.

In this connection, I will read a few letters to and from assistant engineer in charge of the work, to show the manner in which the contractor attempted to carry on this part of the work.

I will also invite the attention to sec. 3477, U. S. Revised Statutes, which requires that, in claims of this nature, a power of attorney must be executed after a claim has been allowed and the amount determined.

II. The claim on lock work is based upon certain statements (form 1 to 7, inclusive) which are in every material item untrue. Taking them in their order (page 4), it may be proved by unquestionable documentary and oral evidence—

1st. That there was a drawing of the proposed locks exhibited to bidders, showing curved work, arches, &c.

2nd. That bidders were not informed that the work would be similar to the locks at Keokuk.

3rd. There was nothing to induce the belief that the walls would have a thickness of from 17 to 20 feet, and Mr. Williams himself told me on two or three occasions that the reason why he bid only $5.00 per thousand for timber foundations was because he knew they would not be required.

4th. The character of the work upon these locks has not, since his bids were made, been materially and radically changed in any way that could work to the disadvantage of the contractor.

a. Lock 2 has been arranged so that it can be used for a lift of 6 feet, lock 3 for 12 feet, and lock 4 for 114 feet; but,

b. The chamber walls of lock 2 are 14 feet high, or are one foot lower than they were shown in the original drawing, Lock is 20 feet high, or exactly as shown in the original drawing, and lock 4 is 2 feet lower, except the upper bay, which is only six inches lower.

c. Thickness of the chamber walls has been somewhat reduced, but this reduces the quantity of rubble, which was least profitable for the contractor, and does not affect the quantity of cut stone.

d. The foundations were not built of cut stone, instead of timber filled with concrete, and the latter is distinctly not required by contract. The foundation is solid rock, and the so-called foundation of cut stone is nothing but a portion of the side wall of the lock below grade, which was built in part of rubble and part concrete, and the quantity of this masonry below grade was very considerably increased by the contractor himself, in violation of orders, by blasting deeper than was necessary, thus compelling the government to pay for unnecessary excavations and afterwards for masonry to replace it. More than this, had the contractor been compelled to put in timber and concrete, as he pretends he wanted to, it would have cost him at least $40.00 per thousand more than his contract price, or on the three locks he would have lost from $45,000 to $50,000 on this one item.

5th. He was not delayed by the engineer in charge in the commencement of the work, as the monthly reports and correspondence will show (see page 47 of pamphlet). 6th. He was not hindered and delayed by changes of plan. There is not one scrap of writing on file in this office, nor elsewhere, so far as I have ever heard, to show that any work already done, or even begun, was rendered useless by any change of plan. No such charge was made, to my knowledge, until near the close of the work, when this claim began to take form. As late as March 19, 1878 (pp. 50 and 52 of his pamphlet), Mr. Williams makes no allusion to delay from want of plans, nor to work rendered useless by reason of changes. It was about that time that he first suggested it, nearly two years later.

The changes of plan and detail were all made in the interest of the government, but great care was taken to ascertain exactly how they would affect the contractor, as I well knew that advantage would be taken of any pretext for extra compensation. In many cases he was allowed a choice of ways in doing a given piece of work, and many of the changes now complained of were made at the earnest solicitation of the contractor himself. In all cases he was allowed the benefit of a doubt, and the specifications were liberally construed. As an illustration of this, it may be mentioned that one item, of allowing the back of the coping and a part of the lower course of facing to be laid with quarry faces, saved from $1,000 to $1,500 to the contractor in the cost of stonecutting.

He was relieved from the expense of putting iron dowels and clamps in the mitresills and coping, which saved him hundreds of dollars.

He was paid tri-monthly instead of on monthly estimates for a whole year, and was paid his retained percentage on No. 3 before it was done, in order to enable him to tide over alleged financial embarassments.

He was allowed a whole year's extension of his contract time in order to enable him to complete his work, notwithstanding the reduction of quantities complained of and notwithstanding the assertion often made that he "could build one of the locks in sixty days." This extension of time not only interfered with other proposed work, but

necessitated the continuance of an engineer party to inspect and measure the work done, which cost the government about $10,000 for the extra time granted.

Several modifications of his contract were made at his suggestion, to enable him to keep the balance of his men and tools advantageously employed, while a small force completed the locks, for which extra work he was paid nearly $10,000; and, finally, after the work was completed the government purchased not only all his tools, railroad engines, &c., but the temporary building, and unused stone, iron, cement, and other materials at a liberal price, based on the value of the property in its present condition and location, and was at least $15,000 more than this property could have been sold for under any other circumstances, as most of it would have greatly depreciated in value if removed.

