The Daily Union

ANDREW J. DONELSON.
A. J. Donelson and Robert Armstrong,
Georgetown and notices.
DAILY,
SEMI-WEEKLY, (published tri-weekly during
WEEKLY
Only $4
Five copies of the DAILY, for
Are copies of the
The cost of us
Five copies at the
WEEKLY
To copies
CONGRESSIONAL.
Detailed Debate.
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1852.
SENATE:
NAVY-YARD AND DRY-DOCK IN CALIFORNIA.
The Senate, as in committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of the bill to establish a navy-yard and depot on the bay of San Francisco, California.
Mr. BRODHEAD. When the Senate adjourned the other day, I had nearly concluded the remarks that I intended to make on the navy-yard and railway in California. I shall now occupy but little of the time and attention of the Senate in concluding what I have to say.
It is important, in the first place, Mr. President, to ascertain the facts which bear upon that question. Now to be decided by the Senate is, whether we will establish a basin and railway in connexion with a dry-dock in California, or a pier. That is the precise question now under consideration.
I stated the other day that the proposed structure of a basin and railway was not only without, but against, the recommendation of the Navy Department; that it is useless and unnecessary. The honorable senator from California, in his speech, referred to fortifications on the eastern and on the western coasts, and to steam vessels. With that portion of his speech—and he occupied most of his time in discussing questions of that kind—I have nothing to do; I have no reply to make to it. I have stated that the basin and railway would cost at least $1,000,000; and therefore that the pier, which will cost but $50,000, ought to be adopted, in compliance with the recommendation of the Navy Department. That department has never yet, as I will show, recommended this basin and railway; and no vessel has ever yet been tested upon one, either in the merchant or naval service of the United States. Nay, more, Mr. President: not only is it without the recommendation of the Navy Department, but it is against the solemn decision of the last Congress. I will refer to the last navy appropriation bill to sustain this allegation:
"For the floating dry-dock in California, $150,000: and the Secretary of the Navy is hereby required so to modify the contract alleged to have been made on the 17th of January last as to confine the same to the construction of the floating-dock alone, without the basin and railway."
That was based upon the recommendation of the Navy Department. I stated this once before; and how was it met by the honorable senator from California? He stated that he would not intrude upon the private business—it was private bill day—but, says he:
"When I do speak, I pledge myself not to leave the senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRODHEAD,] for the argument brought forward this morning, and which has been so laboriously prepared, an inch of ground to stand on.
"The senator's speech is a mere rehash of arguments which have been brought up, time and again, in opposition to this system, and discredited by both houses of Congress."
Here I make an issue of fact with the senator. I show the act of Congress sustaining those arguments, if they ever were advanced before. I was not a member of the last Congress. But the honorable senator, when he addressed the Senate last, said that Mr. Henshaw, upon a former occasion, recommended this dock. Now, upon an examination of what Mr. Henshaw said, I find that he only recommended it to be tested. He did not recommend the adoption of it, as I understand it; if he did, I can be corrected. He recommended the testing of it.
Then Mr. Mason came into office. He was succeeded by Mr. Preston, and he again by the present Secretary of the Navy. I will show you presently the opinion of Mr. Mason, and then I will give a little sketch of the history of these dock operations on the Atlantic side; and if I do not show you one of the most magnificent schemes of speculation that were ever carried through Congress, I am very much mistaken. I will do it from the record—from the record which the contractors themselves have made.
Mr. President, I have said that this was not only useless, but unnecessary. In answer to that, the senator from California says that the basin and railway are not to be erected until those which are in Philadelphia or Kittery shall be tested. Suppose the test should fail: then when are you going to have a dry-dock established, and how? Suppose it should fail, as it has signally failed in Philadelphia, as I will show. The Philadelphia dry-dock is not only a signal failure, but it is a nuisance, and has cost near a million of dollars. In support of this allegation, I will show what the honorable senator himself said on this subject when he first called up this bill:
"There is another reason why this bill should pass. At the last session of Congress there was an act passed authorizing the building of a sectional floating dock, and there was a site selected for the location of that dock. But, upon an experiment made at Philadelphia, it has been ascertained that there is not water enough at the site selected."
What is the depth of water at the site selected by the joint commission which was sent out in 1848 and 1849, and made a report in 1850? I will presently read an extract from that report. I understand there are forty feet of water there. Then, if these contractors told the truth in regard to the location at Philadelphia, when they were making their application for that site, the selection made by the joint commission sent out under the last administration is correct, and this bill ought not to pass in its present shape. When they were before Congress before, the contractors stated, over and over again—when they were charged by the gentlemen whom they have taken into partnership with them that their structure would require greater depth of water than was to be found in any one of the navy-yards—that their structure could be put up in Philadelphia. But when it is put up, we find in the deficiency bill an item of $12,000 to be appropriated for dredging in front of the dry-dock, notwithstanding that, by the terms of the contract, it was to be taken off the contractor's hands and tested last June. It may have been taken off their hands: but no vessel, no ship-of-the-line—and it was designed for ships-of-the-line—has ever yet been placed upon it, and I think never will be.
Mr. President, this plan of dock has been known to the public for years past. How, then, does it happen that the whaling vessels that are fitted out in New England have never adopted it? Why is it that this basin and railway has never been adopted in the merchant service? That is an important inquiry. Do you suppose that the intelligent Yankees who fit out these vessels would not have used this dock if it were as useful as it has been represented? I made inquiry of the honorable and distinguished senator from Rhode Island upon the subject, and I found that they never have adopted it. This basin and railway never has been adopted in the merchant service.
But, says the honorable senator, they are about to build one in New York. How does it happen that they never built one before? But I would like to know how he obtained his information.
Mr. GWIN. Do you deny it?
Mr. BRODHEAD. I want to know whether he speaks from personal knowledge. I would like to know how and where he got the information.
Mr. GWIN. I assert the fact. If the senator denies it, I am ready to give the proof.
Mr. BRODHEAD. I have never yet heard of one being established; and I doubt whether the honorable senator has seen it.
Mr. GWIN. "Mr. President—
Mr. BRODHEAD. I do not doubt that he has been so informed—not at all. I do not doubt but that he believes all he has said. But, sir, I know very well that if it had been such a useful structure it would have been adopted long since.
We know very well that if it was useful it would have been adopted long since. Why should this government adopt it first?
But it is said, Mr. President, that this pier would be eaten up by the worms, as the senator said the other day. Well, sir, it can be coppered, as the floating dry-docks are coppered. And if the basin and railway is adopted, how long will it be—and I put the question to the senator from California, and to the Senate—how long will it be before the floating dry-dock, which was ordered at the last session, and which the senator from California informs us is now on its way out, can be put to use? It cannot be used without a basin and railway or pier; and it will take six or seven years, according to the statement of the Navy Department, to construct the basin and railway. The structure which we ordered at the last session and for which we are now to appropriate more money will be eaten up by worms before the railway can be constructed.
I will now go into a history of the dock operations on the Atlantic side; and I will state first, generally, how it is, and then follow it with the proof. These came here in 1843 or 1844—two sets of them—each claiming a patent. They both presented memorials, in opposition to the recommendation of the Navy Department, and they informed Congress what these docks, basins and railways could be established for. They estimated the expense at $350,000 or $400,000. They have received about $800,000 for each one; and I will show the modus operandi presently.
