion of his time is he absent from the city?
Answer. I am unable to say, and would not like to state, because I
cannot state exactly what proportion of his time he is absent.
Question. Do you know of his having made several trips to Kansas?
Answer. lie has been there three times, I believe.
Question. How long was he absent?
Answer. The last time about a month, I think.
Question. How long was he absent upon the three occasions, a longer
or a shorter time?
Answer. I think the first time he was away only three weeks; the
second time he was away about five or six weeks.
Question. I do not know as I fully understood your explanation
about the entries being made after the payments were made. Repeat
that part of your testimony again, so that I may get a proper understanding of it; I mean that part about entries being made several
da s after payment.
Answer. Upon our receiving money from the treasury there have
been at times several applicants for money; some of the contractors
have perhaps twenty or thirty bills to be paid, and it is an hour's
work sometimes to enter one payment.  In cases where I have been
in a great hurry I have spread all the bills out before me, taken the
total of all the amounts, and drawn a check for the total; and then
the bills may not be entered for perhaps two or three days, when we
have more leisure.
Question. What is done in the meantime with these bills?
Answer. We put them in the safe where we keep all the other bills.
Question. Are they put in with the other bills promiscuously?
Answer. No, sir; they are tied up in a bundle separately until we
have more leisure to enter them.
Question. Then when you have leisure these bills serve you as
memoranda by which to make your entries?
Answer. Yes, sir.




326                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. State to the committee whether it is usual or not that the
navy agent draws for funds as he needs money to make these payments, or whether he keeps an amount of money on hand sufficient to
meet the requirements of the office?  How is that?  What is about
the average amount of funds which the navy agent has on hand in
his official character?
Answer. We usually make up our requisitions for money once a
week  The bills come over from the yard, and we usually have about
bills enough to make up every week from twenty to eighty thousand
dollars.  We draw for money usually on Saturdays.  All these bills
are made in triplicate, and we can draw no money until one of these
triplicate bills is sent on to the bureau, and the money is only sent to
pay the bills which we forward to the department, except the money
that is reserved for allotments, which amounts to about $10,000 a
month.
Question. Am I to understand you, then, that you do not keep any
money on hand to pay for purchases?
Answer. Yes, sir; we do not.
Question. Your allotments amount to about $10,000 a month?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How often do you draw money to pay allotments?
Answer. Every month.
Question. What is about the average amount of money which the
navy agent keeps on hand for the purpose of meeting the requirements
of the service, as far as those requirements are connected with his
office?
Answer. That is a very difficult question for me to answer. Sometimes we have considerable money on hand, and sometimes our funds
are very low, indeed. At the present time we have a large balance of
money on hand, for the reason that many persons for whom we have
money have not been there to draw it. Mr. Cromwell of the Cromwell
line of steamers receives every month for the vessels which he furnished
the government for the Paraguay expedition, $3,000 each per month.
The money is on hand to pay for this purpose, but the bills have not
been presented, because, I suppose they have not been returned from
the department as approved.  As soon as they are presented they will
be paid. It is very seldom that we have a large balance on hand; in
fact we try to keep our balance reduced by the payment of bills as
much as possible, that being in accordance with the wishes of the
Secretary.
GEORGE A. BLOOD.
Appendix to Anson ferrick's testimony.
NEW YORK NAVY YARD,
Office of the Storekeeper, February 14, 1859.
DEAR SIR: Your committee required me to forward copies of the
blank forms used in the transaction of the official business of this
office, which I herewith enclose. I have noted upon the back of each




BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.                               327
the purposes for which they are used; and from  them, the committee
will be able to understand the whole process of obtaining supplies for
the navy, from the first requisition of the master mechanic to the
final payment of the bill by the navy agent.   You will see that the
storekeeper only receipts, for the delivery, after the bills have been
certified by the inspecting officer. In the Bureau of Yards and Docks;
the constructing engineer generally certifies.  In the Bureau of Construction, the second lieutenant of the yard and the chief engineer
are usually the inspecting officers.
Very respectfully,
ANSON HERRICK.
Hon. JoaN SERMAAN, Chairman, &c.
No. 1.,
This is the form of requisition made upon the storekeeper by the master mechanics and
others, which is countersigned by the head of the department requiring the goods, constructing engineer, naval constructor, chief engineer, &c.; upon which, after approval by
the commandant, the storekeeper acts. If the goods are in store they are delivered; if not,
requisitions are made on the yard departments or the navy agent; or if it be for cordage,
we make requisitions upon the Boston navy yard; if for copper, upon the Washington
yard, &c.
U. S. NA-v  YARD, NEW YORK.
No.
185
There is required under the appropriation for         for              department.
Bureau of
Price  Dollars. Cents.
Approved,
Commandant.
Received from Anson Herrick, naval storekeeper, the abovenamed articles.
No. 2.
This is the form of the storekeeper's requisition upon the timber
inspector for timber or lumber:
U. S. NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,, 185-.
SIR:
Be pleased to deliver
for the U. S.                                                      Department,
appropriation for                                 Requisition No.
Bureau of                                               the following articles:
Respectfully, &c.,
U. S. Naval Storekeeper.
To
Inspector of Timber, &c.




328                   BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
No. 3.
This is the form of the storekeeper's requisition upon the yard
departments for articles manufactured in the yard:
U. S. NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,-,           185-.
SIR:
There is required to be prepared
for U. S.                                              Department,
Requisition No.           appropriation for
Bureau of                                     the following articles:
Respectfully, &c.,
U. S. Naval Storekeeper.
To Naval Constructor, Sailmaker, Chief Engineer, Master of the
yard, &c., as the case may be.
No. 4.
This is the blank form of the storekeeper's requisition upon the
navy agent.  If the goods are contracted for, the storekeeper notes
the fact, and names the contractor.  If they are not contracted for,
the navy agent purchases at his discretion, the storekeeper making
them " open purchase:"
U. S. NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,, 18-.
No.
SIR 
There is required under the appropriation for
Bureau of
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
U. S. Naval Storekeeper.
Approved:
Commandant.
To the Navy Agent.
No.                                                    18
Appropriation for
Bureau of




BROOKLYN NA1VY YARD.                                    329
No. 5.
This is the blank form of bills rendered by contractors to the Bureau of Construction:
[In triplicate.]
U. S. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Bureau of
To                                           Dr.
Appropriation,
185.              Class No.          Contract of                         Dollars. Cents.
Requisition
No.
Having examined the articles charged above, I certify that 
they are of the best quality, and agreeable to the contract.
Inspecting ofcer.
U. S. NAVY YARD,                        185.-Received the above articles, amounting
to                                dollars         cents, on account of improvements, &c.,
(name appropriation.)
Naval Storekeeper.
Approved, 185
Commandant.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,                                 185 
Received of, Navy Agent,                               dollars
cents, in full for the above bill, and have signed         receipts.
No. 6.
Blank bill of reservations on contracts; Bureau of Construction. Twenty per cent. is
reserved on all contracts till the same are completed.
[In triplicate.]
U. S. NAVY DEPARTMENT, Bureau of Construction, 4rc.
To                                      Dr.
Appropriation,
To amount of          per cent. reservations on delivery of                        at the
Navy Yard                       under            contract, dated
18
Class No.
On bill of this date
Having carefully examined the above                per cent. reservations charged in this
account, I certify that they are correct, and that the contract of
for class No.        has been completed.
Naval Storekeeper.
U. S. NAVY YARD,
18
This bill is approved for                                                        dollars.
Comumandant.




330                         BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE                     18
Received of                     Navy Agent,                                   dollars,
in full for the a'bove bill.
No. 7.
Blank bill of contractors in the Bureau of Yards and Docks:
[In triplicate.]
THE U. S NAVY DEPARTMENT, to                                                         Dr.
Bureau of                                    Appropriation for
185
Having examined the articles above charged, certify
that they are of good quality, and conformable to con-  [Signed here by inspecting officer.]
tract, dated 
185. Received the above article  for  (name the appropriation. )
Navy Storekeeper.
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,                              185. This bill is approved for the
sum of                                                    dollars.
$                                                                         Commandant.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE,  rew York,                            185. Received of George
N. Sanders, Navy Agent,                              dollars and           cents, in full
of the above bill.
$
No. 8.
This is the blank for open purchase bills:
[In triplicate.]
THE UNITED STATES NAVY DEPARTMENT, to                                                Dr.
Bureau of                                    Appropriation for
185
$     I
Having examined the article  above charged, we certify       ned by inspecting officer.
that it is of good quality, and charged at the market price.                     officer
185. Received the above article for (name the appropriation.)
Navy Storekeeper.
NAVY YARD, NEW  YORK,                      185. The public exigencies required the
immediate delivery of the articles mentioned in this bill, and there not being time to advertise for proposals, the articles were properly obtained by open purchase, and the same
is approved for the sum of                            dollars and           cents.
$'Comonandant.




BROOKLYN  NAVY  YARD.                             331
NT[VY AGENT'S OFFICE, NxwV York,           185. Received of George N Sanders,
Navy Agent,                        dollars and       cents, in full of the above bill,
and have signed triplicate receipts.
No. 9.
This is a certificate bill where there is no question about market price, where the article
is not contracted for:
IIn triplicate.]
THEE U. S. NAVY DEPARTMENT,
To                                     Dr.
Bureau of                               Appropriation for
185
Having fully examined the above charge, 
certify that it is correct. 
185.                                  Navy Storekeeper.
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,                          185. This bill is approved for the
sum of                                         dollars.
Commandant.
NAVY AGENT'S OFFICE, New2 York,                    185. Received of George N.
Sanders, Navy Agent                           dollars and      cents, in full of the
above bill.
Appendix to Win. Merrifeld.
NEW  YORK, March 6, 1858.
DEAR SIR: On my return here I learn that my friend from  my district have no consideration with you, that I have but one from my
district, and that other Congressmen have their due proportion.
I now inform you that I have the evidence of these facts, and that
unless you immediately write me, at Washington, that you will grant
me what I am  entitled to, and forthwith employ my proportion of
men, I will at once demand your discharge.  I have been forbearing
sufficiently long, and now I will act, unless you deal fairly with me.
Respectfully, yours,
JOIHN COCHRANE.
WM. MERRIFIELD, Esq.
NOTE.-At the time this letter was sent to me I had eleven men
residents of Cochrane's district employed in the smith's department.
I sent a list of the names at the time.
WMi. MERRIFIELD,
Master Smith.




332                 BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
SEPTEMBER 16, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I want you to put on Edward Tracy, of the 11th ward,
whom you know. I must have him put on, and will not be denied, if
you have to turn out a man for him. I want, also, one man for John
Hart, of the 11th ward. They both (Hart and Tracy) will be over to
see you, when I want you not to fail to give each a place. I must
have these places.
Yours, &c.,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Mr. MERRIFIELD,
BROOKLYN, February 15, 1859.
Enclosed you will find the letters sent to me by the Hon. John
Cochrane.
Respectfully, yours, &c.,
HWM. MERRIFIELD.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN.




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                     333
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
NO. 21.-TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. McELHONE, PHILADELPHIA.
JANUARY 31, 1859.
JOHN J. ICELHONE, called and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. Were you residing in Philadelphia preceding and at the
time of the last October elections?
Answer. Yes sir.
Question. Do you know whether shortly before that election any
member of Congress applied for a larger number of men to be put in
to the navy yard than there was needed?
Answer. Not of my own knowledge.
Question. Did you ever hear anything of a correspondence between
the commandant of the yard and the Department about receiving
more men?
Answer. I have heard of it.
Question. Do you know anything of your own personal knowledge?
Answer. I do not.
Question. Was any of this correspondence published in the newspapers?
Answer. Not that I recollect, I do not think there was.
Question. Do you know whether the commandant of the yard was
removed?
Answer. I think Commodore Stewart was the commandant of the
yard at that time; he is not there now.
Question. When was he removed?
Answer. I think he resigned or obtained leave of absence..
Question. Were you often in the navy yard yourself?
Answer. No sir, I live some three miles from the navy yard, and
when I went to that part of the city it was to attend public meetings
at night, when the navy yard was closed.
Question. Who was the officer in charge of the yard last fall?
Answer. I think that Commodore Stewart had charge of the yard.
Bv iMr. Boocok:
Question. Do you know when Commodore Stewart left there?
Answer. I do not recollect precisely; and I know nothing more
about it than what was stated in the newpapers, that is that he had
resigned or gone abroad on leave of absence.
Question. Was that before the election or since?
Answer. Since the election; that is my impression of it, but I cannot be certain about these things.
J J..McELHONE.




334                PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
No. 31.-TESTIMONY OF HENRY S. CRABBE, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 3, 1859.
H. S. CRABBE was sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. My official position is commodore's secretary or conmmodore's clerk.
Question. How long have you been there?
Answer. I have been thirty-five years in the service of the government at the navy yard at Philadelphia, and twenty-six years in my
present position.
Question. Has any effort been made during the last summer or fall
to crowd the yard with laborers?
Answer. I can only say in answer to that, Mr. Chairman, that we
had a very large number of people employed, but I do not know that
any effort was made to crowd it more than the service demanded.
Question. Do you know anything about some fifty or sixty men put
on there at one time by order of the Navy Department?
Answer. I know there were a number, the precise number I cannot tell, probably fifty or sixty, more or less, I am not positive about
the number, employed as oakumn spinners, I think.
Question. State the correspondence that occurred between the
yard and the department in regard to those oakum spinners; the substance of it, as near as you can recollect it?
Answer. Without reference to the record I should not be willing
to state under oath vwhat the correspondence wats; I do not know tlhe
nature of it; I do not know indeed that there was any correspondence,
although there may have been.  Without reference to the correspondence I could not say.
Question. Do you not know that an application was made to the
commandant or to some officer of the yard, to put those men at worlk
in that place?
Answer. I think so; but am  not willing to state positively that
such was the fact.
Question. What makes you think so?
Answer. There is something dwelling upon my mind that something of the kind occurred; but I have no reference to records, and
am not willing to swear positively to the case.  Something dw-ells
upon my mind with regard to the occurrence you mention.
Question. Don' t you know that the commandant of the yard declined
to receive them, and wrote to the Secretary of the Navy for instructions upon the subject?
Answer. I have the same answer to give.  I do think somethilng
of the kind occurred. My duty is to know these things, because I
\write the letters.  I write all the correspondence between the conmmandant and the departmlent, excepting, -Iere professioral matter's
are concerned.
Question. Who was your commaniia.ut,?




