House Documents, Otherwise Publ. as Executive Documents

In regard to the "merits of the claim," the board reports

Upon the basis of the contracts alone it is the opinion of the board that a fair and just settlement has been made by the local engineer officer. But the large excess of expenditures by the contractor and his legal representatives, over and above the amount paid on account of the contracts, indicates a considerable loss, and in view of the spirit of the act of Congress, the claim is meritorious.

As the results derived from these two views of the merits of the claim" differ so widely, and as Exhibit A, accompanying the report of the board is apparently a statement of the case prepared by the claimant, it seems proper that the views of the officer in charge of the improvement, touching the "merits of the claim," should also be considered, and I have therefore respectfully to submit herewith some extracts from a communication on the subject by that officer, addressed to the board, dated March 27th, 1879, and marked D D.

The board, while considering the expenditures of the claimant as in their nature reasonable and proper, is of the opinion that in amount they cannot always be called reasonable, and instances "traveling expenses" and three other items, aggregating nearly $24,000, which are deemed excessive. The board also thinks the wages paid were high, and attributes this in part to the high rate charged for board, viz, $4 per week, or 57 cents per day. By proper arrangements for boarding, the cost ought, in the opinion of the board, to have been diminished 25 cents per day, which, if deducted from rate of wages (leaving net amount of pay to the men the same), would have resulted in a saving on the rolls of $40,000. The workmen now employed on the works are boarded for $1.75 per week, or 25 cents per day.

While the expenditures for the above items seem to be excessive, it is quite impossible to pronounce definitely upon them at this time, when all the circumstances are so different. I am not therefore able to say how much, if anything, should be deducted from the award under these heads, and it seems to me doubtful whether any further examination which could now be made would result in a satisfactory determination of the question. It appears that the board did not doubt that the amounts charged under these heads were actually expended by the claimant, and it has therefore included them without deduction in its award. If the construction given by the board to the intent of the law be the correct one, it is difficult to see how any other decision could be arrived at.

It may be remarked also that the board was satisfied that the claimant had no pecuniary interest in the boarding of the men. This is learned from one of the members

of the board, and not from the report itself.
No other remarks seem to be called for in connection with the report.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

950 R. & H., 79.

1010 R. & H., 79.

1116 R. & H., 79. (14 enclos.)

H. G. WRIGHT, Acting Chief of Engineers.

No. 21.

To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A.,

Washington, D. C.:

U. S. ENGINEER OFFICE, Chattanooga, Tenn., April 26, 1879.

GENERAL: In compliance with your letter of 16 of April, I have the honor to enclose herewith

1st. A statement of "amounts" paid George Williams for work actually performed under each of his contracts for lock-work, and, by power of attorney under contract of M. G. Kennedy for work on sections 3, 4, 5, and 6; and,

2nd. Abstracts of bids made at the time of the letting of these contracts, computed on the basis of actual instead of estimated quantities.

Messrs. R. G. Houston and Co., who would have been the lowest bidders (on the basis of actual quantities) on section 3, and next lowest on sections 4, 5, and 6, are responsible parties, having had contracts in this vicinity during the last three years amounting to from one and a half to two million dollars.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

(3 inclosures).

W. R. KING, Captain of Engineers.