In 1844 Mr. John S. Gilbert presented his memorial here on the 29th of March. I have the original document which was presented in this body; and I wish it to be noticed that he is one of the contractors in the case now before the Senate, as I understand. On your table is the contract for the establishment at Kittery, in which his name appears. He had a contest with a gentleman by the name of Dakin, as I find by the record, and they contested the matter for years; and finally I find them all together, and the work divided up.
Well, sir, Mr. John S. Gilbert, one of the partners in the contract for the construction of the California dock, presented his memorial, a part of which I will read:
"Your memorialist came to Washington during the session of the Twenty-seventh Congress, and put in, in accordance with the advertisement of the Navy Department, a proposition for building a dock for a ship-of-the-line, for the sum of $240,000."
A ship-of-the-line is the largest vessel in the service.
Mr. BADGER. Is that for building a ship-of-the-line?
Mr. BRODHEAD. No: it is for building a dock for a ship-of-the-line. He then goes on to praise his own dock, and shows that the dock of Mr. Dakin was not worth anything. I intend, sir, to use the evidence of these men against each other, and to show that they went together, and both plans of docks were adopted, and that they must have made $1,000,000, if they told the truth; and it follows further, that if they told the truth in their memorials, the docks which they have constructed are not worth anything. He then goes on to praise this dock right well, and says that Mr. Dakin's dock is not worth much.
Here is the memorial, which any senator can see. Then Mr. Dakin presented his memorial. But, before leaving this memorial of Mr. Gilbert, I must also read you what he proposes to construct a basin and railway for, and then I will show you how much he got:
"For basins and railways, to be used in connexion with the dock proposed by your memorialist, estimated to cost $40,000."
Now, I will read to you how much he did receive, after Mr. Dakin had withdrawn his opposition to him, and he had withdrawn his opposition to Mr. Dakin:
"For balance floating dock at Kittery, $437,325; for basin and one railway, $282,680."
Now, look at the contract on the table for the establishment at Kittery. You will find this same gentleman is one of the partners in the business for which he and his associates offered to build this basin and railway for $40,000, thereby getting Congress to pass the act, and then, when it was passed, they received $282,580; and the other gentleman received at Philadelphia $411,059 for a basin and railway, and $402,683 for a dock—making in all the sum of $813,742. For the dock, basin, and railway at Pensacola they received $921,937, and for the dock at California $610,000—making together $3,078,594—a pretty good sum of money for one set of contractors to receive, who excluded competition by claiming a patent.
In his memorial Gilbert condemns Dakin's dock as follows:
"It is important to observe that a dock on the plan here proposed can operate at any navy-yard where the water is deep enough to float a ship with her armament on board. No expense for excavating and keeping open the channel will be necessary, as is the case with all other docks. Mr. Sanger, the engineer at the Bureau of Docks and Yards, reports that the expense of dredging the channel, to enable Dakin's dock to operate, including crib-work to keep the same open, will be $150,350."
And yet, sir, Dakin's dock has been taken, and Gilbert is one of the partners for constructing it.
Now, sir, Mr. Dakin presented his memorial to Congress, in which he complains that there was a violation of his contract made for putting up a dock at Pensacola; he also complains that his original contract was violated, and desires that it may be altered. He says that "Mr. Upshur entered into a contract with him for $70,000; that his plan is decidedly the best, and that the plan of the other gentleman ought not to be adopted." Here is the memorial. Both these gentlemen were well sustained by scientific gentlemen, as they say.
Well, sir, they contested the matter up to the year 1847, as I find by the record; various contests took place between the parties represented by these two patentees and their associates. Then Congress passed an act directing the Secretary of the Navy to cause to be constructed at each of the yards of Kittery, Philadelphia, and Pensacola, a dry-dock for ships-of-the-line, and a railway at any such place as may be preferred by the Secretary of the Navy. You perceive that this first act of 1847 conferred a discretionary power on the Secretary of the Navy. But, sir, the contest commenced before him, (Mr. Mason,) and here is his report on the subject. The contest commenced before him, and they refused to allow the Secretary of the Navy to use their patent-right; and that is the way the matter came back to Congress again. I will read what the Secretary says:
"Each of the several plans of the docks submitted to the department was a patented invention, and good faith would not permit me to invade that patent, by using it, without the consent of the proprietors. Of the two plans of docks known as the balance and sectional dock, in their propositions in answer to the invitations of the department in March last, do not specify any price at which the right to use their patents would be sold to the department."
Mind what an honest report this is:
"And the price contained in their proposals for the construction by contract greatly exceeds the sums appropriated for the object to the three navy-yards. The chief of the Bureau of Docks and Navy Yards, under my direction, again addressed the proprietors of these two plans, again called their attention to this point of inquiry, and requested them to state the price at which the government would be permitted to use the patent in constructing the docks authorized."
They declined to make such an arrangement, but again repeated the offer to contract for the execution of the work. The Secretary of the Navy replied that he could not evade a patent-right, and hence the whole matter came up again in Congress in 1848. But what does the Secretary of the Navy say as to the propriety of making these docks?
"On the question of the most suitable plan for a dry-dock, my own opinion, officially formed in 1841, in favor of the permanent stone dock, as preferable to all others, is unchanged."
Well, sir, then it came into Congress. Those gentlemen who had contested the ground before in Congress, and got their bill passed, leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, came into Congress again, and in 1848 obtained the passage of an act under which these contracts were made. Here is the act, sir, authorizing the Secretary of the Navy, and directing him peremptorily—for, sir, nothing was left to his discretion—to adopt the plans of both these gentlemen.
Now, you can easily understand how it was done. They got tired of warring with each other, and then they come to Congress and get the contracts together. They get all the contracts they had been asking for, one set getting the contract for the work at Kittery, another at Philadelphia, and another at Pensacola, all of them going on together; for their names are all in the contract for the California dock. Now, this is very evident, and the reason must be apparent to every one, how they obtained nearly $1,000,000 for each of these structures, when their memorials show that they offered to do the work for $350,000 or $450,000. So that, if they told the truth when they came to get the contracts, they have made $1,000,000. I do not know how much they have made; I judge from the record, and I do not go out of the record.
Now, Mr. President, I think it is time that Congress should quit this dock building and abandon this system of making contracts, and refer that business to the executive branches of the government, so that there may be some responsibility somewhere, as there ought to be. It is our business to pass laws, not to make contracts. I think that Mr. Preston, when Secretary of the Navy, complained of this mode of proceeding on the part of Congress. We charge the Navy Department with $2,000,000 for dry-docks, in opposition to the recommendation of the department, and then we go before the country complaining of the heavy expenses of this government, and opposing a whig administration for doing it. Sir, that is not right. The expenses of this Navy Department run up $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 higher than ever before; and the answer to the inquiry, as to the cause of that fact, is found in these Congressional docks, in opposition to the recommendation of Mr. Secretary Mason, in opposition to that of Mr. Secretary Preston, and in opposition to the recommendation of the present Secretary of the Navy himself. Is this the proper tribunal? Are we to examine and decide between particular classes of docks? How many members of this body have seen and examined docks?
I have prepared a good many other facts upon this subject, Mr. President, but I will reserve them for the present. But I will ask, what is the necessity for these immense naval establishments? Ought they not to bear some proportion to our navy? What is the extent and magnitude of our navy when compared with these vast naval establishments of our country? Why, sir, we have but seventy-five vessels in all. We have but eleven ships-of-the-line, one razee, twelve frigates of the first class, two of the second class, twenty-one sloops-of-war, four brigs, three schooners, five steamers of the first class, seven steamers less than the first class, and five store-ships—in all seventy-five. Now we have docks enough for every eight vessels that we own, whether in commission or out of commission, whether old or new.
