railroad. It is cut off several miles from the railroad and from the navigable portion of the river, thus increasing largely the cost of the transportation of tools, supplies, material and men to the work. It lies along a wild, broken, almost unpopulated section of the country. Laborers can only be procured with difficulty, on account of the heated terms and sickly and rainy seasons.

The board saw the canal after its partial reconstruction, and after the said George Williams and his legal representative had completed the portion of the work in controversy, and when the outfit used by the said Williams was along the line of the canal, yet they can readily imagine the condition of things at the time of the commencement of the work, when the country lay in almost a state of nature, the old canal covered by the growth and deposit of forty years. In determining what are reasonable and proper expenditures, regard must be had to the place where the work was done and all of its surroundings and attendant difficulties.

Since the completion of the work of said Williams the Government of the United States has concluded to do portions of the remainder of the work on the canal, and have purchased of the estate of the said Williams the outfit of said Williams remaining after the completion of the said work, in order that the work to be done by the government may be done in the most satisfactory and economical manner, and from this fact the irresistible inference must be drawn that the outfit and appliances of the said Williams were reasonable and proper and well adapted to the work for which they were intended.

And this claimant confidently submits that "the actual expenditures" of the said Williams and his legal representative were reasonable and proper.

V.

As to the 4th instruction, what would be a reasonable compensation for the use of tools and for money advanced in the prosecution of this work.

And first as to tools.

These tools may be divided into two classes:

First. Those tools charged as part of the actual expenditures in Exhibit B.

Second. Those tools taken from Keokuk upon the work and not charged in Exhibit B. As to the first class, this claimant submits that they were purchased during the progress of the work and used in the prosecution of the work and are charged among the actual expenditures, Exhibit B.

As the remaining tools charged in Exhibit B have been sold by this claimant to the United States since the completion of said work for the sum of $15,193.31, the said sum is credited to the United States in the receipts in Exhibit B. In this way this claimant is reimbursed for the cost of said tools, without, however, receiving any compensation for their use.

As to the second class, namely, those tools taken from Keokuk and used in the prosecation of this work, they are set out in Exhibit C, hereto attached, and made part hereof.

The reasonable and just value of said tools, as this claimant knows, at the time they were taken from Keokuk upon said work was about $60,000.

For the use of these tools during the progress of this work, a period of about 28 months, a reasonable compensation is asked, as contemplated by the said act of Congress and the instructions to the board.

The Government of the United States has heretofore rented and paid for the use of some of the identical tools so taken from Keokuk, through Major Amos Stickney, engineer in charge of the canal in the Mississippi River, near Keokuk, known as "The Des Moines Rapids Canal," at the following rates during portions of the years 1875 and 1876, viz:

These prices should serve as a guide in determining the value of these tools, and the only time these tools were rented was to the United States as above stated.

After 28 months' service in this work, and the necessary wear and tear resulting from a constant service in said work, the remainder of the tools taken from Keokuk were sold to the United States by this claimant for the sum of $16,382.94.

This claimant submits that the difference between what these tools were worth when taken upon the work and the amount for which they were sold shows what would be necessary to reimburse this claimant for the tools, and to this should be added a reasonable compensation for their use, based upon their value when they went into the service of this work.

In determining their rental value this claimant submits that this board should con

sider the rent heretofore paid by the government for the use of these tools, and also the value of the tools when they began the work and after the work was completed.

The character of the tools, as well as the character of the work they were required to do, necessarily made the "wear and tear," the "loss and destruction," very great. The best possible care was taken of these tools, yet inevitably greatly diminished values resulted from their constant service for 28 months in this work.

Two modes suggest themselves to this claimant, either of which would be proper in arriving at what should be allowed for the use of tools:

1st. Än allowance for rent analogous to the prices paid by Major Stickney, as above shown.

2nd. A reasonable rental based on the value of the tools when they went into the service of the work, to which should be added the diminished value of the tools resulting from their service in the work.

As to the compensation for money advanced, this claimant submits:

As an inevitable consequence of the inadequate proportion which the estimates of the engineers in charge of the work bore to the actual outlay required on the part of the said Williams, the said Williams was required to borrow money to prosecute said work, and for this borrowed money interest was necessarily required to be paid.

In Exhibit B, there are set out as actual expenditures in prosecuting said work $10,931.26, representing interest actually paid for money actually used in the prosecution of this work. In this amount nothing is represented except money actually paid out for interest.