On the other hand, it has been a source of trouble to prevent the contractor and his employés from evading the plainest requirements of the contract, both on section and lock work. They would neglect ramming the earth; cover up stumps instead of grubbing them out; patch up cut stones which spalls had been broken off; set stones after they had been condemned and cover them up with other masonry, or ship them to another lock where there was a different inspector; put too much sand in the mortar, &c., &c.

As to the value of the work done by the contractor, it may be stated

a. Taking the actual quantities of excavation, masonry, &c., instead of those on which the contract was awarded, and other parties would have had the contracts for the two larger locks (3 and 4).

6. After beginning his work on these locks the contractor voluntarily took the contract for building lock No. 2 at prices very much lower, viz, $1.00 a yard instead of $2.00 for rock excavation, 25 c. vs. 50 c. for earth, $14 pr. yard vs. $16 for cut stone, &c. e. Although offered the option of leaving out the mitre-sills, he declined to do so, although they were, next to the hollow quoins, the most expensive parts of cut stone. d. Other parties, having inspected his work when nearly completed, offered to do similar work very much cheaper (see Table 1, hereto appended).

e. Mr. Williams himself just before this time told me that he would do the new work lower than the lowest bid that might be offered, but he subsequently said that he would not bid at all, and finally said he would put in a bid on advice of his counsel, which he probably did, as it was a high one.

Before the Board of Engineers, composed of Col. J. N. Macomb, Genl.O. M. Poe, and Capt. L. C. Overman, appointed under the act of Congress entitled "An act for the relief of the legal representatives of George Williams, deceased," approved January 13th, 1879, and acting under Special Orders No. 56 and 60, in session at Keokuk, Iowa, April 1st, 1879.

Statement of claimant.

Now comes C. L. Williams, the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of George Williams, deceased, late of Keokuk, Iowa, and presents under his oath his claim against the United States of America under the above-named act of Congress.

I.

As stated in the said act of Congress, the claim of this claimant arises out of the work done by the said George Williams in his lifetime and by his legal representative ince his death upon the Muscle Shoals Canal, in the Tennessee River, in the State of Alabama. During the lifetime of the said George Williams differences arose between him and the engineers in charge of the work as to the compensation to which he was entitled from the Government of the United States for the work done by him, first, apon certain sections (3&4); and, second, upon certain locks (2, 3, & and 4) of the

said Muscle Shoals Canal.

An effort was made to adjust these differences before the Chief of Engineers, but owing to the views entertained by the Chief of Engineers and those under him as to the effect of the written contracts between the government and the said Williams, the effort for an adjustment failed, and the said Williams was referred to Congress as the appropriate tribunal to determine what relief should be given to him.

Accordingly the said Williams in his lifetime presented his case to Congress through the appropriate committees, and the result was the passage of the above-named act of Congress. His case was presented to the Senate through the Committee on Military Affairs, by which it was fully considered, and was presented to the House through the Committee on Private Claims, by which it was also fully considered. Both committees were unanimously in favor of the bill, and the bill was unanimously passed by both houses of Congress. Each of the committees submitted written reports strongly favoring the bill. The said George Williams departed this life July 17th, 1878, between the time of the first passage of the bill through the Senate and the final passage of the bill through both houses of Congress.

After the bill for the relief of George Williams had been referred to the committees of Congress as above set forth, the said committees submitted in a written communication to the Hon. the Secretary of War the proposed bill, and called for such information as could be furnished by that department for the guidance of the committees, which communication was through the Secretary of War submitted to the Chief of Engineers, and in reply to the communication of said committees the Chief of Engineers responded and submitted through the Secretary of War papers and records with an accompanying report pertaining to the claim of said Williams. And the said George Williams caused to be submitted to said committees his affidavit with accompanying exhibits in a printed pamphlet, a duplicate of which is hereto attached marked Exhibit "A," and made part hereof, that this board may be informed of the history of the claim of said Williams and of the passage of said act of Congress.

An examination of the said printed pamphlet will show, first, the basis upon which the said Williams sought a settlement with the Bureau of Engineers without the intervention of an act of Congress, which was in harmony with, if not strictly upon,

the contracts.

And, secondly, the basis upon which he asked relief from Congress after it was found impossible to settle with the Bureau of Engineers, owing to their construction of the contracts, which was a settlement based upon his actual expenditures for and on account of the work with reasonable compensation for the use of tools and for money advanced.