I think, therefore, Mr. President, we ought to abandon the contract system; or, if contracts are to be made, let them be made by the executive branches of the government, and let them be given to the lowest bidder.
Mr. GWIN. Does the senator mean to abandon all contracts? Are we to make no more? For instance would he do away with contracts in regard to our printing?
Mr. BRODHEAD. The honorable senator from California asks me whether I am willing to abandon all contracts, and he illustrates by referring to our contracts for printing. In answer to that, I reply at once that I would prefer to have a government printing establishment. But that is a business which particularly appertains to this body; the business of building dry-docks does not; and how shall we undertake to decide between these different classes of docks? I therefore think that we should abandon this contract system, because in many respects it has an evil tendency. I do not blame these gentlemen for coming here and obtaining large contracts. They have a perfect right to do so; but if one set of gentlemen come here and make large contracts, and thereby secure to themselves large fortunes, others may do the same thing, and their number will increase from year to year. Sir, we have a Secretary of the Navy; we have a Bureau of Docks and Yards; we have a Bureau of Construction and Repairs; we have naval architects and engineers, and yet we cannot trust our Navy Department with the building of a dry-dock. We ourselves are to decide as to the particular kind of dock that shall be built. What necessity is there for this? If we are to canvass and decide upon these matters in detail, let us dispense at once with the Navy Department; let us abandon our Bureaus of Yards and Docks, and Construction and Repair, if we in the Senate are to do the business which appropriately belongs to them. Sir, I regard this as a perfect answer to any advocacy of this contract system which has grown up here.
Now, sir, I will remark here that I have prepared a bill somewhat modified from that proposed by the honorable senator from California, and which I think will be sufficient to carry out his design. I am willing that he should have a dry-dock and navy-yard. I am also willing that he should have a marine barracks, although I question the utility of a barracks, and that a pier should be established. But it is said—this is the great argument against this pier—that it would be eaten up by the worms. Now, I would like to know from the honorable senator from Rhode Island how they protect their piers where these immense whaling vessels are fitted out? I have been given to understand that in the North they have a way of protecting them; and if they can be protected from the worms in Rhode Island by covering them with copper, or driving copper nails in them, which I understand to be the process, this pier can be protected in the same way. But I very much doubt whether that dock will ever be very much used there, if they establish this basin and railway, for it will be eaten up with the worms before they can be constructed. It will take at least six or seven years to do all this, and the Secretary of the Navy knows it. This dock, therefore, will be useless, and the great number of ships engaged in the Pacific commerce, and anchoring in the bay of San Francisco, will have no dock to which they can resort for the space of six or seven years, under the plan which is here proposed. I have prepared a bill, sir, which I intend to offer as a substitute for that offered by the senator from California; and allow me to say here that I never could understand why another commission should be sent out to California.
Sir, there was a joint commission sent out to California, composed of six highly respectable gentlemen, three from the army and three from the navy, who selected a location in 1850, and they made a report establishing a navy-yard and depot on the bay of San Francisco. Here is the extract respecting that subject. It may be necessary. I do not come here to dispute the propriety of another commission. I believe it only to be considered necessary to accommodate the miserable structure of a dry-dock which has been sent out. I have, however, provided, in the substitute which I propose, that when the last board shall report the location shall be left to the President and the Secretary of the Navy. I think we ought to leave some discretion with the department upon that subject. I therefore propose to strike out that portion of the bill which is in these words:
"As will be most suitable in every respect for such an establishment, and susceptible of complete defence both by land and water, at the nearest point to the city of San Francisco."
And insert the words:
"Suitable in every respect for such an establishment, provided it has not already been done."
Then I provide that this jury shall be sworn; and I also provide that the Secretary of the Navy shall decide which of these sites he will select; and then I provide for the establishment of a pier in place of this basin and railway; and the last section contains a provision for an appropriation of $500,000. I intend to offer this at a proper time as a substitute for the entire bill, establishing a navy-yard, depot, marine barracks, and marine hospital, and pier to be used in connexion with the dock, and which is now on its way to California, which would be useless for six or seven years, if we did not establish a pier. A pier can be constructed in a few months.
Mr. HALE. If the senator from Pennsylvania will allow me, I would like to ask him a single question.
Mr. BRODHEAD. Certainly.
Mr. HALE. I perceive that the honorable senator has given considerable attention to this subject, and appears to be well acquainted with it. He spoke of some of these docks as being nuisances, and also of their being tested. I would like to ask him if any one of them has been tested—either that at Kittery, or at Philadelphia, or at Pensacola?
Mr. BRODHEAD. I will answer the question of the senator from New Hampshire as well as I am able. By the contracts for the construction of this dry-dock and basin and railway at Kittery, and also for the construction of those at Philadelphia, they were to be completed in May or June last. They were to be tested with a ship-of-the-line. No test has yet been made to my knowledge. The Secretary of the Navy, at the opening of the session, reported to us upon this subject. He says that, in regard to this dock at Philadelphia, there is a dredging machine in operation, and I find that it is in operation, because in the deficiency bill there is an item asking an appropriation of $12,000. He makes the same remark in regard to the dry-dock at Kittery. He says the ice prevented the test from being made. But you will find that they were to have been tested last June. We have no knowledge of their having been tested yet. I would like to know from the honorable senator from New Hampshire whether he has any knowledge of their having been tested.
Mr. HALE. I am not aware that the dock at Kittery which is some twelve miles from my residence, has been tested. I perceived that the senator from Pennsylvania possessed considerable information upon the subject, and I asked him the question for information. So far as I am aware, the dock in my neighborhood has not been tested at all.
Mr. BRODHEAD. Now refer to the contract on the table, and it will be seen that they were to have been finished last June, taken off the contractors' hands, and the reserved 20 per cent. paid. The contractors said, no doubt, it was not for them to find water to test them. Congress ordered the contract to be made, and that is one of the ways in which we can see the evils of this contract system. That is all I have to say at present.
I will now inquire if it will be in order to offer the substitute at this time.
The PRESIDENT. Does the senator propose to strike out the whole of the bill, and insert?
Mr. BRODHEAD. Yes, sir. I do not wish to offer amendments in detail, and I have put the whole in a bill as a substitute.
The PRESIDENT. The amendment of the senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] will be first in order; and after that is disposed of, the senator can move to strike out that portion which has been inserted, together with the rest of the bill. At present it will not be in order.
Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, I am very sorry to perceive that the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] has permitted himself to get a little excited on the subject now before the Senate. I am sorry to see it, sir—in the first place, because it has an injurious effect upon the honorable senator's arguments, and it prevents him from bringing out his facts in that order which would have given to them their full weight and influence; and, in the second place, because, this being a mere business transaction, I do not think that a feeling of excitement or irritation is very well calculated to enable us to form a just decision upon it.
When matters relate only to facts and figures, depending upon the evidence and proof, perhaps we get along quite as well by taking a calm and deliberate survey, and not by permitting ourselves to be hurried, a quickened circulation of the blood to be excited, and the mind tossed from its perpendicular station, and compelled to take an oblique, and therefore not a satisfactory view of the thing. I am afraid there was something in the mode in which the honorable senator from California [Mr. GWIN] spoke the other day which the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] did not consider as quite courteous—at least in the style and manner of his remarks—and which has induced him to have a slight bitterness of personal feeling on this question, and has had the unhappy effect of inducing him, in the whole course of his remarks, to allow an undertone, or current of sarcasm and reproachful expression, which, though it is calculated to affect the minds of hearers unfavorably towards the subject, does not really tend to show that the subject ought to be unfavorably regarded.