In Exhibit B there is no interest charged except what was actually paid out. The rate of interest paid was the usual and customary rate, and nothing more than was absolutely necessary for a borrower in good standing to pay for advances of a like character. This interest, so paid, is part of "the actual expenditures" within the meaning of said act of Congress.

But this borrowed money does not represent all or nearly all of the money advanced by the said Williams or his legal representative in the prosecution of said work.

A glance at Exhibit B will show that in addition there was a large amount of money advanced by said Williams, or his legal representative for which he is entitled to compensation under the provisions of said act of Congress, and the board are asked to allow such reasonable compensation, such sum as the facts may warrant and the judgment of the board shall approve.

In conclusion this claimant submits

VI.

Usually, the United States, like natural persons, having work done, pays for such work such prices as allow the contractor a reasonable price, which comes in the shape of profits more than compensation for money advanced and use of tools, allowing a margin for the skill and labor and time employed on the part of the contractor.

That it is proper to pay such profits, the universal experience of mankind attests. In this case, however, the Congress of the United States having determined that an adherence to the contracts would be an act of injustice on the part of the government, and would bring ruin and disaster to the contractor, an act has been passed entitled "An act of relief," by the letter and spirit of which prices are not allowed which would cover usual and customary profits, but a substantial reimbursement of the contractor is provided for, allowing him his actual expenditures with reasonable compensation for money advanced and tools used in the prosecution of the work.

In ascertaining what should be allowed in this case, this claimant is advised and believes that the board should proceed to state the account between him and the United States, first ascertaining the actual expenditures and then the compensation for money advanced and for the use of tools, and after deducting the receipts recommend the payment of the balance, and interest on the same. This claimant now, and at all times hereafter, holds himself in readiness to furnish such information or assistance as may intelligibly assist the board in discharging the important duties imposed upon them by the act of Congress, and the instructions under which they are acting. Respectfully submitted.

THE STATE OF IOWA,

The County of Lee:

C. L. WILLIAMS, Administrator of the estate of George Williams, deceased.

I, C. L. Williams, the claimant above named, state that I have read the foregoing statement, and the facts therein stated are true, as I verily believe.

Subscribed and sworn to this 5th day of April, 1879, before me. [SEAL.]

C. L. WILLIAMS.

WILLIAM H. CARTER,

Notary Public.

No. 13.

EXHIBIT A.

In the matter of Senate bill 1244.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 14, 1878.

Mr. Morgan asked and, by unanimous consent, obtained leave to bring in the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs:

For the relief of George Williams.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

I.

District of Columbia, sct:

L. George Williams, on my solemn oath, make the following statement in support of the bill above referred to for my relief:

I reside in the city of Keokuk, in the county of Lee, in the State of Iowa, and have resided there since 1861. I am a practical contractor. From the year 1848 to 1868 I was engaged in the construction and management of railways.

Since 1838 I have been engaged in doing work for the United States Government, under contracts for the improvement of the navigable waters of the country. I have done work in the improvement of the Mississippi River, at or near Rock Island, Ills., and Dubuque and Keokuk, Iowa, and at or near St. Genevieve and Cape Girardeau, Mo., below the city of St. Louis, and have done work upon the Illinois River near Beardstown.

I built a large portion of the locks and canal around the Des Moines Rapids in the Mississippi River at or near Keokuk, Iowa.

The last work done by me was in building the locks and canal around the Big Musele Shoals, in the Tennessee River, between Florence and Decatur, Alabama, which work is just about being completed.

My claim for relief arises out of this work, and is for certain section work and for building certain locks.

In connection with my statement I make part hereof the copies of the following contracts, which have been furnished the committee by the Secretary of War, and ask that they be marked respectively A, B, and C, to wit:

1st. Contract entered into December 13th, 1875, between Matthew G. Kennedy of the one part and Major Walter McFarland of the other part, for work on sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, of the canal around Big Muscle Shoals in the Tennessee River.

24. Contract entered into March 31st, 1876, between Major Walter McFarland, Corps of Engineers, of the one part and George Williams of the other part, for the construction of locks numbers 3 and 4 of the Muscle Shoals Canal.

34. Contract entered into October 14th, 1876, between Captain W. R. King, Corps of Engineers, of the one part and George Williams of the other part, for the construction of lock No. 2 of the Muscle Shoals Canal.

