No. 25.

BB.

Table showing what each bidder for sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, Muscle Shoals Canal, would have received upon his bid for work actually done and paid for under the contract of M. G. Kennedy, for whom Williams was the attorney.

Table showing what each bidder for locks 2, 3, and 4, Muscle Shoals Canal, would have re· ceived for work actually done and paid for under the contract of Geo. Williams for the construction of those locks.

This report & the accompanying report of the board of engineers referred to herein are respectfully referred to the Judge-Advocate-Genl. of the Army for an opinion as to whether the act of Congress of January 18, 1879, "for the relief of the legal representatives of George Williams, deceased," has been carefully construed by said board and by the Acting Chief of Engineers as intended to cover all the actual losses incurred by the elaim ant in the prosecution of the works mentioned in said act, together with reasonable compensation for use of tools & for money advanced.

GEO. W. MCCRARY,
Secretary of War.

WAR DEPT., May 5, '79.

No. 28.

BUREAU OF MIL. JUSTICE,

May 9, 1879.

Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. On reading & considering the within act in connection with the reports and other papers in the case, I am of opinion that it was the intention of Congress to authorize

the Secretary of War, in his settlement with George Williams, to allow him for his "actual expenditures" (so far as reasonable and just) in building the locks referred to, whether the same were required or justified under the original contracts, or not. The words" on contract," originally in the bill, were struck out in the Senate, and are not in the bill as passed; and from this fact, in connection especially with the terms of the report made by the House Committee on Claims, I infer that it was the intention of Congress that the claim should be adjusted upon a quantum meruit or equitable basis. irrespective, so far as concern the items of "actual expenditures," "compensation for tools," and "money advanced," of the terms of the contracts formerly made for the building of said locks. But no "losses" other than included in these three items were, in my opinion, designed to be allowed for.

DEAR SIR: In referring to the board of engineers my claim for the purpose of ascertaining what, if any, part of the amounts of "the actual expenditures" found by the board in their former report are unreasonable and unjust, I submit that the board ought to be informed as to what constitute reasonable expenditures within the meaning of the act of Congress. The board have found what "the actual expenditures were and that such expenditures in their nature are reasonable, but has simply expressed a doubt as to whether certain items mentioned in their report are in their amounts reasonable.

I am advised, and believe, and therefore submit for your consideration, that "reasonable expenditures" within the meaning of said act of Congress are such expenditures as a reasonable business man of ordinary prudence during the same period and under the same circumstances would have made.

If the prices paid by this claimant and his intestate, George Williams, were such in their amounts (the board having found they were reasonable in their natures) as a reasonable business man of ordinary prudence would have paid under similar circumstances, then I am entitled to allowances therefor.

Yours, very respectfully,

C. L. WILLIAMS, Admr. Estate of George Williams, dec'd.

No. 30.

In reference to the item of "rate charged for boarding men," spoken of in the report of the board appointed to examine accounts of George Williams, deceased, &c., Ï, C. L. Williams, admr., make the following statement:

1st. Their statement that about $40,000 loss might have occurred if the price had been reduced, &c. They make their calculations on the supposition that there was about 160.000 working days, and at a reduced rate of 25c. per day would equal $40,000. In answer would state that a conclusion could not be arrived at in that way, for the reason that fully of the men employed boarded themselves, and it was entirely optional with the men where or how they should board. On public works, when men are coming and going all the time, 50c. per day is a fair average price for such boarding, and I know of none that have cheaper rates. Also, the class of men that stayed at the boarding-houses were whites or better class of laborers, and they are very particular about their meals; the colored class, with few or no exceptions, boarded themselves. 2nd. I state that the price charged was fair and just and the very lowest it could be done for at that time, taking into consideration the expense of transporting rations, &c., to the works. Had our commissary have lost money, I doubt if said loss would have been considered as an expenditure, but the small profit that was made was deducted from the gross balance of expenditures over receipts; and, further, this profit was made, not from rations furnished for boarding of men, but by notions and small goods bought by the laborers themselves and outsiders from the country. Although no account was kept separately, I have no hesitation in saying that for goods furnished for boarding men we sustained a loss.

3rd. When the subject is brought forward, comparing present rates charged for boarding men as now done by the gov, and the prices we charged, the following must be considered: That rates of transportation of all kinds and descriptions now, compared

with what it has been, are very much reduced, and the gov. has the advantage of this and the means that we brought about to get such reductions, and they take advantage of the routes we opened and established to get to the works without any expense on their part; also, that on account of the great loss sustained by carrying on the works we were crippled for money, and although the capital invested in the commissary was separate and distinct from that in the works, we were obliged to use the former in the latter, and necessarily obliged to buy some of our goods on time, and thereby pay interest, although the works owed the store, while with the gov. they are not obliged to. Outside of that we bought our goods as low as any one doing the same amt. and kind of business.

Very truly,

To the Hon. Sec'y of War, GEO, W. MCCRARY.

C. L. WILLIAMS.

No. 31.

[PRIVATE-No. 9.]

AN ACT for the relief of the legal representatives of George Williams, deceased.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America ** Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, authorized to adjust and settle, upon just and equitable terms, the claim of George Williams, for balce due for building locks two, three, and four of Muscle Shoals Canal, on TenLessee River, and on a contract for section-work done under power of attorney from Matthew G. Kennedy: Provided, That in making said settlement the said Secretary of War shall not allow the legal representatives of said George Williams, deceased, more than his actual expenditures, with reasonable compensation for the use of tools, and for money advanced in the prosecution of said work: And provided further, That Lo allowance or payment shall be made under this act except in pursuance of a recmendation of a board of not less than three engineers, to be appointed by the Secretary of War, to inquire into and report upon the character and value of the work done, and the merits of the claim.

Approved January 13th, 1879.

Respectfully referred to the two senior members of the board of engineers who sued this report for further consideration, in view of the opinion of the Judge-Advocate-General herewith.

They will meet in Washington without unnecessary delay, and in case of disagreeLent between them, the Acting Chief of Engineers will act as umpire.

They will make further inquiry as to the reasonableness of the expenditures of the Contractor, George Williams, and his legal representatives, and will consider such Sworn statements and other proofs as may be submitted, including the accompanying affidavits of J. H. S. Dale and C. L. Williams, administrator, &c., and they may take such measures as may be deemed by them best to ascertain the facts.

They will report whether any, and, if any, what, deduction should be made from the sum of the actual expenditures under the rule laid down by the Judge-Advocate-General, namely, that there should be allowed actual expenditures, so far as reasonable and just. G. W. MCCRARY,

Before Col. J. N. Macomb and Gen'l O. M. Poe, of board of engineers, having under consideration above-entitled claim, pursuant to instructions of the Hon. "The Secretary of War," under act of Congress approved January 13th, 1879, entitled "An act for the relief of the legal representatives of George Williams, deceased."