Now, sir, this being a business matter, I propose to treat it as a business matter. There being nothing in the case which is not to be considered upon the evidence and upon the proofs before—or to be before—the Senate, I will not follow the course of the honorable senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BRODHEAD,] either in permitting myself to be excited, or in making confident assertions of what I will show to be true.
Because, if I make these assertions and do not support them with the proof, they will place me in an awkward position, while they do not help forward the cause which I desire to advance, and because if I can support them by the proof, the confident preceding assertion is not required.
Now, Mr. President, if I can command the attention of the Senate, I will endeavor to show—I do not say I will do it, but I will do as Gen. Miller said he would do, when directed to carry a particular redoubt, "I will try"—I will try to show, in the first place, that the measure proposed by this bill is necessary and proper; and, in the next place, that a large portion of the remarks of the honorable senator are entirely beside the question now before the Senate, because the honor and faith of this government stand pledged by a contract to do the very thing which the bill now proposes shall be done.
In order to do that, sir, I beg to be allowed to see the bill and amendment, that we may understand the question under consideration of the Senate, so far as the objections of the honorable senator from Pennsylvania are concerned. The amendment which I had the honor to submit, by the direction of the Committee on Naval Affairs, proposes—if it shall be adopted in the bill—to provide that as soon as a suitable site shall be secured, and it shall have been ascertained to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy that the basin and railway now being constructed at the navy-yard in Philadelphia or Kittery are in full and successful operation, "the Secretary of the Navy be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to enter into a contract with the patentees for the construction of a basin and railway in the most approved form, connected with the said navy-yard and depot, substantially upon the basis of the agreement made with them under the act of September 30, 1850, as stated in his report to the House of Representatives, dated January 20, 1851."
Now, sir, in the first place, I submit to the Senate that nothing is proposed to be done here which involves any hazard or risk to be assumed by the government until it is decided whether the basin and railway be indeed an improvement which can be put into successful operation. The whole of that part of the bill is suspended upon the previous condition that that fact shall have been established either at Philadelphia or at Kittery, and that at one or the other of these places, this basin and railway, in connexion with the dock, shall have been put in full and successful operation. If this is not done, no expense can be incurred. If the experiment proves a failure, not a dollar is to be expended.
Then, Mr. President, I say, supposing this plan of a basin and railway to have succeeded, it is necessary, and very highly necessary, that this improvement shall be established upon the coast of the Pacific. Why, sir, what is this basin and railway? I am assuming it to be—as the bill proposes it shall be before anything is done—put in full and successful operation. In that case, sir, it is the absolute consummation and perfection of all docking purposes and systems. The great difficulty and the great trouble in all operations respecting both the commercial and naval marine has always been, from the immense weight and masses of vessels, to have an opportunity, from time to time, of subjecting them to a careful examination for thorough and complete repair.
Under the old system we have had stone dry-docks, which are nothing in the world but excavating a vast basin, walling it up, and then floating in a ship, and bailing out the water, leaving her to sink below into a damp place, with a very imperfect light for operations upon her bottom, and with a continually recurring necessity, day after day, for pumping operations to keep the basin clear of water; for I never knew of a man being able to build one into which the water would not make its way. They are capable of receiving only one vessel at a time, and incurring, from the nature and character of the improvement required, an immense expenditure of money.
Now, sir, what is this basin and railway? It is this: that by taking the sectional floating dry-dock and sinking it in deep water the ship is passed with ease upon that dock, and by emptying the water in the tanks—which had excluded all the air—and allowing the air to return, she is raised upon a firm level bottom and received into the basin; the dock is then brought, with the vessel upon her, to the front of one of the railways; she is then sunk until the bottom of the dock rests upon the bottom of the basin, leaving her in exact opposition with the railway; and the structure which before was floating then rests solidly and firmly upon the bottom of the basin. In this position the vessel, by steam power, is just worked off high and dry upon the railway, and there she stands with ample light, and perfectly dry; and, if you please, under such a house as they are in the habit of erecting to cover ships when laid up for repair, or when building. And there, with every facility in the world, the required operations are performed; and the vessel returns with like facility to the element in which she is to float, and carry on the purposes of commerce or of war. There is also this additional facility, that when one vessel is placed on the rails this dock can bring another and place it on another railway, and so on, for six, seven, eight, ten, or twelve—as far as the number of railways will allow, or the necessities of your service may require.
Now, Mr. President, that being the nature and character of this improvement—assuming, as I have assumed all the time, because the bill assumes it, that it shall have been ascertained that it has been put in full and successful operation—I ask if it is not necessary that such an improvement should be given to the Pacific ocean. Why, sir, the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] seemed to consider—in his remarks of the first day—that there was no necessity for any such establishment as this upon the Pacific, because he said we have half a dozen of them on the Atlantic coast. Well, sir, does that furnish any reason why we do not need one on the Pacific coast because we have half a dozen on the Atlantic? Why it could have been argued with much stronger force that there was no necessity for one at Kittery, at Philadelphia, or at Norfolk, or at any other point on the Atlantic coast, on the ground that we had one in New York. Or would it be an objection to one at New York that we had one at Norfolk?
Again, the senator urged as an objection in the remarks he first made upon this subject, that if you had this dry-dock there, vessels must at last be repaired upon the Atlantic coast, because, he said, materials could not be procured on the Pacific, and that because of other difficulties in California vessels could not be repaired upon the spot. Now, sir, this is an assumption for which I know of no evidence to support, and it is contradicted by those who have the best means of knowing; and therefore I think that in that assertion the honorable senator is decidedly mistaken. You must bear in mind, Mr. President, that the only question now before the Senate is as to the basin and railway. The dock has already been contracted for—as I shall have occasion to show to the Senate presently—for another purpose.
Then, the dock being contracted for, and a stone dock being out of the question—for I suppose nobody proposes to have two in California—the only question that remains is, assuming that it is necessary to have one there, whether it is also necessary to have the basin and railway, or whether the pier will answer. Now, sir, in the first place, I remark that, with the pier, the dry-dock is available, except for one ship at a time.
Now as to the cost. It was said by the honorable Secretary of the Navy, in a letter communicated to us at the last Congress, that a pier could probably be erected for $50,000. Well, that is probably very true, though by no means certain in California. In New York it might be, and in Norfolk it might be; but it is very doubtful whether a pier, even of wood, could be constructed in California for $50,000. We all know that the price of such a work, in the present condition of the country, must be greatly enhanced beyond the price of similar works on the Atlantic coast. The seaworm in California will consume it directly—in six months it will be a honeycomb, and worthless. Well, what are you to do then? Appropriate $50,000 more to put in another pier, and twenty or thirty thousand more to get the old pier out of the way.
The senator from Pennsylvania says the pier can be coppered. Now, I was astonished to hear that remark made by a gentleman of his sagacity, and living in the part of the country from whence he comes. Take the piles that pier is composed of and copper them, and then bring to bear upon them the immense weight by blows necessary to drive them into the places into which they are to stand as fixtures, and what becomes of your copper? They are split, rent, torn; and although at a little distance they may show as fair a front of copper as ever come members of that profession to which I belong have shown an exposure of brass, it would answer no purpose; for if there are fissures in your copper, these worms have sagacity enough to find them, and propensity enough to enter through them.