The claim of said Williams made to the engineers is set forth in said printed pamphlet, first, as to the section work, in communication to Major W. R. King, dated January 22d, 1877 (star pages 46, 47, 48), and, second, for locks, in communication to Genl. A. A. Humphreys, dated March 19th, 1878 (pages 50, 51, 52, & 53).

And the claim of said Williams for relief from Congress is set forth in said printed pamphlet in his affidavit submitted to the committees of Congress dated May 17th, 1878 (pages 1 to 9 inclusive).

So, after a full hearing by both parties in interest, Congress passed the act under which the board are now acting.

This act of Congress in substance provides that the Secretary of War shall, upon the recommendation of a board of engineers to be by him appointed, make a settlement with the legal representative of Williams upon just and equitable terms upon the basis of an allowance for the actual expenditures by said Williams and his legal representative for and on account of this work, with reasonable compensation for the use of tools and money advanced.

Under this act this board has been appointed and certain instructions, set forth in the order of appointment, have been given for the guidance of the board.

This claimant in making his statement will endeavor as near as may be to submit the information and knowledge in his possession bearing on these instructions in the order they are set forth in the said order of appointment.

II.

And first as to the actual expenditures of the said George Williams and, since his death, of his legal representative mentioned in instruction No. 1.

This claimant states that he was the son of the said George Williams, deceased, and his assistant and clerk and bookkeeper during the past ten years next before his death. That as such clerk and bookkeeper this claimant had the general superintendence of the disbursements of money used by the said George Williams in his business.

That as such clerk and bookkeeper this claimant at all times aimed to keep and believes he did keep a faithful and true account of the disbursements of money by the said George Williams, deceased, in his business. And during all said time this claimant aimed to keep and believes he did keep a regular and systematic set of books, showing all the business transactions of said George Williams.

That since the death of said George Williams this claimant has continued in the capacity of administrator of his estate to keep said books as they were kept before his death, and for the same purpose, namely, that all of his transactions may be clearly known to those entitled to know them.

This claimant shows that upon the commencement of the work to be done by the said George Williams upon "The Muscle Shoals Canal,” in the Tennessee River, this claimant, as the clerk and bookkeeper of the said George Williams, opened a regular account upon the regular books of said George Williams under his direction with "The Tennessee River Works," in order that all disbursements and receipts for and on account of said work might from time to time be clearly shown. And this claimant, from the time of the opening of said account to the present time, has faithfully kept an account of all the disbursements and receipts on account of the said "The Tennessee River Works." That the opening and keeping of the said account with "The TenDessee River Works" was in conformity to the uniform custom of the said George Williams to keep true accounts with the different works upon which he was engaged as contractor.

And in respect to the books of the said George Williams and, since his death, of his legal representative, this claimant says he believes that the business of said George Williams was kept in his books and papers pertaining thereto in a more regular, methodical, and systematic form than is usual with contractors, and in as good shape as the books of the best business men of the West are kept.

During the last ten years next before the death of the said Williams he had large contracts under the Government of the United States for work upon the various "publie works" of the country, and, in order to avoid confusion, it was essential that books should be kept upon an approved system. And, besides, the claimant says that the said George Williams had other large business interests, such as interests in a coal company and grain elevator in Iowa that necessitated the keeping of a regular and systematic set of books.

Pursuant to the act of Congress above mentioned and in conformity to the instructions to the Board of Engineers, this claimant has caused to be made under his immediate personal supervision a true itemized statement of the receipts and disbursements of the said George Williams, deceased, and since his death of his legal representative, for and on account of "The Tennessee River Works," which is herewith presented in a book marked Exhibit B and made part hereof.

This claimant states that the actual expenditures of the said George Williams and his legal representative are shown upon the said book in the order of time of their payment on pages from 1 to 25, inclusive, and the receipts are shown on pages from 26 to 25, inclusive. And certain items included in the expenditures from 1 to 25 are set out in greater detail in said book on pages from 40 to 66, inclusive.

The said book, in the columns as indicated in their respective headings, shows the time of payment, the person to whom paid or for what paid, and, when paid by check, the number of the check, and when a voucher, the number of it, and, also, references to the other books of the said Williams or his legal representative.

This account has been taken under the immediate personal supervision of this claimant from the books of the said George Williams, after a careful comparison of the vouchers, pay-lists, check-books, drafts, papers, and books of original entry, and other books of the said George Williams, and since it has been made up, has again been carefully compared and verified by this claimant and his assistants, and he does not hesitate to say that the same is correct and that all of the expenditures have been made as set forth in said book for the purposes therein mentioned. In the list of expenditures there may be an occasional "cross-entry " which does not represent an actual payment, but in every such instance there is a corresponding "cross-entry" in the list of receipts which balances exactly the charge.

