rk over
the contract price, and the amount of such increased cost caused by the
delay and action of the Government as aforesaid, and the amount already
paid the contractor over and above the contract price."

Under this act Commodore J.A. Marchand, Chief Engineer J.W. King, and
Paymaster Edward Foster, of the Navy, were designated by the Secretary
of the Navy to make the investigation required. These officers on the
26th day of November, 1867, made a report of their proceedings, which
was submitted to the Senate with a tabulated statement of all the claims
examined by them and their findings thereon.

It appears by this report that the claims of the beneficiaries mentioned
in the bill herewith returned were examined by the board, and that
nothing was found due thereon under the terms of the law directing their
examination.

These claims have frequently been before Congress since that time. They
have been favorably reported and acted upon a number of times, and have
also been more than once strongly condemned by committees to whom they
were referred.

A resolution was passed in 1871 by the Congress referring these and
other claims of a like character to the Court of Claims for
adjudication, but it was vetoed by the President for reasons not
necessarily affecting the merits of the claims.

The case of Chouteau _vs_. The United States, reported in Fifth
Otto, page 61, which arose out of the contract to build a vessel called
the _Etlah_, appears to present the same features that belong to
the claims here considered. It is stated in the report of the House
committee on this bill that "the _Squando_ and _Nauset_ were
identical in the original plans and the changes and alterations thereon
with the _Etlah_ and _Shiloh_, built in St. Louis;" and yet
the Supreme Court of the United States distinctly decided in the
_Etlah_ case that the only pretext for further compensation should
be sought for in the contract, where the contractor had evidently been
content to provide for all the remedy he desired.

It seems, then, that the contractors mentioned in this bill, after
entering into contracts plainly indicating that changes of plans and
consequent delay in their work were in their contemplation, availed
themselves of the remedy which they themselves had provided, and
thereupon received about 50 per cent in the case of two of these vessels
of the contract price for extra work, giving the Government a receipt in
full. When soon