But, again, let us suppose you have got your copper sunk and put down. Does not the senator from Pennsylvania know that the coppering of ships has to be renewed every five or six years—that the copper is subject to corrosion in contact with the salt water?—that the bottoms of coppered vessels have to be examined from time to time, and the deficiencies of the copperings supplied, so that in the course of five or six years the process has to be out-and-out renewed? And will you tell me how you are to get down into forty feet water and recopper the pier? With very great respect, I must say that the idea almost involves an absurdity. It is difficult of operation, if not impossible to be performed. I speak not confidently about that, but I certainly may say that it must be so difficult as to be almost impossible to renew the coppering of a structure forty, or thirty, or even twenty feet under water. How do we renew the coppering of vessels? The old efficient way always has been, where there are no docks, to draw them up on shore, and pull them down until they expose the bottom, and then make an examination.
But, again, what will be the expense of coppering this pier? That is a matter which addresses itself as an inquiry to our sense of economy. You must recollect that this pier has to be some 300 feet long, so as to furnish the purpose of a breakwater to preserve the dock attached to it from the action of the waves driven by the wind. Well, here you have it extended two or three hundred feet, sinking into deep water. Now, you have to copper it all over. You must not leave a single point at which these worms can enter. What will it cost? I feel very sure that you could not copper a pier for less than a hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. BRODHEAD. Will the gentleman allow me to make an inquiry?
Mr. BADGER. Certainly.
Mr. BRODHEAD. I understood him to say that these piles which are to be driven cannot be coppered. Now, I understand that they are doing that very thing in Pensacola, and I want to know from the honorable senator from Florida [Mr. MALLORY] whether I am not correct.
Mr. MALLORY not being present, no response was made.
Mr. BRODHEAD. Then I would like to hear the senator from Rhode Island [Mr. CLARKE] state how these structures are protected from worms in Rhode Island.
Mr. CLARKE made no response.
Mr. BADGER. Until we have some evidence upon that subject, I shall assume at first that they are not engaged in the process of coppering the pier at Pensacola, for the reason, I understand, that the pier is being built of stone.
Mr. GWIN, (in his seat.) That is the fact.
Mr. BADGER—and I presume they would hardly go to an unnecessary expense of coppering a stone pier.
Then, Mr. President, it appears to me—supposing $50,000 to be the first outlay, and assuming that the coppering can be accomplished for $100,000, and that we should have to renew the coppering once in four or five years, and allowing for the difficulty of getting beneath into water thirty or forty feet, to copper which would cost double as much—that we should have an outlay of $150,000 to start with, and $200,000 a year afterwards to keep and protect it from the worms. That being the case, I do not consider it a remarkable operation in point of saving.
Well, then, if you build a pier of stone, why it will cost two-thirds—at all events, one-half the price of a basin and railway. And the reason why it approximates so much to it is this: the basin and railway has also one of its sides projecting into the water to answer the purposes of a pier; but in consequence of its attachment to the basin, a very short pier, comparatively, answers all purposes. That pier, which is now constructing in Pensacola, has cost already $400,000, and is not much more than half completed.
Then the question which is presented to the Senate on that head is—it being undoubted that the dock must be either on a pier or a basin and railway—whether we shall pay $600,000, at least, for a pier, or whether we shall pay $400,000 for a basin and railway, which includes in substance a pier. That is the whole question; and it seems to me, when the matter is reduced to that point, there remains nothing further to be said.
But, Mr. President, I look upon this measure in California as important not only for the purpose of the public vessels of the United States, but I look upon it as highly important in regard to the commercial marine of this country. It has been said by the honorable senator that we have not many vessels, and shall not, therefore, often require the use of such establishments in California. Assume it to be so. The Secretary of the Navy, or those officers under his charge, can permit this basin and railway to be used for the accommodation of the commercial marine when not required for the government; and when we consider the condition of things on the Pacific ocean, it is in the highest degree important that that particular form of improvement should be adopted— it being deemed on all hands that we should have one of some kind—which, while it serves the purposes of the government, may promote the commercial prosperity of the country, and afford facilities to those who are carrying on an immense business on the Pacific.
But there is another reason. I have said this much for the purpose of showing that what is asked by this bill is not unreasonable in itself; but in the next place I think I am able to show that we have no choice, as honest men, and representing an honorable and faith-observing constituency, but to do what is proposed to be done by this bill. This government has already made a contract with the patentees, which is binding upon them in honor and in faith, and that, I think, is capable of being clearly established. By the act of September, 1850, this appropriation was made:
"For commencing the construction of the floating dry dock on the coast of California, $150,000; and the Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into a contract for the construction, with all reasonable despatch, of a sectional or balance-floating dry-dock, basin, and railway, at such harbor on the coast of the Pacific ocean as he may select, of a capacity and dimensions in no respect inferior to the dry-dock in progress of construction in Pensacola."
Now, here is the authority; and under that authority the Secretary of the Navy entered into a contract to complete the dry-dock—a contract as binding upon the honor and faith of this government as if it had been attested with a thousand seals.
And now let me refer you, Mr. President, to the letter addressed upon the subject by the Secretary of the Navy to the last Congress on the 21st of January, 1851, to which this bill refers. You will observe that in that month, two or three days before this letter was received, a resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives and adopted, to inquire of the Secretary of the Navy whether any contract had been made under that provision of the appropriation bill of the preceding year, and, if so, what it was; and, if it had not been completed and executed, to suspend all further proceedings until further directions by Congress. Here is what the Secretary of the Navy says, after having gone through and shown the various appropriations made:
"Messrs. Dakin and Moody and Gilbert and Secor at length offered to undertake the contract at the above estimate of $1,530,277. This was declined by the department; and Mr. James Brooks, of St. Louis, who produced unquestionable evidence of character, as well as of ability to give security for the completion of the work, submitted a proposal at $1,300,000. This, being the lowest bid offered, Brooks disclaimed any pretension to a patent right, and would have been accepted, but for the reason that Mr. Dakin and his associates protested against it as an invasion of their rights, and proposed only for the dock, basin, and railway, as authorized by the existing law; and the department wished to enter into no legal controversy in respect to that. Above mentioned, negotiations were continued with Messrs. Dakin and Moody and Gilbert and Secor, with the knowledge of Mr. Brooks; and they were finally informed, as the last proposition of the department, that if they would do the work on the terms stated in the law, at the sum of $1,450,000, the contract would be concluded. They desired time for consultation, and on Friday last, the 17th instant, informed the department that they accepted this proposition. The contract has not been signed or written, nor has any bond been executed for its fulfilment; and, regarding the request contained in the resolution of the House as equivalent to a command, I shall take no further steps towards its completion until the pleasure of Congress in regard to it shall be made known."
Here, according to the Secretary's statement, he told these gentlemen, "if you will undertake to do this work required by law at a certain sum, you shall have the contract." They say to him, "we accept the offer."
Now, I would be glad to know what makes a contract if this does not? That the government is not bound by it is true; nor would they have been bound by it had it been written, signed, and sealed, in such a sense as that they could be compelled to perform it.