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                   3 3.5
Answer. Comrmodore Stewart,
Question. Who is your commander?
Answer. Commander Carr.
Question. Can you remember the substance of a letter sent by the
commandant to the Secretary of the Navy upon the subject of the
employment of those oakum spinners?
Answer. I do not remember the substance of it; if I could I would
acknowledge it at once.
Question. Do you say that you cannot recollect the substance of
that correspondence?
Answer. Indeed I cannot; I have a very large correspondence to
conduct, and it is impossible for me to have any distinct remembrance
of any particular matter.
Question. Was a letter written upon that subject?
Answer. About the oakum spinners?  I think so.
Question. Do you remember the reply of the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I think I do remember the substance of it, but it was
from Commodore Smith, I am not positive about it. It is a very serious
question to me, having no reference to the records; but I think I do
remember that the substance of what he said was that the men must
be taken in as the exigencies of the service required it, or somnething
of that kind.
Question. What reply was made to that letter?
Answer. I cannot tell, sir.
Question. Were the men taken in?.
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Were they needed in the yard?
Answer. Of that, sir, I am not competent to judge.  My. duties do
not qualify me to judge.  That is the naval constructor's business.
Question. Do you know that the naval constructor remonstrated
against their employment?
Answer. I do not, sir.
Question. What did he say about it?
Answer. I don't know what he said.
Question. How do you know that he remonstrated?
Answer. Because I heard him  say that their services were not
needed.
Question. Did not he ask you about it?
Answer. Not the naval constructor, sir.
Question. The men were put to work under the naval constructor?
Answer. Yes, sir, under his authority.
Question. Upon whose recommendation was this done?
Answer. That I cannot tell.  I will only say that the system upon
which men are taken into the Philadelphia navy yard, is that by a
printed regulation of the Bureau of Construction; the plan has been
to make a requisition by the master workman who has the men under
his control.  That is sent to the naval constructor for approval, and
then to the commandant for approval.
Question, I will ask you whether, when the master workman made




336               PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
the requisition and sent it to the commandant, he did not decide that
these men were not needed?
Answer. I do not think by written letter, or anything of this kind;
but I have a distinct recollection of hearing him say they were not
needed.
Question. Did not Mr. Florence appear in the yard and insist upon
their admission?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Did not you know that there was a dispute about it between Mr. Florence and the commander of the yard?
Answer. No, sir; I should not have known it in that case, but if it
had been with Commodore Stewart I should.
Question. How long were the men employed in the yard?
Answer. Perhaps a month, or less; I have no idea.
Question. How long was it before the election?
Answer. It was before the election, but I cannot say how long.
Question. A few days?
Answer. I think not, many days,
Question. How many days, one or two hundred?
Answer. Oh no, sir; something more reasonable than that. Thirty
days, or twenty perhaps, I am not able to state.
Question. I will ask you whether in September last all the departinents of the navy yard were not fully stocked with men?
Answer. As I said before, we had a very large number of men
employed in the navy yard until a very recent period, and perhaps
we have had within the last six months more than we ever had before.
Question. How many had you in September last, as near as you
can judge?
Answer. I think something like fifteen hundred, sir.
Question. What is your ordinary number?
Answer. For the last two years we have had from one thousand to
twelve hundred, probably.
Question. H'ow many have you now?
Answer. From nine hundred to nine hundred and fiftyo
Question. When was the number largest?
Answer. In November last, to the best of my recollection.
Question. How was it between the 1st of September and the 1st
of November?
Answer. It is almost impossible for me to give any answer to a
question of that kind. I know that the number was gradually increasing," but I cannot tell to what extent.
Question. Has Commodore Stewart active charge of the yard?
Answer. No, sir; he has had leave of absence for six months.
Question. When did he leave?
Answer. Upon the 3d of December.
Question. Has any officer of the navy in Philadelphia been superseded during the last few months-superseded or removed?
Answer. Captain Lee was superseded last July.
Question. Do you know why?




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                   337
Answer. His term of service had expired, according to the rule of
the department.
Question. Do you know any other reason?
Answer. Not any, sir, is known to me.
Question. Where is your office as clerk of the commandant?
Answer. In the adjoining room to the commandant's office, with a
communicating door.
Question. You conduct all the correspondence?
Answer. All the correspondence, excepting in the case where
nautical knowledge is required, and then I take the commandant's
rough draught, or instructions.
Question. If I understood you, you said that the substance of the
Secretary's —I mean Commodore Smith's reply was that the men
must be taken, or the exigencies of the service provided for.
Answer. I think so; I do not answer that positively.  That is my
impression of the purport of the letter.
Question. Do you know whether any officer of the navy yard there
had certified that the service demanded these eighty additional workmen?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Do you know that they did not?
Answer. No, sir, I do not.
Question. Was the number sixty or eighty?
Answer. Sixty, I think-perhaps eighty.
Question. Was there any controversy in regard to any other requisition for new laborers?
Answer. There is a controversy about almost every requisition that
comes up for the commandant's approval. He exercises his judgment
about it, and sends for the naval constructor if he thinks the number
proposed exceeds the government wants.
Question. Did the naval constructor object to any others after
those?
Answer. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Question. Did you hear him say anything about this transaction?
Answer. Nothing, excepting about the oakum  spinners I have
mentioned.
Question. After that was any reference made to it?
Answer. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Question. Did you have any conversation with him about it?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did he express any feeling about it?
Answer. No, sir; no further than he said he did not think they
were needed.
Question. Did he say for what purpose they were introduced into
the yard?
Answer. No, sir; not to me.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What particular work was going on last fall that made a
large force necessary then? Was there any unusual amount?
Answer. Yes, sir; for the last two years there has been a very large
22 D




338               PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD,
amount of work at the navy yard. At the time you speak of, we were
repairing the "Congress;" building the "Lancaster," which was
launched about the 20th of October; we were building what the government chose to call propeller sloop No. 1, giving her no proper
name; and also the propeller sloop No. 2; we were fitting out a steamer
for the Paraguay expedition; we were repairing a vessel which was run
into by a United States ship, near Norfolk, a "Richmond" packet. I
believe these were all the vessels on hand: and then we had the incidental work of the yard, as it occurs daily, the clearing up of the
yard, &c.
Question. How does it happen that you are able to get along now
with a so much smaller number of men? Have you a sufficient number of men now?
Answer. Yes, sir; the answer is simple.  Two of the vessels I
spoke -of have been launched, and the workmen are no longer required,
as when they were on the stocks. The "Congress" is nearly completed.  The steamer for the Paraguay expedition has sailed. The
packet ship "Richmond," which we were repairing at that time, has
been repaired and left.
Question. When was the State election of Pennsylvania?
Answer. On the second Tuesday, of October, I think.
Question. When did you commence the diminution of the number
of men?
Answer. Not until after November, sir.  It may have been in the
month of November. I will not say positively it was after that month.
Question. Did you commence the diminution of the number of men
before your work was diminished; or how was that?
Answer. No, sir; after the ships were launched-the last one was
launched, I think, about the 19th or 20th of December-then we made
a pretty large discharge. At all events, after that last ship was
launched the number was smaller, and we have continued to decrease
the number since.
Question. Do you know whether Mr. Florence had anything or not
to do with those 50 or 60 oakum spinners, either way?
Answer. I believe they were put there at Mr. Florence's request.
I had no positive knowledge of it. He never said anything to me
about it.
Question. Why do you think so?
Answer Because Colonel Florence was repeatedly at the yard at
that time, and he may have spoken to others about it if not to me.
Question. The fact that he was there makes you think so?
Answer. Such an impression dwells on my mind.
Question. What has been the management of the yard, as to the
quantity of work done in proportion to the amount of labor employed,
the efficiency and excellence of the work, &c.
Answer. The working department of the yard, by the direction of
the government, is entirely under the control of the constructor, who
directs things as his mechanical judgment indicates to him is proper.
The commandant exercises no control over that department, except



PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                   339
ing so far as the approving or disapproving of the requisitions for
workmen is concerned.
Question. What is the efficiency of the working department?
Answer. I know that the working department is very efficient.
Question. Do you know how the men work, as compared with
workmen outside the yard?
Answer. No, sir; I do not. I have no opportunity of judging how
they work outside the yard.  My experience is altogether within the
walls.
Question. What is the quality of the work?
Answer. The quality of the work performed at the Philadelphia
yard will bear comparison with any in the world.
Question. You have been there a long time, and I should like to
have your opinion as to any regulation by way of reform which could
be adopted by the government.  What could we do to increase the
quantity of work and make the yard more efficient, or to save expense?
Answer. I understand the idea, but coming to me just at once, I
don't know that I am prepared to answer it immediately. It seems
to me that if the commandant were made responsible for the number of
workmen employed, it would be a check upon an undue number being
taken in. At present the commandant has not that authority; at least
he is not the responsible authority. The commandant is not likely
to be influenced by any political causes, as others might be.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. Had you more men before the second Tuesday of October,
or after?
Answer. We had more men in the month of November than in
October, so far as my memory serves me. I shortly since made a
report to Commodore Smith giving a detailed account of the number
of men employed for every half month during the year.  That report
I supervised.
Question. Who determines when you have to increase the number
of workmen, what shall be the number of the increase?
Answer. It ought to be determined by the naval constructor.
Question. Who does determine it?
Answer. You are probably aware that in a navy yard there are
various heads of departments, master carpenter, master blacksmith,
master joiner, master laborer, &c. These gentlemen first make a
requisition upon the constructor that so many men are needed.  The
constructor exercises his authority whether to allow or to disallow it,.
If he approves it, that requisition, in the same shape, is sent to. the
commandant.  If he disapproves it, it is referred back, and the
number reduced.  If he does not disapprove it, the requisition passes
and the men are employed.
Question. It is the master of the several departments, then, in the.
first instance, that determines the number of the increase to be made?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. These 60 men were all going into into one departments
of the yard?




M40                PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
Answer. Yes, sir; under the immediate control of the master
caulker.
Question. Were they all to work in that particular line?
Answer. Yes, sir, and all as oakum spinners. The master caulker
has four descriptions of men; first the caulkers, then the seamers, to
open the seam in which the oakum is to be placed; then the pickers
and last the spinners to spin out the long lines to be driven into the
seam. These four descriptions come under his control as master
caulker.
Question. Did you ever have so large a number of oakum spinners
as that before?
Answer. I am not sure of that; but I think we had, in 1837, when
the " Pennsylvania," ship-of-the-line, was being prepared to launch.
Question. Do you know whether they had reasonable employment,
or not-?
Answer. I do not.
Question. How long were they continued there after the day of the
election?
Answer. That I cannot answer; but I do not think a great while.
I cannot give a positive answer.  I do not know how long.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. What need had they of oakum in the yard at that time?
Answer. We were building ships for the service, and they had to
be caulked. The "Congress" was being repaired, the "Lancaster 
was being built, &c.
By the Chairman:
Question. Was no mechanical skill required in this work?
Answer. Yes, sir; a little, or a little experience.  He must have
a little experience in the matter.  It is spun out into long yarns and
then carried out and put into the seams and driven in with the
reaming iron.
Question. What is the best season of the year to repair a vessel?
Answer. Well, sir, I should say the fall, and I will tell you why.
In the summer season the heat of the sun opens the seam after it is
caulked, and it very often happens that it soon has to be re-caulkedsometimes the deck and sometimes the side.
Question. Is it not understood that the best month in the year for
caulking a vessel is November or December?
Answer. I never have heard that expressed; but my own experience would suggest that the fall would be the best time.
Question. Has it not been very common and customary to send
vessels to the navy yard of Philadelphia for repair within a month or
so before election?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.  They come at all seasons of the
year; at mid-winter or late in the fall.
Question. Was it not done last fall?
Answer. Well, sir, the "Congress" came in there, so far as my
knowledge goes, in June or July; and that is the only vessel sent
there at that time, excepting the small steamer for the Paraguay
expedition, a little steamer built in Rhode Island.




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                   341
Question. Who were the owners of that little vessel?
Answer. I think, sir, a person by the name of Chapin; I do not
know the initials.
Question. Did not that vessel belong to Tyler, Stone & Co.?
Answer. Not to my knowledge.
Question. Had she been used as a coal tug before, between Hartford and Philadelphia?
Answer. She was used in that vicinity; but for what purpose I
cannot tell.
Question. Do you not know?
Answer. No, sir; the only knowledge I have is, that it was a little
steam propeller used in those waters.
Question. What was paid for her?
Answer. I do not know. There was a contract between the Bureau
of Construction and the owners of that vessel, which I never saw.
I do not know anything about the price.
Question. Do you fill more than one office at the Philadelphia navy
yard?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Have you within the last year performed the duties of
others?
Answer. I have assisted at others, but I have not performed the duties
of others.  My son holds the office of clerk of the yard, and we are
very often up until 12 o'clock at night, and frequently until 3 or 4
o'clock.  No one man could do all the work.  At this time, during
my absence, my son is doing all my duties.
Question. Does your nephew hold an office?
Answer. My nephew holds the office of second clerk to the commandant.
Question. Have they not been absent while you have performed
their duties?
Answer. Not altogether; I have had to perform the duties of three
officers occasionally when they have been absent; they have been
occasionally excused by the commandant and I have performed their
duties; but they are'there upon all occasions when their services are
required.
Question. How much of the time are they there?
Answer. They may probably devote one-fourth or one-half of the
time to the performance of these duties, I cannot say exactly, sir.
Question. Do they draw pay?
Answer. They draw their own pay and receipt for it.
Question. Is there any deduction in consequence of their absence,
or are they salaried officers?
Answer. They are salaried officers, sir.
By Mr. Bocock.
Question. What office does your son hold?
Answer. He is clerk of the yard.
Question. What office does your nephew hold?
Answer. He is second clerk to the commandant.




342               PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
Question. What is your salary?
Answer. It is $900 as the Fourth Auditor has decided; but under a
late act of Congress I received a larger salary $1200.
Question. What is your son's salary?
Answer. $900.
Question. What is your nephew's salary?
Answer. $750.
HENRY S. CRABBE.
No. 32.-TESTIMONY OF OVERTON CARR, PHILADELPHIA.
FEBRUARY 3, 1859.
OVERTON CARR was sworn and examined.
By the Chairman:
Question. What is your official position?
Answer. I am commander in the navy, sir; I am the executive
officer of the Philadelphia navy yard.
Question. Where are you stationed?
Answer. I am now attached to the Philadelphia navy yard.
Question. When did you go there?
Answer. The first of July last; I will state that the Philadelphia
navy yard was a little different then from what it now is, from the
fact that the real commandant being old and living out of town most
of the duties as commanding officer were thrown upon myself.
Question. State, if you please, what you know about the controversy in regard to some oakum spinners put into the yard some time
during the last fall or summer?
Answer. I am a little at a loss as to the date; there was a requisition made for eighty oakum spinners; where that requisition came
from I do not know; but the constructor refused to sign the requisition for these men to come in; I ought to explain that this is a matter
which belongs to the bosses of the yard, as they are called, the master
mechanics. the master caulker, &c., and the constructor of the yard; we,
the navy people proper, have merely a sanction; that was so then, it is
not so now. They made this requisition, and it was Brought to me. First,
I believe it went to the constructor, Mr. Grice, who refused to sign it;
the master caulker brought it to me; I was then young in the yard; had
been there perhaps a couple of months, and I said no; unless Mr. Grice
requires these people, I will not sign such a requisition. The sanction
of the commandant of the yard is for the purser to pay; there the
thing stopped; I cannot tell you how or why it was done; for we had
I think, 10 or 15 oakum spinners in the yard; the matter came down
here to the department and we had an order, (I am trusting to memory,
gentlemen,) I think, from Commodore Smith, the chief of the Bureau
of Yards and Docks, which is regarded by us as authority as much as
the Navy Department itself, to take in eighty oakum spinners; I then
went to Mr. Grice and said to him that those eighty men would do up
the work in ashort time; I should have said that these oakum spinners
w homn we had were old salts, who had lost their legs perhaps, because
h is work is nothing but rubbing the oakum upon the knee, and we




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                  343
can employ these men at that.  Said I, if you do that, you will turn
out these people; you will do up the work in a short time, and they
will have to go. The order was issued; these men came in, and did
the work; and when the work was done they were all discharged.
That is all I know about the eighty oakum spinners, excepting that I
may add that in the morning I had the curiosity, having heard so much
about politics, to go down and take a look at these people when they
came in; and they were the lame, the halt, the blind; but they did
the work; I made a place for them until they worked the oakum up.
Question. By whom were these men selected?
Answer. Under the master caulker..
Question. What part had Mr. Florence in this transaction?
Answer. None, that I know of.
Question. Was he in the yard at the time?
Answer. No, sir; I think he was at Washington; I am not sure of
that.
Question. Was his name mentioned in connexion with that?
Answer. Never; he never applied to me, and I never put one in;
but the list came up to me signed by the master caulker, and endorsed
by the constructor, and I think I signed it; for you will find from the
regulations that it is a matter left entirely with them.
Question. How long before the election were these persons let in?
Answer. We have so many elections there that really I cannot say.
Question. I mean the October congressional election?
Answer. My memory is at fault, but I think it was six or eight
weeks after I went there; about the first of September, I suppose,
but I cannot say positively.
Question. Do you know how long they were kept?
Answer. No, sir; but trusting to memory again, possibly three
weeks; the books will show.
Question. Were they kept diligently at work?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was it before or after the election that they were discharged?
Answer. They were discharged before the election. There may
have been some kept until afterwards.  But the work was very soon
done up, and in the sloop caulking now we are using the very oakum
spun at that time.
Question. Could those 15 men you had at the time have done the
work necessary for the yard?
Answer. No, sir; because we were ordered to prepare the Lancaster immediately for launching, and to build the sloop as soon as
possible, and get everything ready for her.
Question. What accumulation of men was there about the time of
the election?
Answer. I think roughly, trusting to memory entirely, 1.600 and
something.  One fact is that we had more men after the election than
at that time or before.
Question. Were more men employed than were really necessary to
do the work then going on?