Concerning the section work, I make the following statement:

Mr. Matthew G. Kennedy entered into the contract, as above stated, December 13th, 1-75.

He prosecnted the section work under that contract until about May 1st, 1876. At this time I had entered into the contract for building locks 2 and 3, and had caused all of my tools and implements, of the value of from $80,000 to $100,000, to be transported from Keokuk, Iowa, to the line of said canal, to commence the work on saul locks.

Mr. Kennedy, at the time I reached the work with my tools, was about failing in his contract, and at the suggestion of Major Long, the engineer in charge of the work, and with the consent of said Kennedy, I consented to carry forward said work under poser of attorney from Mr. Kennedy; this power of attorney was approved by the Chief of Engineers, Secretary of War, and Comptroller of the Currency. A true copy of the same, with endorsements thereto, is hereto attached, and marked Exhibit A, 2. I did this because the engineer in charge had not the plans of the locks completed, and was not ready for me to begin work upon them.

Having my tools upon the ground, and having engaged men to do the work on the beks, at the earnest solicitation of the engineer in charge and Mr. Kennedy I undertook to do the section work under said power of attorney while I was waiting for the pians of the locks and the location of same to be settled and determined by the engibeer in charge.

My grounds for relief as to this section work are fully set forth in a communication H. Ex. 56-2

I made to Major King, the engineer in charge of the work, in the name of Mr. Kennedy, dated January 22d, 1877.

This communication is true, and I make a true copy thereof part hereof, and mark it exhibit "D."

The result of the change, as stated in said communication, was that the section work, although done in the most careful and economical manner, cost a large sum in excess of the amounts estimated at the contract prices.

And the reason of this is perfectly apparent. The contract prices were fixed upon the representation of the engineer in charge, and the belief of the contractor that the work to be done included the excavation of the old tow-path, from which the earth material could be obtained in abundance.

The earth excavation alone, in section 3 and 4, was to approximate 180,000 cubie yards, nearly all of which was to come from the old tow-path. The change, however, prevented me from excavating or utilizing the old tow-path.

The bids were made with reference to the geography of the work.

Instead of being permitted to excavate or utilize the old tow-path, I was compelled to get the earth material from the bottom of the canal or burrow it from the outside, and in many instances I had to haul this material a mile or more.

Now, while I do not make a claim for profits lost by reason of not being permitted to remove the earth in the old tow-path, yet I submit that, in view of the facts above stated, I am entitled to a fair and reasonable compensation for the work I actually did, unrestricted by the contract price.

If I am allowed the reasonable compensation for this section work to which I am entitled, the cost of this section work to the government will fall far below the estimated cost thereof at the time the contract was made.

II.

My claim for relief for the building of the locks is based upon the following facts: 1st. At the time I made my bids for these locks no plans had been drawn, and the only guide I had was the specifications and the representations of the engineer in charge.

2d. In making my bids I relied upon the specifications and the representations of the engineer in charge that the locks were to be similar to the middle or lower lock in the Des Moines Rapids Canal in the Mississippi River at Keokuk, Iowa.

3d. By these specifications and representations, I was induced to believe that the locks would be of the dimensions mentioned in the specifications, and that the thickness of the walls of the locks would be of an average thickness of from 17 to 20 feet, and the foundation would be of timber filled with concrete.

4th. The character of the work upon these locks has, since my bids were made, been materially and radically changed in this

a Lock 2 has been changed from a 5 feet lift to a 6 feet lift, and lock 3 from a 10 feet lift to a 12 feet lift, and lock 4 from a 10 feet lift to a 113 feet lift.

b The chamber walls of lock 2 have been changed from a height of 13 feet, as by the original specifications, to a height of 14 feet. The thickness of the chamber walls of this lock has been reduced more than one-half.

The chamber walls of locks 3 and 4 have been changed from a height of about thirteeen feet (as per specifications, page 1) to a height of twenty-one to twentythree feet, and the thickness of the chamber walls of these locks has been reduced fully one-half.

d The foundation has been built of cut stone masonry instead of timber, filled with concrete, as required by contract.

5th. I was delayed by the engineer in charge in the commencement of the work.

I was ready to begin the work in May, 1876, as required by the contract, but had no plan furnished me until September, 1876. I attach hereto, marked Plan No. 1, and make part hereof, a true copy of the first plan furnished me.