Well, simultaneously with the resolution offered in the other House, was one offered in this in relation to the above contract, and the honorable senator from Virginia. [Mr. MASON,] by the unanimous direction of the Naval Committee, made the following report:
"That, having communicated the resolution of the Senate to the Secretary of the Navy, the committee received in reply the letter of the Secretary to the chairman of the committee, dated January 27, 1851, with copy of his letter therein referred to the House of Representatives, dated January 21, 1851, which accompany this report, marked A and B.
The law referred to in the resolution of the Senate limited the authority of the Secretary to contract for a sectional or balance floating dry-dock, basin, and railway, of a capacity and dimensions in no respect inferior to those of the dry-dock in progress of construction at Pensacola;" and the committee are satisfied, from the communication of the Secretary, that the contract he has made is on terms as advantageous to the government as the work to be done will admit. The committee are not aware of any reason to induce them to recommend any amendment or modification of the plan for this dock prescribed by the law referred to, even were the subject now susceptible of such modification; but it appears from the communications of the Secretary above mentioned that he had actually contracted for the work before the resolution of the Senate was adopted, nothing remaining to be done but to reduce the contract to writing, and its execution by the parties. In the absence, then, of fraud or misrepresentation, (which is not alleged,) the committee could not recommend that it should be disturbed. The only modification of which the plan would be susceptible is to dispense with the basin and railway, as authorized by the existing law; but for this, under the law, the contract is already made. The committee consider these appendages as peculiarly important to a dock, should they be found, on experiments yet to be tried on a like work now in progress of construction at Philadelphia, to be of practical value; but, as they are further informed by the Secretary of the Navy, the contract as made authorizes him to abrogate so much of it as provides for basin and railway, if the basin and railway in connexion with the dock at Philadelphia shall not realize the ends expected from it upon the experiments to be made at its completion; and in such case the dock only is to be completed, and paid for at a proportionate price. The committee, on the facts thus reported, ask to be discharged from further consideration of the resolution."
Now, sir, I have a report—which I will not trouble the Senate with reading—from the Naval Committee of the House, coming precisely to the same conclusion. And the report of the Secretary of the Navy, made in answer to a call of the Senate, at the instance of the senator from Pennsylvania, shows conclusively that the Secretary of the Navy himself considered this contract as made. In his report, after speaking of some parties who had made offers to him under the law of last session about dry docks, he says:
"The same parties had submitted what they sealed and bid for the former contract, after being informed that it was concluded."
Here, then, is the case: Congress direct a government officer—or rather authorize a government officer—to enter into a contract for the construction of such a dock basin, and railway. They restrict him to no person, and lay no restriction upon him as to the terms, time, or manner. They leave it all to him. He enters into a contract, agrees upon the terms of it, and, having proposed, and the contractors having accepted the terms, upon which the work is to be done, then comes a resolution from the House of Representatives which orders him to proceed no further. His letter distinctly informs them that but for that resolution the contract would have been immediately written and signed; but, interpreting the request to be a demand, he suspends further proceedings. Although that discharged the Secretary, I very respectfully submit it does not discharge the government—it does not discharge us. We had no more right to abrogate the contract before it was signed than after it was signed.
Why is a contract reduced to writing and signed? It is to answer but two purposes—one to present the state of facts as to the terms of the contract, and the other to afford the legal means of coercing the party to perform it. That is all. But contracts made by the government bind the honor and faith of the government.
Every gentleman knows for himself that he would consider his honor bound by such an engagement. So is the government bound by it. So it was considered by the committees of both houses at the last session of Congress; and so, Mr. President, it was considered by this Senate; for when the appropriation bill at the last session came before the Senate, containing a clause which proceeded to abrogate it and enforce a new contract, an amendment was agreed to in the Senate for striking out so much of that provision; but by a mistake, in the hurry of business on the last night of the session, that amendment was not engrossed, and the bill was passed without it.
It was the sense of the committee of the Senate, and the sense of the Senate was the same; and I submit that no man can read that paper without coming to the same conclusion. Then, Mr. President, the government has made this contract.
The honorable senator from Pennsylvania speaks with a great deal of energy about Congress, at the last session, having "solemnly" abrogated the contract. Well, I have yet to learn that the abrogation of a contract is a bit more proper, correct, and honorable if it is solemnly done than if it is done in a hurry. But the senator is mistaken; there was no solemnity about it.
Mr. BRODHEAD. One word, Mr. President, if the senator will allow me. I believe I did say that Congress solemnly abrogated an alleged contract; but I do not agree that there was any contract that was very binding, or that any damage could be required from the violation, supposing the government of the United States could be sued.
Mr. PRATT. Permit me to ask the honorable gentleman from North Carolina a simple question. Do I understand him to allege that the contract which he supposes to have been made and entered into imposed any legal obligation upon the individuals to be holden to it? Are they now bound to the government by what the senator terms a contract to do this work?
Mr. BADGER. My answer to that is, that when the contract was entered into, the terms of it remaining only to be reduced to writing and signed, these men were then ready, desirous, prompt, and eager to sign the contract, and the government refused. That is the state of the case.
Mr. PRATT. But there is no obligation on their part, as I understand.
Mr. BADGER. If the honorable senator refuses to perform an engagement with me, I suppose, if I choose, it releases me from the performance of my part. But these parties claimed the performance of the contract. They had no expectation of such a release. I must confess the pertinency of the gentleman's inquiry I do not exactly see. If he means that because the government refuses to perform a contract, therefore the contractors would be discharged—that they are no longer under any moral obligation—it means but this: that the government can always discharge itself from a contract by merely refusing to perform it.
Mr. PRATT. Perhaps, if the senator does not see the pertinency of my inquiry, it may be seen by other senators. Nothing can be termed a contract, in my judgment, which is not binding upon both parties. Now, the senator says this is a contract equally binding upon this government as had been reduced to signed and sealed. Now, I ask whether this contract, which he alleges to be equally binding upon the government as if this formality had been pursued, is equally binding upon the other party?
Mr. BADGER. It is binding upon the other party just as much as it is upon the government.
Mr. PRATT. Not at all.
Mr. BADGER. How is it binding upon the government—will my friend tell me?
Mr. PRATT. That is the senator's own allegation, that it is binding upon the government—it is not mine. He alleges, and I deny, that it is equally binding upon the government as if it had been reduced to writing, signed and sealed by the parties. Now, I say it is essential to a government contract that both parties should be bound; and I ask the senator to say directly, without going around the bush, whether or not, in his judgment as a lawyer, this contract, which he alleges to be binding upon the government of the United States, is binding upon these parties?
Mr. BADGER. Why, sir, if my friend from Maryland [Mr. PRATT] had attended to what I said, he would have seen that I was not talking as a lawyer in regard to what was binding. I know enough of public law to know that the government is not legally bound by any contract. The enforcement of that contract, therefore, by legal means against the government is an impossibility.
A SENATOR. Is not that 'beating about the bush'?
[Laughter.]
Mr. BADGER. No, it is not beating about the bush at all. The gentleman asks a question without understanding the proposition before the Senate. I affirm that the government was what I said, over and over again—as much as if the contract had been signed; and I say the other party is bound in faith and honor as much as if the contract had been signed in this case because there is no means of coercing the government then the government cannot be bound in any case; for, if the contract had even been signed upon both parts, the government would have been bound only in honor, and the opposite party bound in law.
But the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] says that Congress at the last session did not 'solemnly abrogate a contract,' but they 'solemnly abrogated an alleged contract.' Now, that presents a very curious idea. An alleged contract either exists, or it does not exist. If it exists, then it may be abrogated; but if it does not exist, I should like to know how an abrogation can apply to it. If there was no contract, you cannot abrogate a contract. Therefore, as there was an abrogation, the thing abrogated must have been a contract.