344               PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
Answer. No, sir, I think not; that is my province; there might
have been a great many men who skulked, for, as you may suppose,
one eye cannot superintend 1,700 men, nor can 40 men do it. They
were immediately under the direction of the master mechanics.
Question, Had you any power in the selection of these men as to
their qualifications?
Answer. None, sir, excepting the sailor gang of 40 to 60 men,
whom I employ about the ships, and anchors, &c., and whom I have
entire charge of. As to the men employed under the master mechanics, the carpenters, &c., none, sir; it is left entirely to the master
mechanics.
Question. Were there any complaints made to you as commander
that some of these men answered to the roll call and shirked their
work?
Answer. No, sir, none; because he would have been discharged
immediately.
Question. What was the object in getting these oakum spinners in
there?
Answer. I cannot tell you that, sir; we obey orders-at least I do.
Question. I ask whether, in your judgment, it had anything to do
with the pending election?
Answer. I give you, sir, the truth in candor; I had been so short
a time there, and was so little of a politician that I knew nothing
about the elections; I do not know; I only know that we have not had
any oakum spinners in since, and I did not order them in.
Question. Do you know Mr. Florence, the member from that district?
Answer. Yes, sir, I know him.
Question. How frequently was he in the yard?
Answer. I have only known him since I have been in the yard there.
It is hard to say how often he was there. I cannot say that he is
more in the yard than Mr. Phillips or Mr. Landy.
Question Upon whose recommendation are the master workmen
appointed?
Answer. I do not know, sir; but I presume it is like every other
appointment under this government of ours. I know they are appointed
by the bureaus.  It comes as an executive appointment.
Question. You do not know upon whose recommendation?
Answer. No, sir, I do not; I have no means of knowing.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. From your knowledge of the condition of the public work
there, and of the time at which these men were appointed and discharged, was the impression made upon your mind at the time or not,
that their being brought into the yard had reference to the election?
Answer. No, sir; in one respect, yes; not as to the men, but as to
the work; because the work was ordered there, and there was the
work to be done. We were ordered to build two sloops.  The work
was there and we had to draw in these people, for instance as to the
piling away of the live oak. If you will allow me I will explain that.
3Mr. Swift had some there, and it cumbered the yard so that I saw
that the men could not come in or the live oak must go out, and I




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                  345
wrote that to the bureau.  Then Mr. Swift wrote.  Pile it, if you can
find a place, at my expense. I acceded to that, the department
approved it, and it was piled away.  The work was there to be done.
My associations are entirely different from those people and I knew
nothing about it excepting officially.
Question. You say these men were the lame, the halt, and the blind.
Did that have the effect of preventing their discharge of the duties
of an oakum spinner?
Answer. No, sir. [The witness proceeded to explain by illustration
the process of oakum spinning.]
Question. Did they work faithfully there?
Answer. Yes, sir, I believe.  I made it my practice at half-past
eight, when I was through my breakfast, to go straight through, and
to go through four times a day to see the men at their work.
Question. Was it necessary to have oakum?
Answer. Oh, yes, sir; you do not launch a vessel until she has been
caulked, sides, decks, &c. We caulk them upon the stocks.
Question. Did the employment of these oakum spinners operate
prejudicially to the interests of the government, or not? Would it
have been better for the interest of the government not to employ
these men than to employ them?
Answer. No, sir; not as to the government. But it was a little
detrimental to those in there who might have been employed all
winter.  For instance, we have a master caulker with but two men
in the yard. The caulking oakum spinners are all gone.  If you,
gentlemen, will give us an appropriation for two or three more vessels,
we have the most of the oakum there, spun already.
By Mr. Groesbeck:
Question. You have an extra supply there?
Answer. No, sir; we have a supply.  We anticipate a little for we
do not know when an order may come.
Question. What is the general arrangement of the yard in reference
to the workingmen, their fidelity, &c?  What has it been since you
have been there?
Answer. That is difficult to answer, because four or five weeks ago
we had an order which makes the management entirely different from
what it was before that.  Before that time, not only in my time, but
under Captain Lee, my predecessor, there was a difficulty. There
had been a fight for a long time, for five or six years, between the
military authority and the political authority.  In other words, Mr.
Grice, and those bosses or master mechanics, before that time, under
an order dated 1855 or 1856, had the management.  It was mainly
under the bosses and under the constructor.
Question. Under whom is it now?
Answer. Now it is under Captain Engle and myself.
The witness was shown the following:




346               PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
CIRCULAR.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, December 14, 1858.
The commandant of a navy yard, at any time when in his judgment
the public interests require it, is authorized to direct the discharge of
any of the men employed in the yard under his command.
He will report to the department when the services of any of the
master workmen can be advantageously dispensed with; also any just
ground of complaint which may come to his knowledge against any of
them.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
To the COMMANDANTS of Navy Yards.
Question. Is that the order to which you refer?
Answer. Yes, sir, that is the order.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. What was the quality of the work done in that yard?
Answer. I can only tell you as regards my own experience in the
vessels in which I have served, and from what I have seen, so far as
my judgment goes, there is none better.  I served in the " Germantown," which was built there, and we were proud of her.  That was
years ago, and I do not know that the skill has deteriorated at all. I
do not know that the work is not as good now as then.
Question. Does the work at present seem to be well done?
Answer. Yes, sir, I think it is good; I see none better. One thing
is to be borne in mind, I am speaking of the hull, masts, sails, and
rigging.  Steam machinery we have nothing to do with.  That is
built outside.
By the Chairman:
Question. What, so far as you know, determines the appointment
of the master workmen: is it political considerations or the fitness of
the man for the place?
Answer. They were all there when I went there, and have all been
there since.
Question. How has it been in the navy yards generally for the last
few years?
Answer. Of my own knowledge I know nothing, but I can give you
the general impression among the naval people that it is a question of
politics.  I know nothing about it, but that is the opinion among us.
Question. Have you any control over their discharge?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Is not that power given under this late order?
Answer. No, sir; that only instructs us to report them.
Question. How are they appointed?
Answer. They are appointed down here, I believe, by the Bureau
of Yards and Docks.  The circular gives us power to discharge the
men, but they are under the charge of these master workmen. But I
am especially responsible for the care of the ships, and I will have




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD,                    347
sixty sailors to take care of those ships.  I am  responsible for that,
and these men are left entirely to me.
Question. To what do you attribute the decrease in the number of
men in your yard? to the effect of that order?
Answer. No, sir; we are worked up.  We have launched the Lancaster and the No. 1 sloop; the "Congress " is ready; we have stored
all the timber, and we intend to make further discharges as soon as
we have cleared the yard up.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. Has it been customary, in the navy yard at Philadelphia,
to introduce an extraordinary number of laborers in any one department and work up a large amount of material, and to keep it on hand
ready for use when called for?
Answer. We never did it before, and we have never done it since,
during the time I have been in the yard.  I do not know the custom,
because I never was at a navy yard before, excepting as a midshipman
when a youngster aboard ship.
Question. Do I understand you to say that since the election there
has been a larger number than before?
Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.
Question. State whether this employment in the caulking department, to which reference has been made, produced any waste.
Answer. Oh, no.
Question. Was it produced at an extra cost?  I wish to know
whether there was any waste of money in that employment; whether
it was anything more -than crowding into that month labor which
otherwise would have been suspended for two, three, or more months?
Answer, No, sir; there was no loss of money or material, because
the material was there and has been used since.  The difference was
that instead of employing fifteen men for three months, we employed
eighty men for perhaps three or four weeks.  I speak generally; I do
not mention that for number and dates.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Do you say, without reference to this order, that you
had before no power over the selection of the men employed?
Answer. None, sir, over the mechanics.
[The witness was shown the following, from the regulations of
1857:
"They (the master workmen) will be allowed the selection of the
operatives to be employed in their respective branches of labor, subject to the approval of the chiefs of departments and the sanction of
the commandant, and will be held accountable for the proper execution of the work under their charge, and that none but efficient and
competent men be employed."]
Question. Is that in accordance with what you state.
Answer. Yes, sir; that produces the idea clearly. The circular is
not in that language.  This says, under our  "sanction."   That
sanction, as Conmmodore Stewart construes it, was an order to go
upon the purser's books, and for the purser to pay them.




348                PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
Question. Had not the requisition to be approved by the commandant of the yard?
Answer. Certainly; but allow me to illustrate. I am, in the yard,
a naval officer.  You, as master blacksmith, say that certain men are
needed, and efficient.  I will not undertake to say that a machinist
or a blacksmith is not a good workman.  The master workman is to
be the judge of that; he is supervising the workmen.  But if I find
him skulking; if he is drunk or disrespectful, I can turn him out, and
there is the authority for it.  As to the good workmen, that rests
entirely with the master workmen, the bosses of the departments
under the constructor. The order of December 14 rather contravenes that article.
OVERTON  CARR,
Commander, United States Navy.
No. 82.-THOMAS B. FLORENCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 14, 1859.
THOMAS B. FLORENCE called and examined.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Did you call upon Commodore Smith, or upon the Secretary of the Navy during the last summer in regard to the employment
of certain oakum spinners in the Philadelphia navy yard?
Answer. I did.
Question. Please state all that occurred with regard to that matter;
your interview with the department, and the result of it.
Answer. I think it was in the month of August.  (I am not very
sure of the date, because, I may here just premise, parenthetically,
that it is no unusual thing for me to make an effort to obtain employment for the workmen of my district in Philadelphia for any department of the government.  I have been at it ever since I have been in
Congress and before.  Consequently I cannot exactly fix the time.) I
think it was in the month of August, however. I understood that the
necessities of the service at Philadelphia would require an addition to
the force of that yard of some 30 or 40 spinners of oakum.  I said
to the master workman, why not make it 80? there are men starving.
My house is run down daily by applications from people absolutely
starving for want of employment.  Why can't you make it 80?  He
said, Mr. Grice objects to it. Said I, I don't understand why, in the
present dearth of employment, 80 people cannot be employed for three
weeks and have the service performed at once, as well as to have 30
or 40 persons employed for six or eight weeks. I think half a loaf is
better than no bread.  I will see if I can't get it done, because I
believe they ought to be employed; and if it is no disadvantage to the
service I will see that they are, if I ean accomplish it.  I came to
Washington, (not for that purpose, however,) a few days afterwards;
and I went to the Secretary and complained to him that the dearth of
employment in Philadelphia was so great that it was an act of charity
to give employment to as many men as could possibly be employed.
If the necessities of the service require 30 oakum spinners, I desired




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                 349
that it might be increased to 80; for I had learned that that number
could be accommodated in the oakum loft; that they could be employed
without disadvantage to the government, and it was right to give them
the employment. The Secretary said he knew nothing about the
working of that department, and referred me to Commodore Smith,
and said that if Commodore Smith, chief of the Bureau of Docks and
Yards, could consent to it, consistently with the duty he owed to the
service, it might possibly be done. I went to Commodore Smith and
told him what I have told you. Said he, will you put that on paper?
I said, yes, gladly enough; hand me a sheet of paper and I will write
a letter to you, and let us give some of these people bread. I related
the circumstances. There was a lithographer, a young man with a
family, who could earn $28 a week by lithographic printing when he
could have the work, but who had been unemployed 13 months, and
was absolutely starving.  Give such a man three or four weeks' bread,
and in that time some turn of affairs might occur by which he could
get employed at his business. While these people were really starving,
it was better to employ 80 men than 30, and spin enough oakum to
meet the wants of the service and end it. That was the case, and twothirds of them, I think, were dismissed in three weeks.
Question. Was that before the election or after it?
Answer. It had nothing whatever to do with the election.
Question. Were they discharged before the election?
Answer. They were; nearly or quite all of them.
Question. How long before the election?
Answer. About six weeks, I think; as many as four weeks, certainly.
By the Chairman:
Question. You handed the letter to Commodore Smith; what then?
Answer. He told me he would make the order; the order was made,
the men were employed, and thanked God a thousand times for it.
Question. Did you have further conversation with the Secretary
about it?
Answer. No, sir; I do not think I saw him after that. I had
accomplished my mission, and I thanked God for it, and I whipped
it off to Philadelphia to give bread to those people; and I will do it
again if the same necessity suggests itself.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were you in the yard while these men were there?
Answer. I am frequently in the yard. I was born not very far
from it and have lived near there all my life. If I did not go into
the yard, the people there would hardly knew why, and their curiosity
would be excited to know what had become of me. I began very
early with that, and am going on with it, and intend to continue until
the day of my death, if I can. I am a sympathizer with these working
people, and I try to be their champion and defender. It has been in
pursuance only of the generous sympathy of the human heart which
has prompted me to do what I have in relation to procuring employment for the working people of Philadelphia and elsewhere, upon my
conscience and honor.




350               PHILADELPHIA NAYY YARD.
By Mr. Ritchie:
Question. Have you never made any distinction between men of
different parties?
Answer. I have generally recommended democrats.
Question. Then your sympathies were upon that side then?
Answer. I have generally recommended democrats; they are generally suffering the most, and have less chance than the others up our
way. I do not know whether in this instance I discriminated at all,
for others may not have applied to me, but I trust that is not a crime.
By Mr. Bocock:
Question. Were any men appointed under this order that were not
able to discharge the duties of the place?
Answer. I apprehend not. The oakum left is always, or is regarded
as a refuge for the halt, the lame, and the blind. The labor is merely
the manipulation of broken up rope. It is a sort of refuge for caulkers,
sailors, ship carpenters, &c., who are aged and'unable physically,
to do hard work. I do not know that they are all democrats, numbers
have got work there who are not democrats. A good many had work
through my efforts, and by the aid I presume of my democraticcolleagues,
who worked during the period before and at this election against us,
certainly against myself. I may as well say this to go with the other.
My own judgment is that a majority of the ship carpenters of Philadelphia are not with us. I think, for I have been told so, they are
mostly Americans; I mean to convey the idea that they in their
political opinions are of the American party, so called; but I believe,
for I have been so informed, a good many of them living in my district voted for me at the last election; indeed I have heard that all
did, with scarcely an exception. There was a peculiar association of
influences that brought it round. These political revolutions are ever
going on; sometimes these influences throw up a different vote. Since
I have been a candidate for Congress, there have been two or three revolutions in the sentiment of the district I represent. I have been
generally thrown up on the top wave, whatever brought it about, and
sometimes I have been aided by gentlemen not of my political household.  I think it was so in the last instance, that I was materially
aided by men not of my party, political faith or opinions.
Question. Do you know how often Mr. Phillips was in the yard?
Answer. Very seldom, sir. I do not think he has been there four
times in his life. I have known Mr. Phillips from his earliest boyhood,
and I have had with him that sort of intimacy that one friend has
with another. I think he went twice to the navy yard during the
last summer, and I do not think he was there at any other time. I am
very sure he was not in the habit of going there. Mr. Phillips and I
differed somewhat in our opinions as to the conducting of the navy
yard.
Question. Was there any addition made to the number of men employed in the Philadelphia navy yard, at the request either of yourself
or of any one else within your knowledge, just before the election?
Answer. By the department, no. I am all the time trying to get
people in. I wrote yesterday perhaps a dozen letters, and expect to
do the same to-morrow.  I refer the matter to the master workmen.




PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.                   351
I am recommending men every day of my life. I have sometimes 50
letters a day, most of them asking for employment in the navy yard,
the dearth of employment is so great. Gentlemen can hardly appreciate the position in which I am placed, unless they occupy a similar
position. In the cities we have all sorts of mechanics asking for work.
In the navy yard at Philadelphia, there was an unusual press of business last summer. There were three vessels-of-war being constructed at
the same time, which was a very rare circumstance, and it rendered
necessary the employment of a larger force than usual. It directed
attention to me and to every member of Congress from that vicinity,
and everybody else who was supposed to have any influence or intimacy
with the master workmen. It brought down hundreds of people who
were desiring to get employment. I never turned a man away from
my door, and they came very, very often. I expect to go on with it
just so far as the government necessities require it. How far they
are required it is not for me to say, the people at the yard are responsiable for that. There was a large force required last summer, and
sometimes I thought they did not take in enough. When I asked for
people to be taken on, I thought they did not evince interest enough
to give these poor people employment, and I protested earnestly
to them many times they did not feel the deep interest they ought to
for those who were suffering.
By Mr. Ready:
Question. It seems to me that the last question has not been fully
answered.  I should like to have a categorical answer to the question
whether the number of men in the navy yard was increased just before
the last election.
Answer. There were additions all along, up to the election, and
after the election. It depended upon the peculiar employment there.
After the oakum spinners were dismissed the caulkers would be employed. As soon as the necessity for them was removed they would
be dismissed.  They were going on employing and dismissing just
as the public emergencies required it.  I know that there were discharges made just before the election of workmen whom the department no longer required.  I cannot answer this question squarely,
because there are spar makers, sail makers, caulkers, riggers, ship
smiths, ship carpenters, joiners, laborers, oakum spinners, and men
of other occupations. When the caulkers were wanted they were taken
in, and as soon as they were done with they were dismissed, because
they could not be employed.  That I know was done.  So with the
oakum spinners; they were taken in, the work was done, and they
were dismissed. I do not know of any one being taken into the navy
yard, especially at that time, excepting laboring men.  They were
needed for the purpose of discharging at that time a large quantity of
lumber.  I was informed by a naval officer, Captain Carr, that two
weeks before the election there were fourteen vessels in the river opposite the navy yard discharging timber, and a large number of men
were required to pile it away. As I had no control over the matter I
cannot say exactly what time they were discharged.  Whenever it
was, I exceedingly regretted it.
Question. Do you know of any person being employed there shortly




352               PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
before the last election in the expectation that it would influence their
votes?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. What part did you take in the controversy between
Norris, and Reaney, Neafie & Co?  Which side did you take?
Answer. None whatever.
Question. WVere you here at Washington with regard to that matter?
Answer. I was here in November, when General Norris came to me
and told me that he was in some trepidation with regard to the situation of his contract or proposal to construct machinery for sloop No.
2, now being constructed at Philadelphia.
Question. Did you go to the department with him?
Answer. I did, and asked that he might have a fair consideration;
that he was entitled to it. The Secretary told me that he should
have it.
Question. Were any political considerations suggested to the Secretary?
Answer. I said he was a democrat, I believe.  I said he was entited to consideration upon that score, but I urged that he was a man
of science, that he had an excellent reputation as a scientific man,
and I thought he ought to have fair play.  I spoke to the Secretary
very candidly about it.
Question. Did other members of Congress take the opposite side?
Answer. I do not know. I merely happened to be here, and General
Norris came to me, and said he was fearful he should not have fair
play. I told him I would see Secretary Toucey about it. I thought
his fears were unfounded. I told him that I thought Mr. Toucey
would resist determinedly all interference with a fair consideration
of the bids, and I had confidence he would do so. General Norris
expressed his fear of improper influences controlling an engineer
officer attached to the department. I assured him, that in my judgment, Governor Toucey would not countenance such a wicked, dishonest, and mischievous interference.  The Secretary of the Navy
assured me he would permit no injustice to be done to General
Norris, but would instantly dismiss any officer who was guilty of it.
I was satisfied it would be so, and gave General Norris the assurance
of my conviction that Governor Toucey would insist upon full justice
being awarded to him by officers under his control. My agency and
interference ended here.
THOMAS B. FLORENCE.




APPENDIX.                            353
AP P E ND IX.
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM: THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKs, January 31, 1859.
Srt: I have the honor to reply to the 10th, 11th, and 12th interrogatories of the committee of investigation, of which Hon. John Sherman is chairman.
The enclosed paper, marked A, exhibits "the number and pay of
master workmen prior to and since the 4th March, 1857, at the New
York navy yard,"' and is a reply to this part of interrogatory No. 10.
In regard to the " mode of appointment, " I state that master workmen are appointed by the Bureau of Yards and Docks, by order of the
Secretary of the Navy.
The  "reasons for changes'  were presumed to be because the
appointing power thought such changes necessary to promote the
general interests of the public service.
In reference to interrogatory No. 11, I state that the records of
this bureau do not show "' any correspondence has taken place with
members of Congress since March 4, 1857, relating to the change or
appointment of master workmen.J'
The paper herewith transmitted, marked B, exhibits the "newoffices or employments, with the pay of each, since March 4, 185T7,'
and is the answer to the 12th interrogatory'.
I have the honor to be, sir, yours, respectfully, &c.,
JOS. SMITEH.
ion1. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretcary of the Navy.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCIKs, Febrtlary 1, 1859.
SIR: The bureau herewith replies to the 8th interrogatory of the
investigating committee, of which Hon. John Sherman is chairman.
"The number of men employed in the Brooklyn navy yard on the
1st and 15th days of the months of October, November, December,.
1858, and January, 1859," is as follows:
Me,.
From the 1st to 15th October, 1858..................            2,365
From the 16th to 31st October, 1858.........   2,414
From the 1st to 15th November, 1858....................  2,488
Fromn the 16th to 30th November, 1858.............              21819
From the 1st to 31st December, 1858........         2,188
From the 1st to 7th January, 1859, as per last returns from
the yard................. t........        1 930
23 D




354                         APPENDIX.
The semi-monthly rolls have not yet been received for the month
of December, 1858, and hence the number of men for the whole
month is furnished.
The causes of the'increase and diminution" were stated in my
letter of the 27th ultimo.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
JOS. SMITH.
lion. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of thle Ncvy.




PAPER A.R-EPLY TO TENTH INTERROGATORY.
List of master workmen at the New York navy yard.
Prior to March 4, 1857.                                                 Since March 4, 1857.
Occupation.                                                  5   
Names.                  $ Me  J                            ames R. McGee When$00                         appointed, &c.y 10
in.. Merifield              3 50                       Win.  Merificld                3 50 Appointed April 29 
Mlaster sbparmaker-.     Francis Phillips cGee            3 50    -Francis Phillips                               $43 50   Appointed April 2, 1853.
Master cooper! —------ Theop. Hardenbrook-                3 50  -------------- Theop. Hardenbiook-                 3 50   Appointed _,  819. 
Master ship joiner —-   Hiram  Funk —-----                3 50   May  18,1857   Hiram  Funk —------                3 50   Discharged May 19, 1857.
Do. —--------------------------------------— do —-— R Romeo Friganzer —..                                   3 50   Appointed May 21, 1857.
Master block maker —- Peter McManus —----                 3 50   Feb. 22, 1858   Peter McManus -----               3 50   Discharged March 3, 1858.
Do -------—. —----------------  --------------— do —---- John Fox —---------                               3 50   Appointed March 4, 1858.
Master calker —------ Henry S. Strickland —               3 50   July   2,1857   Henry S. Strickland —             3 50   Discharged July 3, 1857.
Do —-------------------------- -do —-—. David Hogg —----- -                                                3 50   Appdinted July 3, 1857.
Master painter —----- Lewis W. Berry ----                 3 50   Mar. 18, 1858   Lewis W. Berry —-                 3 50   Discharged March 22, 1858.
Do —----------------------—. — -------------— do —---- William Turner —--                                  3 50   Appointed March 22, 1858.
Master boat builder --- John Doherty —---                 3 50   May  30, 1857   John Doherty —-----               3 50   Discharged June 1, 1857.
Do —------------------------------------------— do —--— James Kerrigan-                                     3 50   Appointed  June 2, 1857; superseded
December 11, 1857
Do. —------- -I —----------—.- --------- Oct. 26  and   Alfred P. Clark —----                             3 50   Appointed December 12, 1857; superDec. 10, 1857                                            seded December 21, 1857.
Do       -         -           - -           - -------  Dec. 19,1857   James Kerrigan.                      3 50   Appointed December 21, 1857.
Master plumber —---- Stephen R. Danegar —                 3 50   May  30, 1857   Stephen R. Danegar —              3 50   Dicharged June 1, 1857.
Do ------------------------------------—. ---— do —-—. A. J  McCarty ------                               3 50   Appointed June 2, 1857.
Master laborer- W-.-~. V.. H  Sharp                                                                  ----- 3 00- do --- mH r300   Discharged June 1, 1857.
Do -----------------        ----------- --------------— do -.     gHugh McLaughlin —          3 00   Appointed June 2,1557.




PAPER A-Continued.                                                                                                   X
Prior to Ma~rch 4, 1857.                                                        Since March 4, 1857.
Occupation.                                                            C
Nmes..                                                         Names                                         W en appointed, &c.
Master dock builder - --  Wilim    oran.-.                     $3 0        ct   2,107WWilliam  Morgan. $3 00   Oct.  26, 1857   William  Morgan  $3 00   Discharged November 4, 1857.
Do ------------------—. —--------- ---------- ---— do -—. —   Nicholas Murphy - -.                                   3 00   Appointed November 5, 1857.
Timber inspector — -Joseph Simmons ----- 01, 050 00   June 25,185'7   Joseph Simmons.  - - -  1, 050 00   1ischarged June 29, 1857. 
Do -----------------—. —----— ~ —---------—. —---— do ------ John Orr ---------- 1,050 00   Appointed June 29, 1857.                                                   M
Master machinist -----------------------------------  July   2, 1858   Thomas K  Faron —-                                       3 50   Appointed July 8, 1858.                               Z
Do --------- ------------------------------  Sept. 30, 1858   ThomasK.Faron.,500 00   Pay rais-ed October 1,1858. 
Master house carpenter —----------------------------  May  21, 1857   Lawrence Cohane —-                                        3 50   Appointed May 26, 1857.
Do —------------------------------ ---    May  21, 1858   John Ross —-------                                           3 50   Appointed June 10, 1858.
Master mason —----------------------------------  Oct. 26, 1857   Elias J. Sturgis —----                                        3 50   Appointed November 5, 1857.
Master stone cutter ------------  ---------- ----------  June  25  and   Daniel Kennedy ---                                    3 50   Appointed  June 29, 1857;  discharged
30, 1857.                                                      November 24, 1857.
Do —- -- -- -- -- -- -- --    Jan. 14,1858   Daniel Kennedy-                                                           3 50   Appointed January 18, 1858; discharged
December 16, 1858.
Master laborer in con-  -----------------------------  Aug. 11,1857   Alexander Ward                                           3 00   Appointed  August 21, 1857;  resigned
structing engineer's                                                                                                                    June, 1858.
department.
Master laborer in con-  ------------------------------  May  31, 1858    John Vandervort ----                                  3 00   Appointed June 10, 1858.
structing engineer's
department.
Master boilermaker —- ------------------ --------------— do —---- John Maxon-                                                  3 50   Appointed June 10, 1858.
Master moulder —--------------------------------  Oct.  19, 1,58   David Heustis —-----                                       3 50   Appointed October 26, 1858.
Per annum.




PAPER B.-REPLY TO TWELFTH INTERROGATORY.
Report showing the number and names of new oices or employments made in the navy yard, New York, since March 4, 1857.
Name of office.              Daily pay.         When made.                                          By what authority.
Master house carpenter —. —----            $3 50       May 26, 1857. —-- Letter of Bureau May 21, 1857.  This office was in existence until the 31st December, 1855, when the occupant of it was discharged; the duty in the mean
time having been performed by a foreman, at $3 per day.
Mlaster stone cutter -------------          3 50       June 29, 1857..... Letter of Bureau June 25, 1857.  A  new office.  The stone-cutting work was,
until the 31st December, 1855, done under the supervision of the master
mason, and from  that time to the 29th June, 1857, under the foreman of
masons.
Master laborer in the civil engi-            3 00      Aug. 12, 1857.....    Letter of Bureau August 11, 1857.  This office is a new one, the duty having
neer' s department.                                                             previously been performed by a foreman, selected by the constructing engineer.
Master mason ------------------              3 50      Nov. 5, 1857. —-- Letter of Bureau October 26, 1857.  This office was in existence until 31st December, 1855.  From  that date till the 5th November, 1857, the duty was    Z
performed by a foreman, at $3 per day. 
Foreman of saw-pits —----------              2 50      June 10, 1858. —-  Letter of Bureau May 31, 1858.  This office was recreated, it having previously    Z
been abolished, and the occupant discharged by order of the Bureau of October 2,1856.
Master boiler maker —---------               3 50      June 10, 1858 ---- Letter of Bureau May 31, 1858.  A  new  office; the duty having been performed by a workman previous to that date, at $2 50 per day.
-Master machinist —-------------             3 50      July   8, 1858. —-- Letter of Bureau July 2, 1858.  Previous to July, 1858, the duty was performed
by a foreman, at $3 50 per day.
Master moulder —--------------               3 50      Oct. 26, 1858. —-.  Letter of Bureau October 19, 1858.  Previous to October, 1858, the duty was
performed by the present incumbent under the title of foreman of foundry,
at $3 50 per day.
Superintendent of foundation for  W. C. Jones, October, 1858 ---- Letter of Bureau October 18, 1858.  A new office.
marine barracks.                          2 50
Foreman of oakum  factory --—..            2 50       April 2, 1857 —--- Letter of Bureau March 14, 1857.  George Stratford was appointed foreman, to
superintend the making of oakum, on recommendation of Chief Engineer
Gay.
0 Until October 1, 1858, and then $1,500 per annum.




358                             APPENDIX.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS,
February 3, 1859.
Sip: I have the honor to reply to the second interrogatory of the
second series of the investigating committee, of which lon. John
Sherman is chairman, so far as it applies to this bureau.
In my opinion, portions of the work at navy yards might be advantageously done by contract; such as piling, grading, cutting stone,
gravel filling, excavation, and such like work.  There should be no
law, however. making it obligatory to contract for these objects, but
it should be left to the discretion of the Navy Department.
The erection of large and substantial buildings, such as are required
for stores and workshops, and the work done on docks, quay walls,
-and basins, although it may be at a less cost by contract, yet it would
not be of that substantial and reliable character as if performed by
days' work, under the immediate supervision and direction of the
officers of the yard.
If it shall become the policy of the government that the  ontract
system  shall operate largely in the navy yards, there wil, of necessity, arise clashings of jurisdiction as well as discipline, when the
workmen of the contractors and the employes of the yard shall be
brought together on the various works of the yard. One set of men
would be under orders from  contractors, and the other under the
control of the authorities of the yard, and difficulties would necessarily
arise which might tend to impair discipline, and, perhaps, otherwise
embarrass the general operations of the yard.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOSEPH SMITH.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Answer to the seventh clause of the resolution of the special committee, &c.,
of the House of Representatives, Hon. John Sherman, chairman.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, October 25, 1858.
SIR: Upon the reporting of your successor, Commodore S. L.
Breese, you will regard yourself as detached from your present command, and you will report, by letter, to the Secretary of the Treasury
for temporary duty during the absence of Commodore Shubrick, as a
member of the Light-house Board.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Commodore L. KEARNY,
United States Navy, New York.




APPENDIX.                            359
NAVY YARD, New York, October 30, 1858.
SIR: Commodore Breese reported at this yard yesterday, the 29th
instant, and will assume his duties on Monday, the 1st November
proximo.
I have this day reported, by letter, for duty under the Treasury
Department.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
L. KEARNY, Commandant.
Hon. ISAAc ToUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, November 22, 1858.
SIR: I have received your letter of the 15th instant, in which you
say that it is represented to you that the masters in the Brooklyn
navy yard, in refusing employment to poor democrats residing in your
district, act under the express or implied sanction of this department.
This representation is altogether mistaken, and without the slightest
foundation.  I know of no reason why the democrats of your district
should be proscribed at the Brooklyn navy yard, and I have received
no information that the masters, who, by the regulations of the department, have the selection of the workmen, have taken any such
course.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. HoRACE F. CLARK, New York.