This plan relates to locks Nos. 3 and 4, and provides for ten feet lift in each, and the thickness of the chamber walls then provided for, as shown by the plan, was about seventeen to twenty-four feet, and the height of the chamber walls then provided for was about twenty feet.

6th. I was hindered and delayed by changes in the plan of the locks while the work was in progress. In April, 1877, a second plan for lock 4 was delivered to me by the engineer in charge, a true copy of which plan I hereto attach, marked Plan No. 2, and make part hereof.

This plan contemplates a lock of ten feet lift, with the chamber walls largely reduced in thickness and increased in height from the original specifications and first plan. Some time afterwards I was furnished by the engineer in charge with a plan for lock No. 2, a true copy of which I hereto attach, marked Plan No. 4, and make part hereof.

Between the time the first plan was furnished me, as above stated, and the time I

received the second and third plans, I had prepared a large amount of stone to do the work in accordance with the first plan on locks 3 and 4, and had a large force of men on the work, and had no notice there was to be a change in the first plan until I received the second and third plans. The change was so great, that a large amount of stone which had been prepared by me in conformity to the first plan, and which was to have been used in the breast wall and mitre sills and various other places on these locks, were rendered unfit by the change to be used for these locks wi hout re-cutting them, and I had to throw them entirely away or re-cut them.

By this unexpected and radical change in the scope and character of this work, I was delayed in the work and greatly damaged.

All the work that I did was done under the direction and supervision of the engineers in charge, yet I am denied all compensation for this work, done by their direction, and which was rendered useless by their own acts.

When I ascertained that the changes in the work were to be made, I immediately made application, so far as locks 3 and 4 were concerned, to the engineers in charge for additional compensation for my work. I make my communication to Major King, dated May 24th, 1877, and exhibit hereto, attaching hereto a copy of same, which has been furnished the committee by the Secretary of War, and marking same Exhibit E. And I also make part hereof my two communications to Gen. A. A. Humphreys, Chief of Engineers, referring to my claims for the locks, dated March 16th and 19th, 1978, and mark them respectively Exhibits F and G.

In these communications I have correctly stated the facts, and I ask their careful consideration. After I had been furnished Plan No. 3 for lock No. 4, there were still further changes made in this lock, increasing the height of the wall from the upper end of the lock chamber to the upper end of the wing walls one foot and six inches. 7th. My bids for the three locks are set forth in itemized form in Exhibits H, I, and K. hereto attached and made part hereof. They were in the aggregate as follows:

These were the figures made by the engineer in charge at the time of the awarding of the contracts. These do not include anything for extra compensation for arched or enrved work, or cut-stone foundation, or increase of height of walls of chambers of the locks.

The amounts bid, and the other items not included in the bids, such as extra compensation for curved and arched work and cut-stone foundation, &c., would have Lade the work cost, on the basis of the original designs and specifications, more than $350,(HMO).

Now, under the changes which have been made, as herein before set out, I have built these locks larger, increasing the lift of each of them, giving to each higher chamber walls and ent-stone foundation, yet the work so done by me, as estimated by the engineer in charge, under his erroneous rulings allows me only about $190,000, which $77.420 less than the original bids, and $160,000 less than the work would have cost, after adding that part not included in the bids, and which would have necessarily have had to have been done had the work been carried out according to the original design.

In other words, I have built more costly locks than I agreed to build, and am to be paid vastly less than was agreed to be paid me for less expensive locks.

In making my bids, I made them for each lock separately, but of course my bids were determined by the relative quantities of" cut-stone masonry and rubble masonry' in the lock for which I bid. When a radical change was made in the character of the work, the relative quantities were radically changed, and the loss is to fall on me, ad the government is to get the benefit of contract prices based on a different work Than that upon which I bid.

The manifest injustice of the view taken by the engineer in charge of the work is apparent when the fact is considered that the amount of $190,000 to be allowed me for this work, according to his rulings, is not only at least $80,000 less than the work would st when built in the most economical manner, but it is at least fifty per cent. less Lan any similar locks have ever been built in this country, of which we have any erd, and less than the cost of a single lock of less lift at Keokuk, Iowa.

The engineer in charge of the work bases his right to have made the changes in the contracts upon the letter of the contracts.

I can safely say, in reference to the lock work as I said in reference to the section ok, that while there is a provision in the contract which provides that I shall be Lowed nothing for the loss of prospective profits, resulting from a diminution of the quantities of the work, yet there is nothing in the contract which should, in reason