impossible to classify this work as "rubble-stone masonry," either in the common acceptation of the terms or under the specifications of the contract. On the other hand, this work, under the specifications of the contract and the common understanding of the terms, should be classified as 66 cut-stone masonry." In any event, it cannot be classified as rubble-stone masonry; and, as it was more expensive than cut-stone masonry, I should be allowed at least the price of cut stone masonry. II. The second claim I make is for compensation for the cut-stone masonry used in the face of the lock-chamber. I have been allowed the price of cut-stone masonry—$16 per cubic yard-for two feet, and $7 per cubic yard, or rubble-masonry price for the balance. Under the provisions of the contract, I am entitled to be paid for all the cutstone masonry used in the face of the lock-chamber, at full measurement. This is manifest from a reference to the contract, under the subdivision thereof referring to "cut stone." The stones required to be put in the face of the lock-chamber, and constituting the first layer of stones, are of different dimensions, yet every stone is required to be cut, and has been cut. The contract, under the subdivision thereof relating to "rubble," speaks of the rubble uniting with the cut-stone, meaning thereby the uniting of the face of the lock or first layer of stones with the stones back of the same, and showing conclusively what the contract means by ent-stone and by rubble in the wall of the lock. At the time the contract was made, as heretofore stated in a previous communication, I was shown a plan of the lock of the canal at Keokuk (no plan of this work having been made), and was led to believe that I should be allowed for cut-stone masonry an average thickness of three feet, which I had been allowed on the lock shown me, and built by me at Keokuk. I am willing to have this cut-stone masonry measured to me at three feet thickness, or have the cut-stones in the face of the lock-chamber measured to me as required by the contract. The measurement in either way will result about the same. I protest that there is no provision in the contract for measuring this cut stone at an average thickness of two feet, as has been done. There is an allusion to a measurement of masonry-facing at two feet thickness in the removal of locks. Not a word is said, however, about cut-stone facing; nothing is said about the measurement of the cut-stone under the subdivision of the contract relating to cut-stone. I am entitled to that price for all the stone cut. To construe the contract so as to allow me only two feet of cut-stone in the lockchamber will result in depriving me of one-third of my work in cutting that stone. III. The third claim I make is for compensation for curved work and arches. I have been allowed for these only the same as plain cut-stone masonry-$16 per cubic yard. This work is not specifically mentioned in the contract or specifications. The well-settled rule and custom is, that I am to be allowed double the plain work. Of course, the contract must be construed in the light of this custom. I claim for this curved and arched work double measurement, or $32 per cubic yard, single measurement. IV. The fourth claim I make is for compensation for cut-stone masonry used in the construction of the mitre-sills. I am allowed on this $16 per cubic yard on two feet face, and only $7 on balance. The entire contents of the mitre-sills are cut-stone masonry, according to the specifications of the contract. The contract nowhere authorizes the measurement of only two feet thickness of these mitre-sills. It is fair and just, in harmony with the letter and spirit of the contract, that I should be paid for all the cut-stone work done by me. My bid for the work was at prices that could only contemplate, and did only contemplate, being paid for all the cut-stone work. I am entitled to $16 per cubic yard for all the cut-stone in the mitresills. V. In conclusion, I desire to say, if the allowances herein claimed are allowed me, then my work will be approximate, in cost to the government, the aggregate amount of my bids. If not allowed, the cost of the work to the government will fall far below what was contemplated by myself and the engineer in charge at the time the contract was made. Very respectfully, GEO. WILLIAMS. No. 14. Also section work Abstract of disbursements and receipts on account of Muscle Shoals Canal by George Williams and his legal representatives, under his contract for lock work. under power of attorney from Matthew G. Kennedy. |