360                                       APPENDIX.
Ansiwer to the 9th clause of the resolution of  special committee, Hon. Mr.
Sherman, chairman.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS,
January 26, 1859.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the reference of the letter
of Hon. John  Sherman,  chairman  of the  naval investigating  cominittee, dated the 25th instant, and, in reply to the 9th clause of the
committee's resolutions, herewith append a synopsis of the class
and pay of the officers, foremen, master workmen, and laborers of
the navy yard, Brooklyn," as taken from the pay-roll for December
last, viz:
Carpenters, ship —..1 —-               -   I master ------.-        ---          -         $4 00
I draughtsman —------------                       3 00
I assistant inspector ----------      _           2 50
4 quartermen             - -                      3 12
161 journeymen ------------------                  2 50
16 journeymen  -------           — 2 25
2 journeyman —--------------                      2 00
4 apprentices ----------------                    1 12
Gun-carriage maker ---- -1 —---   I foreman --------------------                             3 12
1 gun-carriage maker —----------                  2 75
8 gun-carriage makers ------------                2 50
1 gun-carriage maker —--------                    2 25
4 gun-carriage makers —----------                 1 75
2 laborers. —----------       -                   1 12
Borers —------— 1 —------   I borer —-----------------------                                 2 50
50 borers ——,. —------------ -                    2 00
3 borers —-----------------                       1 75
2 borers —--------------------                    1 50
2 laborers. —-- ---         --------             1 38
35 laborers ---------------------                  1 25
6 laborers —-------------------                   1 12
1 laborer ----------— 1 00
Joiner ----- ----- - -— 1 —---- -   I superintendent —. —- ----------                       3 00
7 joiners —----- -- ---- -                        2 25
2 joiners ----------------- ----                  2 00
Sawyer.. —-.-         -1 —----—. —---   I foreman ---------------------                    2 50
1 sawyer -----------------------                  2 25
27 sawyers —---------        --.....-             2 00
2 sawyers- -1 50
18 laborers --------------------                   1 25
1 laborer —---—..     ----    -—.-              1 37
1 laborer —----------—.. —---                   1 12




APPENDIX.                                                       361
Answer to the 9th clause of the resolution-Continued.
Blacksmith         ------------------   I1 master -----------                               -— $3  50
1 foreman               --                                    3  12
20 smiths -----------------------                               2  50
16 smiths —-                                                    2  25
17 smiths —----------                                           2  00
5 smiths -----------------------                               1  75
43 helpers                              -— 1  38
8 helpers ----------------------                               1  25
1 apprentice --------------------                              1  38
1 apprentice                     ---          -62
5 laborers ------------------                 -.               1  12
Joiner —--               ----------------    I master -----------------— 3  50
2 foremen -------------------—.                               2  81
86 joiners.... —----- -------                        2  25
9 joiners —----------                  ---                     2  00
1 joiner —----------------------                               1  75
1 apprentice ---- ----                  ------                 1  24
1 appientice                      ---         -78
4 laborers -----------------— 1  12
1 laborer                             -— 1  00
1 minor -          --------------- -                              78
Calker..    Imaster                                                                           -— 3  50
1 foreman —-                                                   3  12
59 calkers —---------------------                                2  50
2 calkers. —-—.2  50
1 calker —----------------------                               2  25
2calkers —---------------------                                2  00
1 calker —-                                                    1  50
1 apprentice --------------------                              1  12
Calkers, &c ----------------------                     1 scraper- ----------------— 2  00
1 spinner —-                                                   1  50
10 spinners ---------------                                      1  25
5 spinners                             -— 1  12
2 oakum                    -----------                         1 00
1 boy —-----------------------                                    25
1 master's attendant            --                             2  00
1 laborer                              -— 1  50
1 laborer                              -— 1  12
5 master's laborers --------—. —-.                            1 50
2 gunner's laborers. -------               -— 1  00
Storekeepers -1 foreman ---------------------                                                                         3  00
4 laborers                             -— 1  50
2 laborers  ------------------                                 1  25
12 laborers -----------------------                              1  12
Yard labor ----------------------                      1 master -------------------                  -                3  00
2 foremen —-                                                   1  56
1 foreman  ---------------------                               1  56
1 foreman  ----------------------                              1  25
10 laborers. --------------- --                                  1  25
70 laborers               --                                     1  12
1 laborer           -----—....   -------                      1  00
Master's labor-                                        1 foreman                              ---                     1  56
18 laborers- --------          ----                              1  25
1 foreman ----------                                           1 40
20 laborers -           ---------------------                    1  12
1 laborer             --------------                           1  00
Yard labor —-----------                       ---    5 foremen                                -— 1  40
180 laborers —--------------------                              1  12
3 laborers            ---                                      1  25
1 laborer -. —-------               ----    -                 1  12
1 laborer —--- ------------                                    1  25
5 laborers-          ------------------                        1  12




3 32                                       APPENDIX.
Answer to the 9th clause of the resolution-Continued.
Yard labor-Continued —------                 I laborer —------- ----                            $1 25
2 laborers --------—. -----------                  1 25
8 laborers —-----—.... —-.             1 12
6 laborers. —-- -      -............        1 25
27 laborers - ----                                   1 12
Sail maker.   -----                          2 foremen --—...... — -                            2 81
64 sail makers- --                                   2 25
2 sail makers                    -- -2 00
1 sail maker        -----                             75
1 apprentice - -----            -- -                1 24
1 apprentice.. —-—. —-. ——. —                     56
1 laborer....... — -                              1 12
Mast maker- 1 —--— I master -.- -------                                      --—.......         3 50
1 foreman ----                                      3 12
21 mast makers ----— 2 50
1 apprentice         --                             1 12
2 laborers --       --                              1 12
I laborer    -— 1 00
Riggers -           -------- ------  I1 foreman —-                                               2 50
29 riggers ---------------- -2 00
2 riggers.. —--—.. ——.. —                  1 50
2 laborers                      -— 1 12
Painters   -------—. —---------    1 master ------                    -------                   3 50
2 foremen... —------          -------             2 50
41 painters  ---------------            -2 00
6 painters ----     --------— 1 75
1 apprentice      --— 90
1 laborer —--   --------                            1 12
Boat builders ---------                      1 master     -     ---------                        3 50
1 foreman                    -— 2 50
21 boat builders -.......   -. —-          2 00
1 apprentice ---—.. —-               --              50
2 laborers  ------------            ----            1 12
Coopers              — 1 master --------------... —                               -.            3 50
1 foreman —-------------------                      2 50
16 coopers -------------------                       2 00
2 laborers    --          ------- -                 1 12
Plumber ------        ----       ---         1 master   ----------------- -                      3 f."0
1 foreman                       -- -2 81
11 plumbers ----          ----- -2 —-                   25
1 plumber ---                                       1 50
17 coppersmiths ------------------                   2 25
2 tinners —--------------- -                        2 25
6 tinners —--- ------------ -                       2 00
I tinner —-                                         1 75
1 apprentice ------------------— 1 46
2 laborers —-----------                -            1 12
Block maker -------------------- 1 master ------------------- -                                  3 50
1 foreman  ----------------           -             2 81
25 makers -----------------------                    2 25
I apprentice      ---                                 79
1 laborer -----------------------                   1 25
2 laborers. —--------------           -             1 12
Clothing ---------— 1 —----------               superintendent —-                                3 00
3 assistants —--------------                        2 00
3 assistants                                        1 50
10 laborers ----------------— 1 25
1 boy ---------- -------------                      1 25
1 boy —-- ----------------------                      75
Machinist- ----------------------  I1 machinist —-------------------                             3 00
1 rigger                 — 2 00
1 armorer --------------------                      2 50
1 helper --------------                             1 75
2 helpers       ------               ---            1 50




APPENDIX.                                                         363
Answer to the 9th clause of the resolution-Continued.
Gunner's crew —-                    -------             I leather sewer ---------                                      $2  50
4 leather sewers -----                 — 2 00
2 riggers -------------------—.                                1  50
1 laborer ------               —.-            -                1  40
1 laborer ----------------------                                1  25
20 laborers —----------- --------                                 112
1 hose maker              ----------                            2  00
Engineer, steam- _ —------                     ---    1 engineer —--------------------                                   3  50
1 draughtsman -----------------                                 2  50
1 eigineer. —. ----—. --                    2 75
2 engineers -----                —. —--- -                     2  00
2 engineers —---                 --  -—.-                      1 75
1 fireman  ------                ----            -              1  38
5 firemen  -----------                    -                     1  25
Machinist- -— 1   master, (per annum) -- --— 1,500  00
2 foremen ------------—.. ---                                  3  00
6  machinists ----                 ---- -                       2  50
6 -— do —----------                                             2  25
31 -— do ------—. —-----------                                   2  00
42 -— do —----------------—..-.                                  1  75
9 —-- do —-----—... —-----------                                1  50
21 -..-do ----------- ------------                                1  25
2  apprentices -----------                                       1  12
1..do.. —----- - -- -- ---                    88
Boiler maker                                            1 master —--------------------                                   3 50
1  maker of boilers —------                                     2  50
l -— do          ---------------         ------                 2  25
11 -— do  ----------------------                                  2  00
3  — do. —.-. —-------               --------                   1  75
4 —— do ----------------------                                   1  50
Pattern maker --------                 -                I  foreman ---------------------                                 3  00
1 pattern maker —------                       -                 2  50
4 —— do —--------------------                                    2  25
4.-.do —----- ------                                            2 00
1 --— do ----------              ---------— 1  25
Oakum  maker-,            ---    I  foreman ------             - —.             -3  00
1  maker ---------------                        -                1  25
l —— do  -- ---- -----                 --    ---                 1  12
3 boys.. —-.         -       -              ---                    75
Founder-           -----         ---       ---          I  master -------—. —.. —-----.                                3  50
1  teamster --           -    ----              -               2  50
l- — do. —.. —-----------.. —--                              2  25
1 —.do —---- -----------                                       2  12
5 —— do.. —-----..     -     --                 2  00
3 —- do ---------------------                                    1  75
1 -— do -------—. —- ---------                                  1  62
3  helpers       -----         ------             -              1  25
9 —— do  ---------                      --     -                 1  12
Engineers' laborers               - ------ -    6  laborers -------                      ---            -                1  25
1 --— do ----------              -      ----- -----              1  12
4  boys —--------------------—.                                    75
5 laborers -------------------                                   1 25
Civil engineer. - --.1  assistant engineer, (per annum)..                                           1,500  00
1  superintendent of piling: —-----                              5  0
1  superintendent of foundation ---                             2  50
1  engineer -----                ----— 2  50
1 -— do —---------------------                                  2  00
2  firemen. —----                ----            -               1  50
4  blacksmiths -----                -----                        2  25
1  rigger -----               --------           -              2  00
1  chief diver -----               ---           -              2  50
I  diver. —. -                                                 2  25




36                                                     APPENDIX.
Answer to the 9th clause of the resolution-Continued.
Civil  engineer-Continued --- --                    _    I  diver -- -------- -^                            -             $2  00
1  diver —-----                 ------                            1  75
1  diver. —--------------... —--            1  50
6  laborers ---             --------                              1  50
Masons —-- ----                        -------           1  master ------—.. —-—.....-.                                   3  50
3  foremen  ---------------------                                 2  50
46  masons —--------------                                          2  00
2 -— do —---------------------                                    1  75
1  apprentice ----------------—.                                     50
5  drillers  -------------                  -1  50
2  pavers-.. -         -----------------                         2  00
1  paver ---------------------—.                                 1  75
15  slaters         -   ----------------— 2  00
Stone cutters —----------------                             master ------------—. —--—.                                   3  50
1  foreman. —---------------—.                                 2  81
27  cutters    -----              -----             -               2  25
1  cutter ------------- ----—.-                                  1  75
1  laborer —----------                                            1  25
1 -— do -—. —-----             ---—. —---                          1  12
Dock  master ----------                                  1  dock  master -----------------                                  2  75
1  laborer —----                  -----      -                    1  50
House carpenter-.-1 —------. —--    I  master ------------—, --------                                                    3  50
2  foremen -----------                                            2  50
44  carpenters —---------------—.                                  2  00
Superintendent of filling  grounds-                      I  superintendent ----                      ----                  2  50
6  assistants -----------------—,                                2  00
Dock builder. ----              ----         --          1  master ---------—. —---                                        3  00
1  foreman -—.- -------------—.                                 2  50
1  builder —----------                                            2  50
23  — do —----------------------                                    2  00
4...do —----- -                       ----                       1  75
Laborers of the civil engineer....-                     1  master -----—. ---                       -.               3  50
2  foremen ------                 ----             -              1  56
110  laborers ----—..-... —---—.-               1  25
5 -— do —-------------------                       -              1  12
Laborers ---------              ---                      2  foremen —-----------------—.                                   1  56
42  laborers-                                                       1  25
1 - -.do -—.-. —--—. —------.                1  00
Laborers                                                 1  foreman ----------------------                                  2  00
1 -— do -.. —---------------—.                         1  40
47  laborers —-----                 -----           -               1  12
Laborers —---—.                                         2  foremen ---—.                  ----            -               1  40
41  laborers - ----                 ----            -               1  12
Miscellaneous ----  9 horses and carts —-                                                             ----                  2 50
8  writers. —-------           —. —---—..                      2  50
5 — do ------------ -                                             2  00
1 —— do —------------------—.                                    1  50
1- - do —-----------                                              1  25
Teamsters —---                   -- ------      foreman ---------                                                           2 50
5  teamsters ----------                                           1  50
15 -— do -------—. —., —-—..-                 -                  1  26
Watch -----                      -----          --       3 captains, -                 ----------.                        1 50
18  men —------                     --   --                         1  25




APPENDIX.                                        365
The officers, and pay of each, are under two heads, naval and civil,
and are as follows, viz:
Pay.
NAVAL.
I captain - ---                       -        --   $3,500 00
I commander   ----            ------------------ ------                              2,100 00
2 lieutenants, each —---------------------- ---- ---------------                     1,500 00
1 purser             - ------------------ -------                           --       2,500 00
1 surgeon —---------------------------------. —------------                         1,800 00
I master -------- -----------------                               -                  1,000 00
1 chaplain -----------------------------------.. —------.        1,500 00
I boatswain. —----------------                           ------                       800 00
2 gunners, each —-----------------------             --------------------              800 00
I carpenter  -------           ------ ----------                                       800 00
I sail maker-.. —------     ------------...- ---------. —--------                   800 00
I assistant to purser ------------------------—. —----               -----—.         500 00
1 steward, assistant to purser —-------------------             -- --                   480 00
I steward, assistant to surgeon  ---------------- -480 00
CIVIL.
1 naval constructor. -- -----------------—.. —-           ---------------          2,600 00
I naval storekeeper         ------------  -------                     ---            1,700 00
I civil engineer ----                           --  2,500 00
1 inspector and measurer of timber --------------                            -       1,050 00
I clerk of yard.. —-—. -----—. —------------- ----— r —-.                       1,200 00
1st clerk to commandant   ------------------— 1,200 00
2d clerk to commandant -------------------------------------------                     960 00
ist clerk to storekeeper ------      -—. ------ --                  ------          1, 200 00
2d clerk to storekeeper. —  ----------------.. 90(i 00
I clerk to constructor —  --    -       -     ----------------     -      --           800 00
1 draughtsman --------------------------------                                         900 00
1 clerk to inspector of provisions and clothing - -----------                          750 00
I porter ----------- -------                       --                                  456 00
In  reference  to the "appointment,  powers, and  duties"  of those
connected  with the  navy  yard, they are  defined  under  two  heads,
thus:
NAVAL.
The commission  and warrant officers are  appointed  by the  President, and. the clerks and stewards under this head  by the purser and
surgeon.   The  commandant commands the yard, and  all vessels  returning  from   or equipping  for sea.  HIe colmmands the officers, civil
and  military, attached  to the yard.   All orders go through  him  to
others  attached  to  the station, and  all official communications from
officers and others on duty pass through  his hands for inspection and
signature, to be forwarded to the department.
The commander of the yard is the executive officer, and attends to
fitting of ships, the police of the yard, and executes the orders of the
commandant           b All others  perform   duty  under the  orders of their
sup eriors.




366                         APPENDIX.
CIVIL.
The naval constructor is appointed by the Secretary of' the Navy.
He has charge, and directs all persons employed on ships, spars, and
boats, except the engines, which are superintended by engineers of
the navy.
The civil engineer and his assistant are appointed by the Secretary
of the Navy.  He has the superintendence of all buildings, wharves,
and docks.
The draughtsman is appointed by the civil engineer, and acts
under his orders.
The inspector and measurer of timber is appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, and inspects all timber received at the yard.
The clerk of the yard is appointed by the Secretary of the Navy.
He musters all employes on per diem pay; makes out the rolls on
which payment of wages is disbursed; and turns them over to the
purser, who makes the payment.
The other several clerks are appointed by the heads of their respective departments.
The naval storekeeper receives and issues all stores, except those
under the head of ordnance, and provisions and clothing, which are
separate departments, under navy officers.
Master workmen are appointed by the Secretary of the Navy.
They have the power to appoint or select the men who work under
them; but in all cases such selection must be approved by the head
of the department over them, and also by the commandant.  The
duties of the master workmen are to execute the work assigned to
them by their superiors.
The term "quarterman"' applies to those who work on vessels, and
"foreman" on yard improvements.  They are appointed by the
respective master workmen, and their duties are to superintend and
lay out work for gangs of men under them.
Apprentices are taken, under rules prescribed by the Navy Department, in the different branches of work.
The bureau will reply to the 10th resolution as soon as practicable,
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOS. SMITH.
HIon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secr-etary of the  cavy.