This claimant states that he personally disbursed much the larger portion of the money so expended and superintended substantially all the disbursements of said money, and all of said disbursements not made personally by him or under his immediate personal supervision were at the time when made reported to him and he kept an account of the same, and he has no doubt the payments were made as charged in the account, and for the money not disbursed by this claimant or under his immediate personal supervision, nearly, if not quite all of it, was disbursed by C. S. Whitney, the agent of the said George Williams or his legal representative in immediate charge of the work, and regularly reported to this claimant and regularly charged at the time. And for any money not thus personally disbursed by this claimant or said Whitney, there are vouchers or receipts from the persons receiving the same, as there is for most if not quite all of the money so expended.

In the list of expenditures there is no charge made for the services of this claimant as clerk and bookkeeper of said George Williams, although his services in connection with said work were of great value, at least that of an assistant manager during about three years' time, which was paid for by said George Williams, but as this claimant was during that time also performing services for said George Williams in other

matters pertaining to his other business, and there was no charge made in the books at the time for services of this claimant to the said "Tennessee River Works," no claim, therefore, is included in said account, nor is there any claim included in said account for the services of the said George Williams, who during his lifetime gave to said work a general supervision and much personal attention, which services were necessarily of great value, rendered as they were by a man of great experience and capacity as a contractor, and of great energy and untiring industry.

Only the actual expenses of the said George Williams and of this claimant while engaged for said "The Tennessee River Works" are included in said account. This claimant invites the most careful inquiry and critical scrutiny of this board into said account, and offers for the inspection of the board all the papers, pay-lists, vouchers, drafts, check-books, and books of original entry or other books of the said George Williams bearing on the items of said account to be examined, if the board so desire, at such time and place as may be fixed by the board.

This claimant reaffirms his former statement that the account in said book "4, B" is correct, and that the amounts therein stated were all paid as therein stated, for the purposes therein stated. Should it be that any item or items therein stated, in the opinion of the board, are not "actual expenditures" within the meaning of the said act of Congress, and the said instructions, or if any such item or items in the opinion of the board should be considered separately, this claimant offers to draw off such item or items on a separate exhibit, with such further explanations as may be necessary, in writing or orally, whenever so requested by the board, in such manner as the board may designate.

And this claimant only asks that in the event that the board should be in doubt or of an opinion adverse to any of the item or items of said account being "actual expenditures" within the meaning of said act of Congress and the instructions to the board, that he may have an opportunity to be heard on such item or items, if he shall so desire, before a final decision with reference thereto is made by the board.

The said book Exhibit B shows the amount of "actual expenditures," and the amount of "receipts," leaving balance of "actual expenditures.'

III.

As to the character and quality of the work mentioned in instruction No. 2.

As the instructions to the board and the act of Congress clearly contemplate that the board shall make a personal examination of the work, and as the board have gone upon the work and examined the same, this claimant has nothing to submit under this head further than to say that the work is of first-class quality and of the best character, and the highest evidence of this is that it has been accepted by the officers of the government in charge of the work.

IV.

As to whether the expenditures in the prosecution of said work were reasonable and proper, as mentioned in instruction No. 3.

This claimant submits that the presumption of law and fact is that the "actual expenditures" were reasonable and proper, for the strong motive of self-interest would prevent an experienced contractor like George Williams spending anything unnecessarily, and there is no motive that could be attributed to him to make unnecessary or improper expenditure. And this claimant further says that he has had large experience in the matter of contracts for "public works" in the capacity of assistant to George Williams during the last ten years. During that period the said George Williams had many contracts under the Government of the United States, and this claimant from his knowledge derived from this experience in connection with "public works" knows the general nature and value of all expenditures required in connection therewith.

And this claimant knows, from his connection with "The Tennessee River Works" in controversy, the general nature and character of all the expenditures set forth in the said account, Exhibit "B," and that the said expenditures were reasonable and proper for the purposes for which they were made. And that the prices paid for labor, materials, supplies, and expenses set forth in said account are reasonable and just, and such as prudent and economical contractors would have been required to pay out under similar circumstances in performing the work done by the said Williams and his legal representative.

This claimant deems it unnecessary, in view of the fact that the board have been personally along the line of the canal, to say much of the country through which it passes and adjacent to it.

It is thought sufficient in this connection to call attention to the "isolated situation" of the canal and its remoteness from the usual routes of transportation by river and