But the person in the House of Representatives who drew the provision thought he was particularly smart in not estopping the government, and giving these parties, these contractors, a legal advantage over the government, and therefore he put in the word 'alleged.' But the senator says it was solemnly abrogated. Now, there was as little solemnity in that act of abrogation as there ever was in anything else. The truth is that the two houses of Congress, instead of taking up the reports of the two Naval Committees, and settling the matter upon the principles of these reports, did nothing of the kind. These provisions were sprung upon us, attached to the appropriation bill, and passed here in the hurry of the last hours of the session. The truth is, also, that the provisions are so contradictory that it is difficult to make anything out of them: But this Senate never intended to abrogate the contract. They passed an amendment to prevent that effect; but in the confusion attendant upon the last night of the session, it was not engrossed, and hence the bill passed without it.
But further, as I was about saying when the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] interrupted me, this government cannot now enter into any contract except with the parties with whom this contract was made. If, therefore, this basin and railway are to be constructed, they must be constructed by a contract with them alone. They have patent rights with a half a dozen years unexpired. The government cannot, according to what is justly characterized 'the honest report' of Secretary Mason, invade a patent right. It is not one of those cases in which you can say we will repudiate this agreement, and put this matter out to the lowest bidder, because no person has a right to contract to construct this work but the owners of this patent right. Then why should we not enter into it? It is said by the report of the Naval Committee, made by the senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], that they were unable to discover that the contract could be altered or arranged so as to be more fair and reasonable and advantageous to the government than that which had been stipulated. And I will venture to say that, if senators think a business transaction of this kind worth looking into, and will examine the report of the Secretary of the Navy, and see the process of examination and investigation by the bureaus and chief engineers, time and again, and repeatedly, for the purpose of ascertaining what was the lowest sum that could be reasonably allowed, and after all this the striking down of their estimate by the Secretary of the Navy of some $80,000 or $100,000, they will then be satisfied that no process can be adopted by which this work, if it is to be executed at all, can be obtained upon better terms.
I have said that the dock is already contracted for. The only question is as to the basin and railway; and, upon the grounds I have stated, it seems to me very clear that we cannot do better than to pursue the engagement which was entered into at the last session of Congress, and authorize its honest completion by passing the bill upon your table. Now, let me occupy the Senate a moment, if I can command the attention of some two or three around me, by calling their attention to a report of the Secretary of the Navy, in order that they may see the kind of competition that has been interposed, and the sort of applications that have been made by persons who were exceedingly anxious to obtain this contract. In a letter written by the Secretary of the Navy to Messrs. Ballard and Mason, two of the applicants, he relates this circumstance:
'You are mistaken in the assertion that you were solicited to bid for this contract by me. On the contrary, you were informed that if Dakin and Co. would accept the terms I would propose, after full examination and consideration, I thought there was no alternative but to allow them the contract; and you may remember that in reply to this, you inquired whether I could not provide in the contract for the payment of certain amounts which you alleged were due from Mr. Dakin to you, and I answered that I had no power over that subject, but the courts of justice would no doubt afford the proper relief.
'The propositions presented by you through Mr. Baker were far less detailed and definite than I should feel bound to require before closing a contract, had I been at liberty to consider it at all.
'Another gentleman, claiming the exclusive right to the patent for the sectional dock on the Pacific coast, made a proposal for a much less price than you. He, however, admitted that the amount agreed to be paid by the department to Dakin and Co. was not unreasonable for the work actually required to be done, but he expected to supply a cheaper construction, which would answer the purpose.' I apprehend you will find, upon a careful examination, that you have been under a like mistaken impression in your estimates.'
Now, I will ask the attention of the Senate to the kind of proposals made by Messrs. Ballard and Mason, as a great deal has been said about these men proposing to do this work for less money than this contract is for. 'I find here in this report of the Secretary of the Navy the following:
'Messrs. Ballard & Co. propose to take the contract for building the sectional dry-dock, basin, and railway on the coast of California, upon the terms offered by the Secretary of the Navy to Messrs. Dakin & Moody—[that is to take them for the same price]—Messrs. B. & Co., being considered the servants of the government, and under the protection of the principle of the right of the government to use a patentee's invention for necessary public purposes upon just compensation.'
These men propose to do the work for the same money that the department proposed to give to the patentees, provided the government will indemnify them against the consequences of invading the patent right: or, in other words, for the same money that the patentees agreed to do the work for, if the government will pay such further sum as will be necessary to indemnify them against the consequences of invading the patent right.
A Mr. Thomas—a gentleman who claimed an interest for the original patentee, denying the assignment to Messrs. Dakin & Co., the Secretary states—made his proposition to do this work for some two or three hundred thousand dollars less than was agreed upon by this contract, and afterwards he had a personal interview with him at his department, and informed him of the materials out of which the department required this work to be constructed; and he (Mr. Thomas) said at once that he intended to get materials of an inferior character, and, if the terms of the department were to be followed out, the price which had been agreed upon must be considered as but reasonable and proper.
I believe, therefore, Mr. President, that the more this matter is looked into the more it will be found that the measure is necessary both to the public and the commercial marine of the country. In my opinion this contract, which has already been entered into, is binding upon the faith and the honor of the government. It was improperly suspended by the appropriation bill which passed at the last hours of the last session of the last Congress; and this measure is intended to re-establish and carry this contract into effect. Now, in the first place, even if the contract was perfectly open, upon an inspection of these papers it is apparent that it is fair and reasonable, as was reported by the committee at the last session of Congress, and that it could not be entered into upon more advantageous and reasonable terms.
Now, there is a great deal of the remarks made by the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD], the application of which to the subject now under consideration by the Senate I do not perceive; it may be for want of clearness and apprehension on my part. He tells us that these two sets of patentees once had a controversy before Congress, and that each man maintained the superiority of his own discovery and depreciated that of his opponent. He tells us that at one time they proposed to build these piers for $40,000, and I suppose that if they were to be made of wood they could be constructed for that price. He tells us that after this controversy was continued for some time they agreed to unite, and each take an interest in the patent-right of the other. He tells us also that he does not blame these patentees for endeavoring to get all the money they can out of the government, and that it is our fault if we allow them to get it improperly. He inveighs against the system of what he calls 'congressional docks,' and decidedly prefers to leave the department to erect the old stone fabrics to which I have referred. Now, there may be, for some purpose or other, a great deal of force and propriety in those remarks, but I confess I do not see their application to the subject under consideration.
Mr. BRODHEAD. If the senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] will permit me a moment, I will state that I do not undertake to decide, nor did I, which sort of dock should be adopted. But what I intended to say was this: that Congress should not undertake to decide it, but that the question should be referred to the Navy Department, that some person should be responsible, and that the Secretary of the Navy, with the aid of the Bureau of Docks and Yards, was the proper tribunal to decide the question.