APPENDIX.                         367
WASHINGTON, D. C., l4March 16, 1857.
SIR: The undersigned democratic members of Con gress from New
York recommend the appointment of Alexander Ward as master
laborer or inspector of timber at the Brooklyn navy yard.
Mr. Ward is a gentleman of unexceptionable character, and has
rendered most efficient services to the democratic party. He is well
qualified for the situation, and his appointment will be gratefully
appreciated by the democracy of New York.
HORACE F. CLARK.
JOHN  A. SEARING.
ELIJAH WARD.
JOHN KELLY.
JOHN B. HASKINS.
D. E. SICKLES.
I sign for Mr. Ward, and for him only, for this place.  But this is
not to conflict with my application for any man in my own district.
Mr. Ward is in Mr. Clark's district.
JOHN COCHRANE,
Sixth Congressional District.
Hon. ISAAc TouCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, April 6, 1857.
DEAR SIR: May I take this method of recalling your attention to
the matter of the appointments to be made by you connected with our
navy yard. I expressed to you in Washington the opinion that, if
deemed proper by yourself, the places of masters in the several departments should be distributed with something like equality among the
six city congressional districts and the two adjacent districts upon the
Long Island shore.
I made application for the appointment of Mr. Alexander Ward, of
the eighth congressional district, (represented by myself,) to the place
of master laborer or inspector of timber.  I united with some of my
colleagues in their recommendations of applicants from among their
several constituencies to other masterships, but the appointment of
Mr. Ward is the only one which I solicit on behalf of my constituency.
May I again call your attention to this subject, and request that you
will give my application your favorable consideration in case you can
adopt the principle to which I have referred, and which appears to me
to be equitable.
The difficulty of obtaining a personal interview with you in Washington subsequently to the occasion when I called upon you at your




368                        APPENDIX.
residence in company with Hon. John Kelly, has induced me to address
you by letter.
I am, with much respect, your obedient servant,
HORACE F. CLARK.
Hon. ISAAC TOUcEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
BROOKLYN, March 24, 185T.
SIR: Enclosed I forward three affidavits-two against Win. H.
Sharp, master laborerin the yard, and one against Hiram Funk, master
ship-joiner in the yard. I could send you fifty of a similar character,
but it cannot be necessary to fill your office with such articles. The
same charges exist against John Doherty, boat-builder, and Mir.
Donigan, master plumber.
When in Washington I left the name of Richard Coggins, for
plumber, in place of Donigan.  He wishes to decline in favor of
Thomas Giddings, whose application I forward by this mail.  I trust
he may be appointed.
Let me call your attention fo my remarks about Mr. Hardenbrock,
master cooper.  He is an old soldier, and an honest, faithful man;
but I am informed that Mr. Kelly is pressing a Mr. Warren for this
place. Warren is well off, independent of the place, but in addition,
he is an unreliable man as a politician.  He encouraged the opposition
to my election.  But this all Mr. Kelly's friends and favorites did.
They desired to defeat the democratic candidate in this district in
order to perpetuate Mr. Kelly's influence in the yard, and Mr. Kelly
now tries to sustain them, knowing these facts. In short, there was
a regular conspiracy to defeat me for that object, and every possible
falsehood was resorted to at the time, and will be used now to sustain.
these "' gentlemen" in their places, and to get more of a similar character in the yard.
Yours, respectfully,
GEO. TAYLOR.
HON. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington city.
May I press these changes upon you, now that the New York appointments



APPENDIX,                         369
I respectfully ask permission to offer the following names for
appointment to the positions herein designated.  I believe that the
public interests would be advanced by their appointment.
With great respect, your obedient servant,
GEO. TAYLOR.
Hon. TSAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington city.
For master laborer in the Brooklyn navy yard, Hugh McLaughlin,
in place of Mr. H. Sharp.
For master boat builder, James Kennigan, in place of John Doherty.
For master ship carpenter, Romeo Frigtnza, in place of H. Funk.
The public interests imperatively demand this change.
Master house carpenter, Patrick O'Neil.
This position Mr. O'Neil has occupied for sometime; but as it was
made subject to the civil engineer, O'Neil was not ordered to work.
The civil engineer has kept the department under the control of a
foreman, to the great injury of Mr. O'Neil. This position should be
made independent of the engineer.
For master mason, Luke Rogers.
For master plumber, Richard Coggins, in place of-.
These persons are all practical mechanics, well informed, industrious, and sober; reliable democrats, and good citizens.
GEO. TAYLOR.
BROOKLYN, iMarch 27, 1857.
SIR: Enclosed you will find further affidavits against Funk, Murphy
& Doherty, in the yard. I trust that more will not be required; but
any number can be forwarded. When the masters have done their
duty, I believe it important to the public service to retain them. No
good purpose can be effected by the removal of such men. This I
believe to be the case with all the masters in the yard except Funk,
Sharp, Doherty, Strickland and Donnigan. These I think should beremoved for causes partly shown.  The other masters, James McGee,
Joseph Simmons, Merrifield, Philip, Colonel Hardenbrock, Mr. Turner,
Mr. Moore, Mr. McMannis, should be retained. The public interests,
require it and there is no earthly objection against them.
But some of the others should be removed at once. In Funk's department the government loss is very considerable every day. Some
time since he had 120 men employed in his department at $2 to $2 25,
per day. Mr. Friganza, who is perfectly competent to judge, and the
foreman of the men, told me that he could select the proper men and
do more work and do it better with 80 men, thus saving about $90- per
day to the government.  This is important in addition to getting clear
of a worthless man who is wholly unfit for the place. Inquire, if you
please of Commodore Smith; he will give particulars.
I have omitted to press the appointment of John Coope for storekeeper in the yard, because I have been informed by Mr. Bayard who
called with Senator Bayard on you, that you had decided. that matter
24 D




370'APPENDIX.
in favor of Mr. Coope, and of course I did not desire to trouble you
under such circumstances. MIr. Coope is sustained by three members
of Congress and the entire official corps of the city of Brooklyn; and I
sincerely trust that he will not be disappointed.  Brooklyn, the third
city in the Union, and which gave Buchanan over six thousand majority, has not yet received an appointment. All the important offices
in the custom house were disposed of without reference to Brooklyn.
I now ask in the name of the firmest and best democrats in the Union
this petty appointment for a man pre-eminently qualified. And I
protest in their name against the appointment of Mr. Herrick.  He
was opposed to Mar. Buchanan's administration and did nothing for his
election, while Mr. Coope went to Cincinnati wholly to serve Mr.
Buchanan.  Mr. Herrick was indicted a few months since for taking a
bribe while alderman. Such a man certainly cannot get a preference
over a good man to take charge of everything in the largest navy yard
in the Union.
But independent of this; he was not the friend of Mr. Buchanan,
while Mr. Coope was; and New York has received every thing worth
a cent, and this petty office Brooklyn asks from yourself and the President.  And I appeal to the President and yourself to do something
to sustain us, who have had so much to. contend against, and who so
gloriously triumphed over it all.
In this, as in relation to Mr. Murphy in the yard, together with the
masters, I have said sufficient if not too much, and I now throw myself
and district upon the well known disposition of the President and
yourself to do justice in all things. But let me add, that these appointments in the navy yard should be settled at an early day. Everything is now in confusion, and the public interests will necessarily
suffer until order is restored.
With the respect due, I am your obedient servant,
GEORGE TAYLOR.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, April 6, 1857.
SIR: I had intended to see you personally before this time, but a
return of my " National Hotel" trouble has confined me to the house
for the last week. I am exceedingly anxions to have some action in
reference to the engineer in the navy yard. After his return home
from Washington, he dismissed the few Brooklyn men under his employ, and hundreds of these men are now begging for work in our
streets while their familes are starving; but nothing can be done so
long as that man is permitted to remain. Funk and Doherty pursue
the same course. If I had not sent you sufficient evidence of their bad
conduct already, I would trouble you with more; but I cannot think
it necessary and do not wish to trouble you.
Permit me one word in respect to the master laborer. I understand
that Mir. Maclay is urging a man by the name of Hoggett, for that
place, a man of notorious bad character. I say unhesitatingly that




APPENDIX.                        371
he would be a disgrace to the yard. See Mr. Hamilton's letter on
file and the enclosed. Hoggett is one of the parties whom Mr. Murphy
pays $1 75 per day without labor. See Mr. Cauk's affidavit on tile.
May I urge you to make the appointment of Mr. Murphy's successor.  The appointment of Mr Coope, storekeeper; Hugh McLaughlin, master laborer; James Kerrigan, master boat builder; and
Romeo Friganza, master ship joiner, in place of Funk, at as early
a day as possible. I assure you that party interests as well as the
government interests demand this. If my health permits I will be in
Washington the middle of this week, unless I am differently advised
by you. I do most sincerely trust that Anson Herrick will not be appointed storekeeper. It is due to Brooklyn, and we trust that Mr.
Buchanan will not overlook the third city in the Union, and one that
gave him  so large a majority, and especially to appoint a man of
questionable character, like Mr. Herrick; nay, of well known bad
character. I do not fear to say that he would be a disgrace to the
administration. Seventeen thousand democrats in a vote of thirty
thousand ask this office for Brooklyn, and they unite in asking it for
Mr. Coope, than whom  no man did more for Mr. Buchanan's nomination and election. Let me beg you to press this upon his Excellency's
attention.
Very sincerely, your obedient servant,
GEO. TAYLOR.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
NEW YORK, April 17, 1857.
SIR: I am informed that Hon. George A. Taylor, one of my colleagues, is now in Washington with a view of obtaining changes
among the master workmen, &c., at the navy yard at Brooklyn, New
York.
I represent a congressional district composed of four wards in
Brooklyn and two in this city, and the democrats in it have an equal
interest in the proper administration of the employments in the navy
yard as those represented by Mr. Taylor. As a matter of justice to
all concerned, I respectfully request that you will not make any of
the changes requested until I can have an opportunity of making a
representation to you personally. This I hope to do early next week.
I have ventured to make this request of you for the reason that Mr.
Taylor claims that all the appointments in the navy yard should be
made at his own recommendation. A different usage has prevailed
for fourteen years. I represented the district for which I am now
elected during the administrations of President Tyler and President
Polk. Mr. Henshaw, when Secretary of the Navy, examined this
whole matter, and decided that one-half of the appointments of the
masters at the Brooklyn navy yard should be taken from my congressional district.  Mr. Bancroft did the same thing. Nearly all of the
men who have for many years been in the habit of seeking employment at the navy yard, among the different trades, reside in my dis



372                        APPENDIX.
trict; which lies opposite to Brooklyn, and is what is termed a river
district. Experience has shown that they should be represented
among the masters in order to be treated with fairness in respect to
employment, &c.
I make this statement not with a view to obtain appointments. I
could wish indeed that no removals were made, but if the department
decide otherwise, I then desire to be heard.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. B. MACLAY.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
BROOKLYN, April 28, 1857.
SIR: The appointments most important to my district, and which
you thought of making this week, are, first:
Mr. Brown, of Norfolk, place of Murphy, engineer.
Hugh McLaughlin, master laborer, place of William H. Sharp.
Romeo Friganza, master ship-joiner, place of Hiram Funk.
James Kerrigan, master boat builder, place of John Doherty.
The removal of Murphy, Sharp, Funk, and Doherty, is requested
by almost the unanimous voice of the district. It is a party necessity,
besides, the interests of the government will be greatly benefited by it.
The persons recommending the appointment of Mr. McLaughlin
agree with me in the other matters.
I take the liberty of sending this note to place the matter in a condensed form; and pardon me for begging you to give this your earliest
attention. They will not delay the work in the yard, but will facilitate it. Friganza is at present the foreman.
Yours, respectfully,
GEO. TAYLOR.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.
MAY 16, 1857.
MY DEAR SIR: May I ask that you will retain in the navy yard
Daniel Kennedy, foreman of the stone cutters. He is a very useful
man in his ward, and desires to keep his place. We, who are interested in the matter, are very anxious he should be retained by you.
Respectfully,
W. FOWLER.
MAY 16, 1857.
Permit me to unite in the within.
HORACE F. CLARK.
NEW YORK, May 20, 1857.
MY DEAR SIR: Mr. Daniel Kennedy, of the 20th ward, now holds
the place of foreman of the stone cutters at the navy yard, and is




APPENDIX.                        373
desirous of being promoted to the post of master stone cutter. I have
suggested to Mr. Kennedy that the appointments of the latter class
belong to the Secretary of the Navy; but he is of opinion that, in this
particular case, the patronage is in your power. Should such be the
case, allow me to commend him to your favorable consideration, and
to hope that you will aid his advancement. Mr. Kennedy is an active
democrat, a most worthy man, well qualified for the position, and
would give general satisfaction.
Very truly, yours,
ELIJAH WARD.
C. K. GRAHAM, Esq.
NEW YORK, May 27, 1857.
DEAR SIR: Having heard that you contemplate making a change
in the stone cutter department in the bureau over which you preside,
at the navy yard, Brooklyn, and if such be the case, as under no other
circumstances would I interfere, I take great pleasure in recommending Daniel Kennedy, who is now acting in the capacity of quarterman, for the position as master stone cutter.
Mr. Kennedy is an excellent mechanic, and I venture to say equal
to any in this city or State, at the business you employ men at. Having
some knowledge of his qualifications, I speak and write as I know
him to be.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN KELLY.
CHARLES K. GRAIAM,
United States Engineer, Navy Yard, Brooklyn.
NEW YORK, June 4, 1857.
SIR: I send herewith the application of Mr. Daniel Kennedy of my
district, for the post of master stone cutter, and commend him to your
favorable consideration.  He is fully competent for the place, and
his appointment would be highly acceptable. I hope this may be more
successful than my late application for the appointment of George
M. Munson as boatswain.
Very respectfully,
ELIJAH WARD.
Hon ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, September 29, 1857.
SIR: My absence from the city has prevented earlier attention being
given to the charge made against Mr. Daniel Kennedy for refusing
to dismiss a workman who was intoxicated while on duty. I have
now the honor to enclose an affidavit of Mr. Kennedy, and a certificate
of the clerk of the navy yard, which, I think, fully disprove the charge,




374                        APPENDIX.
and show that Mr. Kennedy did all that was in his power. The affidavit also discloses the fact that Mr. Graham still refuses to permit
Mr. Kennedy to either appoint or dismiss men under his department,
and treats as a nullity the order of the 8th of July last.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ELIJAH WARD.
Hon. ISAAC ToucEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, September 29, 1857.
SIR: I enclose to you a letter addressed to me by Mr. Daniel Kennedy2
master stone [cutter] of the Brooklyn navy yard, by which it appears
that Mr. Graham, the engineer, still refuses a recognition of the order
of the 8th July last.  I also send a copy of the requisitions made by
Mr. Kennedy, and refused by Mr. Graham. It would seem by these
that the former is greatly embarrassed in the proper discharge of his
duties. Mr. Kennedy, under my advice, has gone on quietly, in the
hope that the engineer would at length yield obedience to your orders,
but as several months have elapsed without a concurrence, I am compelled to appeal to you for relief. Mr. Alexander Ward, the master
laborer, also informs me this morning, that Mr. Graham, in like
manner interferes with hi: department.  His case will be called to
your attention by my colleague, Mr. Clark, in person.  Allow me
to hope that both will be disposed of together, and that instructions will be forwarded to Mr. Graham compelling a compliance with
the order heretofore issued, a proper recognition of the rights of the
master-men in his department.
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
ELIJAH WARD,
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
[Private.]
NEW YORK, January 17, 1859.
DEAR SIR: YOU must excuse the many appeals I have made in
behalf of Mr. Daniel Kennedy, master stone cutter in the navy yard,
Brooklyn; but feeling that an injustice has been done him on the
part of Mr. Graham makes me more than anxious for his restoration.
You are aware that Mr. Kennedy was not the choice of Graham when
he was appointed, he having recommended another person for that
place. This circumstance of itself has made Graham feel towards
him  anything but pleasant.  And he has taken all the advantages
he could, from the mere fact of his position to domineer over him and
to give him all the annoyances that he could.
Kennedy is an excellent stone cutter, and strictly honest in all his
dealings; and I do hope you will do him the justice to restore him.




APPENDIX.                         375
Graham is prejudiced against him without cause or justification, and
I know that your high sense of honor will not permit a man to persecute a subordinate under him in any of your departments.
I have no feeling of enmity against Mr. Graham, nor never had,
but I have always felt that his appointment to the place was unwise,
as he has [an] irrascible temper, and [is] incompetent for his position.
Yours, truly,
JOHN KELLY.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
P. S. Please answer.
NEW YORK, June 29, 1857.
DEAR SIR: At the request of Michael Reynolds, I enclose to you his
application for the place of master machinist in the navy yard in the
place of Mr. Kent, a republican.
His recommendations are very good and in my judgment disclose a
satisfactory competency on the part of the applicant.  He is from my
district, and therefore he applies to me to forward his papers. I do
so with pleasure, and hope for his success. But I disclaim any force
to this application injurious to the applications already made by me.
There are several from my district already, viz: Mr. Hogg, for master
caulker, Mr. Clark for the same place; Mr. Coleman, for surveyor,
Mr. Donnelly, for ship carpenter, Mr. Christian, for the same place,
Mr. Savan, for master boiler maker.  There may be others I have not
mentioned.  But I have especially asked for Mr. Hogg, as caulker, in
the place of Mr. Strickland, and upon this many of my colleagues
have relied.
I have ceased to feel any faith in this application, or any other that
I have made, but cannot avoid doing my duty as a representative,
leaving the ultimate responsibility to locate itself.
I am, very respectfully, yours,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
WASHINGTON, May 10, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I enclose to you a petition in behalf of Michael Reynolds,
of my congressional district for the place of master machinist in the
Brooklyn navy yard. It seems to be a supererogation to say that my
district is but poorly recognised in the general distribution of patronage, and that I feel that I have a right to demand more favorable
consideration.
Very respectfully, yours,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




376                       APPENDIX.
[Circular.]
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS,
July 8, 1857.
COMMODORE: In the employment of the operatives at all the navy
yards, the master workmen will be held to a strict accountability that
none but competent and efficient men be employed, and that none be
rated above their capability in their respective branches of labor, they
will accordingly have the nominating of the men, subject to the approval of the chiefs of their respective departments and the sanction of
the commandant of the yard.
The chiefs of departments will direct, from time to time, the number of men to be taken on to the works, and will submit all cases of
delinquency on the part of master workmen to the commandant to be
reported to the department.
You will see that this order be carried out at the yard under your
command.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOS. SMITH.
Commodore J. T. Newton, Portsmouth, N. H.; Stringham, Boston;
Kearney, New York; Stewart, Philadelphia; Lavallette, Washington; Captain Dornin, Norfolk; Stribling, Pensacola; Farragut, San
Francisco.'Circular.]
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
December 14, 1858.
The commandant of a navy yard, at any time when in his judgment
the public interests require it, is authorized to direct the discharge of
any of the men employed in the yard under his command. He shall
report to the department when the services of any of the master workmen can be advantageously dispensed with; also, any just ground of
complaint which may come to his knowledge against any of them.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
To the COMMANDANTS OF NAVY YARDS.
BUREAU OF YARDS AND DOCKS,
February 17, 1858.
SIR: In reply to the call made by the bureau for information as
regarded the employment of workmen at the New York navy yard,
amongst the many papers forwarded in answer to that call is the enclosed from Engineer Graham to the commandant, dated the 8th




APPENDIX.                         377
instant, and forwarded by the latter to the bureau. I respectfully
submit the same for such action, if any, in the premises as you may
be pleased to direct.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, your obedient servant,
JOS. SMITH.
Hon. ISAAc ToucEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
CONSTRUCTING ENGINEER'S OFFICE,
February 8, 1858.
SIR: The communication of the master dock builder in reply to yours
of the 30th January, requires the following explanation: The subjoined persons, alluded to in it, acted as inspectors or clerks on the
new purchase when it was being filled in. They were appointed by
me, shortly after I assumed charge of the Constructing Department,
in place of others who were appointed by my predecessor for the performance of the same duties, and who were discharged by me, either
on account of their irregularity of habits or suspicion of their trustworthiness.
As no appointments designated by the name of inspectors or clerks
are allowed, the engineer is obliged when similar works are under
progress to rate persons performing this duty as mechanics, and detail
them  for that purpose. It is a custom  sanctioned by usage of the
department, and not one of my own creation.  As their duties are
entirely of a trustworthy character, and the engineer is personally
responsible to the bureau for their fidelity, it is but just that he should
have the selection of these men, and that they should be under his exclusive control. The persons I appointed were mostly gentlemen with
whom I had been acquainted for years, or their appointments were
based upon such certificates of men of character as justified me in
placing implicit confidence in them. I would recommend in future,
when works requiring the supervision of inspectors are in operation,
that the engineer should be permitted to appoint them under that title,
instead of being obliged to perpetrate a. fraud' by rating them as
mechanics when they perform no mechanical duty, and are not even
paid out of the fund from which the masters who desire to claim them
as their appointments derive their sustenance.
Secondly. Mr. Murphy states in his answer to the communication
that there are no persons employed " under his own immediate supervision who are not entirely competent."  This, I am  satisfied, is
wholly untrue, as William Meehan, who is rated as a first class dock
builder, and was appointed immediately after Mr. Murphy assumed
charge at his solicitation, and under an assurance from him that all
the persons recommended at that time (for there were four others with
him) were able bodied and competent mechanics, has never performed one stroke of work, but has merely acted as Mr. Murphy's
clerk and Mr. Kennedy's (master stonecutter) amanuensis.
I also desire to call your attention to the utter inefficiency of the
dock builders' force, which has arisen in this way: on the 1st of




378                        APPENDIX.
December last, when it was necessary to reduce it, I desired Mr.
Murphy to divide his gang into two parts, one to work from the 1st
to the 15th, the other from the 15th to the 1st; he did so, and
selected all his own friends to work from the 1st to the 15th. This
plan did not meet your approval, and was abandoned; consequently,
those who were to have been relieved, if it had gone into effect, were
continued on. About the 23d of December an order was issued by
you, directing the dock builders' force to be decreased, and Mr. Hastings, who was acting  during  my absence in Washington, was
authorized to carry the order into effect. He accordingly consulted
with the master, and the result was the recommendation for the
dismissal of six men.  On the following day Mr. Murphy recommended the reappointment of James Faye, one of the dismissed, on
the ground that he had been dismissed through inadvertence. The
recommendation was subscribed by Mr. Hastings and approved by
you. On the 26th I returned to my duties, and was informed by one
of my writers that six dock builders had been discharged during my
absence, and that subsequently one of them had been restored. I
sent for the list, and, much to my surprise, found that the five men
dismissed were among the most efficient in the department, and that
the sixth man, James Faye, who had been reinstated, was the most
worthless man in the force and, I have since ascertained, so notorious
throughout the yard for laziness as to have acquired the soubriquet
of the "lime-kiln man."  I therefore directed that he should be suspended.
I distinctly charge that the act which caused the dismissal of these
five men was one of undisguised political hostility; three of them
were from Mr. Sickles' district, and all were suspected of having voted
for Mr. Tieman as mayor.  These facts, I have no doubt, were entirely
unknown to Mr. Hastings.
At the present time, besides the foreman, I do not believe that one-half
of the force are either able bodied men or efficient mechanics; the others
are attaches of the master in his former position as foreman of carpenters, and were employed only because they were friends of the member
of Congress, who obtained this present appointment for him.
In conclusion, I think that Mr. Murphy's lack of energy, garrulous,
inquisitive and proscriptive nature entirely unfit him for his present
position, and I therefore request that an early investigation be made
into the affairs of his department.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHARLES K. GRAHAM,
Constructing Engineer.
Captain THOMAS R. ROOTES,
Commandant pro tern.
NEW YORK, October 9, 1858.
DEAR SIR: Upon inquiring I find that a number more men can be
usefully employed in the master stonecutter's department at the
Brooklyn navy yard. Eighteen cargoes of stone have recently been




APPENDIX.                         379
received, amounting to about two thousand tons, which, with the
amount before at the yard, makes the quantity on hand so large, that
I am informed it would require the services of one hundred men for
twelve months to work it fit for use.
The present force of stonecutters is only thirty men, including the
master foreman.
The appropriation unexpended is adequate to justify an increase of
the force, and I respectfully ask it.
Should the employment of an additional number of men in the
stonecutter's department be authorized, it would prove of most essential service to the democratic party in my district at the approaching
election. I solely make the application for an increase of force to you,
as my relations with the civil engineer of the yard are not of such a
character as to induce me to ask him to unite in the request.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ELIJAH WARD.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
October 15, 1858.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
9th instant, and to inform you in reply, that the matter to which it
relates has been referred to the commandant of the New York navy
yard, to take such action in the case as it may require.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. ELIJAH WARD, New York.
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,
October 19, 1858.
SIR: The department's letter of the 15th instant enclosing a copy
of one from the Hon. Elijah Ward was received yesterday, the 18th
instant, and the subject referred to the constructing engineer.
I now have the honor to enclose Mr. Graham's reply.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
L. KEARNY, Commandant.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
CONSTRUCTING ENGINEER'S OFFICE,
Navy Yard, New York, October 19, 1858.
SIR: In reply to your communication of October 18, enclosing a
letter from General Ward, addressed to the Secretary of the Navy
relative t tthe large quantities of granite which are being received at




380                           APPENDIX.
this yard, and the consequent necessity which exists for a large increase of the force of stonecutters, I submit the following report:
The appropriation for quay wall available on the 1st of
July last, was....................................        $82,000 00
Since that time there has been expended for
labor...................................................   $2,000    00
And for material ordered under last schedule
and paid for out of this appropriation.........  2,000 00
The masons are now engaged in putting in a
foundation for a large crane, which, owing
to the difficulties encountered, will cost about  3,000 00
Steam pump authorized by bureau................  1,000 00
Stone to be delivered, being the whole amount
of contract............................................. 27,386 00
Piles on present schedule, all of which will be
delivered...........................................  2,640   00
As a large quantity of excavation is necessary
before piling, and as all the mud has to be
taken over on the new purchase to be discharged, there will be required for dredging 10,000 00
Piling for foundation, masons, laborers, and
diving bell laborers' wages engaged in laying quay wall....................................... 15,000 00
Wages to stone cutters to 1st July next; thirty
stone cutters and laborers required to attend
upon them at $2,100 00 per month........... 18,000 00
---------- 81,026 00
Probable balance 1st July, 1859, excluding unexpected contingencies...........................             974 00
As at least two-thirds of the granite to be delivered under contract
will require no other dressing than in the beds and joints, the present
force will be equal to all which can be required of them.
In fact I am of the opinion that the work will be insufficient for
their constant employment, if they do their duty, (which is not the
case now,) until the period I have mentioned.
As the appropriation for the " launching ways" is rapidly diminishing, no stone cutting will be charged to that work after the 1st proximo.
Although my personal relations with General Ward are not agreeable, the following report received from the master stonecutter will
show that I have not attempted to throw any obstacle in the way of
his districts' receiving a proper proportion of appointments:
Hon. E. Ward......... 10 stone cutters, including master.
Hon. John Kelly......  4 stone cutters.
Hon. John Cochrane..  4 stone cutters.
Hon. D. E. Sickles...  3 stone cutters.
Hon. George Taylor..  3 stone cutters.
Hon. W. B. Maclay...  3 stone cutters.




APPENDIX.                       381
Hon. J. F. Searing    2 stone cutters.
Hon. J. B. Russell... 1 stone cutter.
Total..................  30
On the contrary, being myselfa resident of it, and largely acquainted
with the mechanics resident there, I have always taken a deep interest
in seeing it properly provided for.,Furthermore, I will most assuredly vote for General Ward, and use
my utmost endeavors to have him returned, as a proper reward for the
support he has always given to the present administration.
In conclusion, although no man is more anxious for the success of
the democratic party than I am, a proper regard for my own reputation and the trust expected from me by the Hon. Secretary of the
-Navy, will not allow me to squander the funds which have been entrusted to my control for the execution of specific works, for the
triumph of that party alone.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
CHARLES K. GRAHAM,
Constructing Engineer.
Commodore L. KEARNY,
Commandant.
WASHINGTON, June 14, 1858.
SIR: We, the undersigned, respectfully request that Mr. Daniel
Kennedy, the master stone cutter, be allowed to select his own foreman. We believe that harmonious action between the master and
foreman will best be promoted by such a course.
Very respectfully, your obedient servants,
JOHN COCHRANE,
ELIJAH WARD,
JOHN KELLY,
JOHN A. SEARING,
W.. B. MACLAY.
Hon. ISAAC TOUcEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, June 16, 1858.
GENTLEMEN: In reply to your letter of the 14th instant, requesting
that Mr. Daniel Kennedy, the.master stone cutter at the New York
navy yard, be allowed to select his own foreman, I have the haoor
to state that Mr. Kennedy has undoubtedly this right under the rules
of the department.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. Messrs. John Cochrane, Elijah Ward, John Kelly, John A
Searing, and W. B. Maclay.




382                        APPENDIX.
NEw YORK, July 10, 1858.
DEAR SIR: You recollect that before our departure from Washington you gave me a letter to General Ward, in which you stated that
the masters have power to appoint their foremen in each of the departments. This letter is not official, and but little notice will be taken
of it unless you duplicate it officially to the commandant in the yard.
I regret exceedingly to give you so much trouble, yet in this case I
think it necessary to retain proper discipline in the yard. It is not
confined to any particular branch, as there are many departments
claiming the same right that General Ward's friend does. Will you do
me the special favor to write to the department immediately, which
will settle the matter. Please accept my kind thanks for the prompt
manner in which you made Faron's appointment.  He will do honor
to the place, as he is an experienced mechanic of great attainments.
I will have it in my power to serve you, I hope, and be assured, my
dear sir, that it will not be forgotten.
Your friend,
JOHN KE LLY.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
P. S. My nomination is certain.
J. K.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 30, 1858.
SIR: The commandant of the navy yard at Brooklyn has been
directed to promulgate and enforce the circular of the Bureau of Yards
and Docks, issued on the 8th of July, 1857, which requires that the
selection of the men to be employed under the master workmen shall
be left to the latter, and that this includes foremen, unless different
directions be given by the department in special cases.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. J. KELLY, M. C., New York.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 30, 1858.
SIR: The circular of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, issued on the
8th of July, 1857, by direction of the department, requires that the
master workmen shall have the selection of the men to be employed
under them.  This, of course, includes foremen, unless different
directions be given by the department in special cases.
You will cause the circular above referred to to be promulgated and
enforced.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Commodore L. KEARNY,
Commandant of the Navy Yard, New York.




APPENDIX.                        383
NEW YORK, July 15, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I have been handed the enclosed affidavits against Mr.
O'Conner, foreman of the sawyers in the navy yard, additional to the
charges already against him in the department.
I hope that they will be considered in connexion with the others.
Very respectfully, yours,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
DEAR SIR: The undersigned would most respectfully call your atten
tion to the following charges against one Thomas O'Conner, at present
foreman sawyer of the Brooklyn navy yard. During the time he was
master sawyer of the said yard, under the administration of President
Pierce, thatonthe 8th,9th, 10th, and one half of the 14th daysof May,
1856, he allowed one Roger McCormick, then working at sawing in
the said yard, to go out after answering to his name, and fraudulently
receive pay for the said time, with the sanction of the said O'Conner.
I would most respectfully refer your honor to the purser's pay rolls
in Washington.
THOMAS CARRIGAN,
256 John street, Brooklyn.
Hon. ISAAc TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, ss.
On this 8th day of July, 1858, before me, personally came Thomas
Carrigan, to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and
say that the contents of the foregoing affidavit is true to the best of
his knowledge and belief.
THOMAS KERRIGAN.
Sworn to this 8th day of July, 1858, before me,
JAMES L. STEWART,
Commissioner (f Deeds.
DEAR SIR: I feel called upon to inform you of some of the misdemeanors
perpetrated by one Thomas O'Conner, recently appointed by your
honor as master sawyer of the Brookly~n navy yard, during the time
he filled the position of master sawyer, under the administration of
Mr. Pierce. Now, sir, I have been a democrat all of' my life time
and worked at sawing for a number of years in the Brooklyn navy
yard previous to his appointment, but, strange to say, I could not
get a day's work from the said Thomas O'Conner until I had to find




384                       APPENDIX,
the sum of twenty dollars ($20) for to hand over to the said Thomas
O'Conner, in consideration of getting employment at sawing, and- he
then and there set me to work after receiving $20.
PATRICK OWENS,
Corner of Navy and Prospect streets, Brooklyn^.
Hon. ISAAC TOUcEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
Sworn before me this 9th day of July, 1858.
ALEX. W. BENNEM,
Commissioner of Deeds in andfor the
city of Brooklyn and State of New York,
NEW YORK, July 10, 1858.
DEAR SIR  In the shop of the master joiner, of which Romeo
Fraganza is master workman, there are between 120 and 130 men
employed-not one from my district.
I have asked to have one employed, by letter to the master and by
personal interview, but unsuccessfully. The answer of the master is
that when he has more work he will consider my application. If I
have not misunderstood your wishes this injustice to my district cannot
meet your approval. The remedy is with you and I trust you will
apply it.
There are several good democrats in my district who are excellent
workmen as ship joiners, and they do not ask anything unreasonable
in seeking employment in this shop when there is not a man from my
district in it.
Truly yours,
D. E. SICKLES.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of th Navy.
NEW YORK, July 27, 1858.
MY DEAR SIR n  I have applied to Mr. Fraganza, master joiner of
the navy yard, to give employment to a few men, good workmen
and worthy persons, in my district. Although he has 130 men or
thereabouts in his shop, he has not done so.
I have only sent one letter of recommendation to him, but no attention has been paid to it, beyond the answer that when he put an
additional number of men to work he would then see what he could do.
I appeal to you to vindicate my district from this unjust and partial
discrimination.
Mr. Fraganza admits he has not one man in his shop from my
district.
If I have not misunderstood your views, it is your wish that the
masters should select from the different districts adjacent to the yard,




APPENDIX.                        385
in equal proportions upon the recommendation of members, the workmen employed in the shops, &c.
Truly yours,
D. E. SICKLES.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy, Washington.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, August 2, 1858.
SIR: The department has addressed the commandant of the navy
yard at New York on the subject of your letter of the 27th ultimo.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
- Hon. DANIEL E. SICKLES, New York.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 30, 1858.
SIR: The Hon. M[r. Sickles has complained to the department
that an unequal and unjust course is pursued towards his district by
Mr. Fraganza, the master joiner, who, though he has about 130 men
under him, has not employed a single person from his district, although
Mr. Sickles has made only one recommendation.
The department desires that a fair and liberal course be pursued
towards Mr. Sickles' district, and wishes you to inquire into  and
report upon this matter.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Commodore L. KEARNY,
Commndadnt Navy Yard, New York.
NAVY YARD, New York, August 5, 1858.
SIR: On receipt of the department's letter of the 30th ultimo, Mr.
Friganza, the master joiner of this yard, was called on for an explanation in regard to the complaint made by the Hon. Mr. Sickles.  Mr.
Friganza's letter, in answer to the subject, is herewith respectfully
submitted.
The department letter of the same date, with referrence to the
selection of their foremen by the master workmen, was also received,
and on the recommendation of Mr. Kennedy, the master stone cutter,
I sanctioned the rating of a foreman, named by him, and the discharge of the person who had previously held that position.
Beliving that I have carried out the intentions of the department's
order, I would like to be informed if the course pursued in this
instance meets its approval.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
L. KEARNY, Commandant.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy.
25 D




386                        APPENDIX
NAVY YARD, NEW YORK,
Joiners' Department, August 5, 1858.
SiR: In answer to your communication I beg leave to state that the
district represented by the Hon. John Cochrane is represented in this
department by fifteen joiners, the majority of whom  were recommended by him.
There are now employed in the yard about one hundred and fifty
men in the different departments who reside in Mr. Cochrane's district.
While upon this subject I would remark that it is utterly impossible for the master workman to faithfully perform his duty to his government and to his conscience, and satisfy the various political interests.
In eight congressional districts who claim the patronage of the
yard, in nine cases out of ten the men who are most strenuously
recommended are very indifferent hands, many of whom cannot obtain employment from private employers.  It has always been my
desire to accommodate the various districts as far as possible when
selecting men for employment, but the duty which I owe the government makes it imperative upon my part that I should select the best
and most experienced hands to perform  the necessary work in this
department.
Some of the members from New York have no joiners in their constituency. The Hon. Daniel E. Sickles never recommended but one
man, and I employed him within three days after such recommendation.
I am not aware that Mr. Sickles has another joiner in his district.
I remain, sir, yours, very respectfully,
ROMEO FRIGANZA.
Commodore LAWRENCE KEARNY,
Commanding Navy Yard, New York.
BROOKLYN, September 23, 1858.
DEAR SIR: I have been informed that Mr. Ward had consented to the
removal of Mr. Kennedy, master stone-cutter in the navy yard. If
this is true let me beg you to appoint Mr. Jones. He is one of the
best mechanics in the State, and a perfect gentleman, and his appointment would increase my vote at least two hundred votes. I will
require all the aid in the power of the administration, and this I
ought to have. My opponents have got up a spurious committee and
have nominated a second democratic candidate, and there is little
doubt of my defeat and the loss of the district unless supported in
every possible way by the administration. Mr. Schell has almost
ruined the administration members of Congress. A more unreliable
and false man cannot be found.  He is base and false.
If Mr. Kennedy is removed let me beg Mr. Jones's appointment.
Also, I understand that Mr. Maclay intends to ask the appointment
of Mr. Houstus in place of Lipper, master moulder. You will recollect that I withdrew McNearny's name with the understanding that
he should be foreman, to which Mr. Maclay consented. I now join




APPENDIX.                         387
him in behalf of Houstus, hut request you to appoint or direct the
appointment of McNearny as foreman, at the same time-otherwise
the understanding will not be carried out.
I hope to see you last of next week.
Very respectfully yours,
GEO. TAYLOR.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, September 29, 1858.
DEAR SIR: A person by the name of Petitt, from Virginia, is
writing here to persons in my district to hold themselves in readiness
to go with him as calkers to Pensacola, Florida, saying that he was
to have the place of master calker there.  Mr. Petitt was a resident
of my district for nearly about six years since, when he was a whig.
The men to whom he has written on to here are republicans. I still
urge upon you for appointment John Mosier, of whom I wrote to you.
It will be of great use to me. Indeed, my district has but a poor consideration in the navy yard, and I now despair of anything better.
I am, respectiully, your obedient servant,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, October 2. 1858.
SIR: The continued and wanton disobedience in the Brooklyn navy
yard of your instructions, together with its uninterrupted continuance,
has satisfied me that it is now in vain to expect relief from a timely
correction of the evil.  That while suffering I may now, however,
seem submissively to bear my burden, I here make personal charges
against the master laborer, McLaughlin; the master timber inspector,
Orr, and the master house carpenter, Ross.  McLaughlin has, I believe, in the vicinity of two hundred men.  I have no men under him.
He declines giving me any, or neglects to.  Orr has somewhere near
one hundred and twenty men.  I have one man under him, and he
declines giving me more. Ross has somewhere about fifty-six men.
I have two men under him.  He declines giving me more.  There are
other masters who are but a short distance behind these in their gross
partiality. It is quite useless, however, to mention them.
If you shall think these charges worthy of notice, I will hold myself in readiness to substantiate them whenever required to do so.
Respectfully yours,
JOHN COCHRANE,
Member of Congress from sixth congressional district, New York.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




388                        APPENDIX.
NEW YORK, November 4, 1858.
DEAR SIR: You declined to entertain my charges against the master house carpenter, the master laborer, McLaughlin, and the master
timber inspector in the Brooklyn navyyard, when made, because it
was then just previous to the election.  Notwithstanding the fearful
influence of the navy yard against me, I have succeeded in a personal
canvass; and notwithstanding the same influence in behalf of the
Brooklyn district, it has been lost.  I now repeat the charges I made
against the masters hereinbefore enumerated, and await your reply.
I am ready with my proofs, and trust the time in your judgment has
arrived when they shall be heard and recognized.  You will permit
me to say plainly that the continuance of the shameful concentration
of patronage in the Brooklyn navy yard to the comparative exclusion
of New York, although Brooklyn is enjoying more than her share of
the patronage of the New York custom-house, is intolerable, and
should not be longer attempted.
I must, therefore, respectfully but firmly request that the democrats of my district be recognized.  They will no longer be delayed,
nor should they be. If nothing is to be done, I would be obliged to
you for an answer even to that effect; for it is of the last importance
that now I should be able to inform my constituents if they are to be
considered by the administration, which, though supporting, they
bitterly complain as regardless of them.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, November 8, 1858.
DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 6th is received, and I regret to say
that it is entirely unsatisfactory, and without power of remedy for
the wrongs I consider that I have endured.  I have, thus far, contended in my district against the influence of the administration, and
it is unreasonable to subject me longer to this adverse pressure.  I
wrote you before, if elected, I should be elected in spite of the hostility of the navy yard, and I have been. The only obstacle that I have
had to contend against has been extensive hostile organizations in my
own party, growing out of the numerous disappointments in procuring
work in the navy yard. This. obstacle was so serious that unless the
merchant republicans and others had assisted me I should have been
beaten. It is not my purpose, while sustaining the administration
with the best of my ability, to submit longer to its shameful treatment of me.  I am now beseiged, day and night, with applications;
and I must have some power of compliance, or I must openly charge
the fault where it belongs. The masters of whom I wrote you have
outraged me, and disobeyed your orders.  You pledged yourself for
their removal in case they disobeyed; I proffer to you the proof of
their disobedience, and upon it I demand their removal. Mr. Graham




APPENDIX.                         389
is the friend of Mr. Sickles; and, of course, as he holds a check on
Commodore Breese, not a man will be displaced, and everything, will
remain as it has been. Through various adverse influences, I have
been juggled and fooled in the yard.  But I submit with all respect,
and I can endure it no longer, and I must receive proper consideration.
I have consumed now six months in journeying to and fro, between
this and Washington and the navy yard, upon errands of piddling
patronage of a dollar a day's amount. It is reasonable to determine
that this be ended now. You impose upon me the removal of these
laborers, and probably with the same result. You will pardon me if
I decline the labor, I do not think it improper that I should now
insist that I at once know what I am to expect, and by what information I shall regulate my future course.  You will, if you please,
-reply to me whether I can have any consideration in the navy yard;
and if so, how it is to be procured.
I am, very respectfully, yours,
JOHN COCHRANE.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
NEW YORK, November 18, 1858.
SIR: It is represented to me that the masters in the Brooklyn navy
yard, in refusing employment to poor democrats residing in my district, act under the express or implied sanction ot your department.
May I request, sir, that you will inform me by note whether such
conduct on the part of the masters there employed meets with your
approbation or otherwise.
It is not improper that I should again remind you that the democracy of my district consists for the most part of humble laboring men,
to whom an occasional day's labor is a matter of prime necessity.
It gives me pain, sir, to feel that any of my public acts, which no
man among them  could control, and for which no living man but
myself is responsible, should have caused their exclusion from the
privilege of laboring upon the public works of the government. At
this season of approaching winter) and in view  of the general
paralysis of all industrial employments, it is especially afflicting that
men who are themselves innocent should suffer this seeming proscription.
Repeated applications to me as the representative in Congress of
the eighth congressional district, for letters recommending the bearers
to the notice of those masters, compel me, in self-defence, to make
the inquiry herein contained, and to give such publication to your
reply as I shall deem necessary to exonerate myself from the charge
of indifference to the wants of the humble and the poor.
May I request an early reply.
Your very obedient servant,
H. F. CLARK.
Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.




390                        APPENDIX.
NAVY DEPARTMENT, November 22, 1858.
SIR: I have received your letter of the 15th instant, in which you
say that it is represented-to you that the masters in the Brooklyn
navy yard, in refusing employment to poor democrats residing in your
district, act under the express or implied sanction of this department.
This representation is altogether mistaken and without the slightest
foundation.  I know of no reason why the democrats of your district
should be proscribed at the Brooklyn navy yard, and I have received
Do information that the masters, who, by the regulations of the
department, have the selection of the workmen, have taken any such
course.
I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
ISAAC TOUCEY.
Hon. H. F. CLARK, New Yor7k




INDEX TO PART II
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Page,
Thomas R. Rootes, U. S. N  ---     -           --    --           --     —.-.. -...-. -    3
William N. Brady —. -. —- - -                             - --  -      -. — --------      37
Jacob R. Wortendyke, M. C.. —.-. —-..-.... —-------—. — -  --             --—.. —...   43
-Bernard DUlnnelly, —-       ----         ---------------— 47
Patrick Fitzgerald                               --   -      ------                         52
Alexander Ward -................ —                - —. —. —--- —. —-. —-----    ------    63
Lewis W. Berry —------- -                                                                    73
Michael Reilly -.-...-..-   - --                -—....... —...-..-................ 82
Joseph Smith, U. S. N ---         --------------                ---        --- ------  -    88
Lawrence Cohane —--- ------. —--- -—. —----- -    ---                         117
William  Merrifield —, —- - - ------                --     ---- -------  -   ---------     127
John A. Searing, M. C —-------- ---         -- - -...-.. —. —---—.. —- --.    137
John L. White- ---- - ----  140
Richard HT. Teller- - -             - - -  -----                               - -  - -  -  142
Lawrence Kearny, U. S. N —---                                           ---                 145
John Cochrane, M. C       - --------  -        ---- -—. —----------- -----------           148
John B. Haskin, M. C         -----—,- ---- - ------- ---------------                      153
Anson Herrick -  ---..... —--- -------          -. --- —.   -—.- -----   --------    158
Edward A. Barnet, U. S. N ----- - ------------------ ---                                   179
Charles Hastings ----------------------— 184
William  D. Kennedy -,. —---,- -...-. —-- ------  ------------               --—.    189
H. F. Clark, M  C ------- ------                              --..-..-.......... —--—.. --   194
George Taylor, M. C ------ ----------    205
R. S. Swackhamer. —     ---                                                               214
George N. Sanders            -         - --------------   220
William Turner --- --------— _              --------         -----------  ------    255
John Kelly ------ -—...-... —            ---—. —-------- - -----                        267
Charles K. Graham, —----- -                ----- ----------- ------------------    273
Benjamin F. Delano --------- ---         ------  ------         --- ---  ----      ---   286
Artemas B. Jones —-----------------                   -  ---    ---- -----                 296
John S. Crawford  n.. - -—.. ——. ------—.  -.- —. —. ----—..    -.. -   -      299
John Vandervoort ---------—, —---. -- —.-.-     -                             303
Joseph Smith --------------------------------                --------                      303
William B. Maclay, M. C ---. —-------                        ------  --- — _               313
Robert Leigh                              ---                        -- 316
Simeon Coapman  —..-.-.- ----- - ---------------              ------—. -----—. —-,   318
George A. Blood —.-            ---          ------, -, —-------  ----------   320
Anson Herrick-Appendix to Testimony-...-......- -             -..... —----------—.   326
William Merrifield —Appendix to Testimony —_.__-, --- ---------- -             -------    331




392                                     INDEX.
PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD.
Page.
John J. McElhone -—.        -......-.......................... -- ---- -....    333
Henry S. Crabbe. —. —---- -.                                                        334
Overton Carr -,-. —------ -   ---------  -----— s-   342
Thomas B. Florence, M. C —--- —............- 348
APPENDIX.
Documents from the Navy Department. ----           -         - -         - -    353-390