Mr. BADGER. I am very well aware that the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] did not express his opinion directly about the docks. But he tells us over and over again that the opinion of the department was against this kind of dock, and then he says he is for leaving the question of choice to the department. I suppose, then, that they will go for their old plan of stone docks. That is what I meant to say. I did not mean to say that the senator had expressed his opinion, but that he was in favor of leaving the question to the department, with the information that they would go for the old stone docks. As I said before, these remarks do not strike me as being germane to the question under consideration. Now, it may be true that Messrs. Dakin, Moody, and the other partners had the angry controversy with each other of which the senator speaks, and each one was endeavoring to do as much mischief to his opponent and as much good to himself as possible. Suppose it was so, what of it? Suppose we want a public structure erected, and suppose these men can do it for us upon better terms than anybody else; and suppose that they are the only men who have the right to contract to do it: shall we, because they had formerly an angry controversy between themselves, refuse to make a contract with them? For what purpose? To punish them by declining to avail ourselves of the opportunity to do good to the government and the people by their means? Why, sir, assuredly not. It is a matter of small moment to this question what disputes they may have had with each other, or whether they have agreed to build wooden piers for $40,000, or even if they had agreed to build stone piers for that sum. Now, whatever may be the value of the works that they have contracted to construct this is demonstrated, if we can place any reliance upon the bureau of the naval department, to which the senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] has alluded, and to which he wishes this question referred: they have thoroughly examined this matter; they have examined these structures; they have examined the subject of the price to be given for building them, at which these structures are proposed to be taken, and for which the Secretary of the Navy had contracted, according to his letter, at a lower price than the lowest fair price, without a margin for profits, that had been estimated by these officers. Therefore, there can be no question for us now about that matter.
Again, the honorable senator from Pennsylvania speaks in his first remarks upon this subject, which I did not hear, of what I confess I was pained to read, about this 'fourth-estate' contractors.' Now, I am in the habit of thinking that an imputation of that kind—a sneer upon a whole body or class of men—is very apt to be unjust and unwise. Suppose that we were to undertake to discharge all the contractors of the United States, and do all our business for ourselves: does the honorable senator think that we would gain anything in credit or money by carrying all the mails for ourselves? Surely not. And, after all, while there have been many men in that class who are dishonest, I do not know that that class of men stands out as a singular and unexampled spectacle in that respect. Solomon told us long ago that 'sin sticketh close between buying and selling,' and a very distinguished writer in England thought that there was something about the profession to which I belong that was calculated, while it made the head clear and astute, to harden and obscure the moral perceptions of the heart. But is there any human employment that has not its peculiar temptations to evil? You will find your good and bad men among all classes. And permit me to say that, after all, this government has derived as much benefit, upon the whole, from contractors in its departments as from another source. I admit that very injurious contracts have been made. But the very worst system of contracts that the government ever sanctioned, as far as I have observed, is that system of putting out the congressional printing to the lowest bidder. I say that for the especial benefit of my friend from Connecticut [Mr. SMITH.] [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. Exactly: I understand.
Mr. BADGER. Nor do I think contractors have any right to get money improperly—none at all. They have no moral right to ask more than what is fair and reasonable, and just and proper; and if they have done so my system of ethics would condemn them. I hold that they have no more right to demand what is improper to be given to them than we have to grant it. In this case there is no evidence of such a demand. It has been proved, as far as such a subject is capable of proof, that the agreement was entered into, is binding upon the honor and faith of the government, and would have been put into the form of a written contract the next day but for the House of Representatives. It is proved that if the contract has not been made, it ought to be made; that this establishment is necessary for the government, and in no other way can that establishment be got upon the same terms, and in the same perfect condition as by this, for as small an outlay of money.
I do hope that in considering this subject the Senate will lay aside a great many of the suggestions and remarks made by the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRODHEAD] in this debate, which evidently sprung out of an excited state of mind upon this subject, growing up, I must say, because the honorable chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs [Mr. GWIN] was perhaps not quite as courteous as he ought to have been, and as I most certainly should have been—I say that for myself—if the duties of chairman of that committee had devolved upon me. But, laying that aside, I hope that we will consider this as a business transaction, and will not be guilty of the folly, in the first place, of sacrificing the honor of the government by repudiating a contract made by the government through its agents, by which we are not only to make no money, when we have not even the poor pitiful apology of pecuniary interest, but when, unless we are to give up the Pacific coast entirely and refuse any of those facilities, we must lose a great deal of money by it. The whole question stands upon this point: Shall we have a stone pier that will cost at the least calculation $600,000 in California, or shall we have a basin and railway, including all the advantages of the pier, and many more besides, for the sum of $340,000? That is the question; one or the other we must have. It is no longer a question about a dry-dock. The contract for that is made, and it is now in process of being erected; and when it is put there it ought to be put there in such a manner as will make it most beneficial to the government. According to the argument on the other side, it is only a matter of the saving to this government between a pier for $600,000 and a basin and railway for $340,000.
I was extremely sorry at the last session to see, in the last hour of the session, an amendment, which could not have been understood, made by the House of Representatives to the appropriation bill and passed, which was in effect repudiating the honor of this government, and sullying the fair faith of the country. It is not now too late to reinstate ourselves where we stood, and, while consulting the benefit of the country, at the same time save ourselves from fraud. That was an act done in the few hours of the close of the session, in haste and confusion, with no time for debate and investigation, but for which we can be excused, provided we now remedy the evil, when we see the mistake into which we were then betrayed.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Before the senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] takes his seat, I should like to obtain some information from him. He speaks of a contract having been prepared to be executed by the department, but which was not completed. Now, I wish the senator to inform me of the law under which the contract was made—whether there was any law authorizing the government to enter into this contract, and what this law was. I should like to know what the law was at the time this contract was entered into.
Mr. BADGER. This is the law. In the appropriation bill of September, 1850, is this clause:
'For commencing the construction of the floating dry dock on the coast of California, $100,000.
'The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into a contract for the construction, with all reasonable despatch, of a sectional or balance-floating dry-dock, basin, and railway, at such harbor upon the coast of the Pacific ocean as he may select, of a capacity and dimensions in no respect inferior to the dry-dock in progress of construction at Pensacola.'
That is the law under which the terms of the contract had been agreed upon, and the price settled, and which I suppose was, on the next day, or as soon after as it could be done, to have been signed by the parties, but for the resolution of the House of Representatives to which I have referred.
The question being then taken on the first amendment, upon a division there were, ayes 19, noes 2—no quorum voting.
Mr. GWIN. I believe the object of this amendment is merely to put the bill in the shape in which the committee have presented it. There is no objection to that.
Mr. WALKER. I understand this to be an amendment of the senator from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER] to the amendment brought in by the committee.
Mr. BADGER. It was reported by me by direction of the committee.
Mr. CLARKE. Allow me to suggest, Mr. President, to the honorable senator from Pennsylvania that it would be better to pass this amendment, and then the senator from Pennsylvania could ask for the printing of his substitute for the bill; for, in fact, the propriety of passing the bill at all may depend upon this proposed substitute. I see no sort of difficulty in adopting this amendment, and then the trial will be between the substitute of the honorable senator from Pennsylvania and the bill as amended.
The PRESIDENT. The bill was reported back from the committee with an amendment; to that amendment the senator from North Carolina offered the amendment which has just been read, together with other amendments.
The question being then taken upon the amendment, it was agreed to.
The question was then stated to be on the next amendment proposed by Mr. BADGER—to strike out, in the eighth and ninth lines of the amendment, page three, the words 'President of the United States,' and insert 'Secretary of the Navy;' and the amendment was agreed to.
The question was then stated to be on the amendment proposed by Mr. BADGER—to insert in page four, section four of the amendment, at the fourth line, between the words 'present' and 'pay,' the words 'sea-service;' and the amendment was agreed to.
The question then was on the last amendment of Mr. BADGER—to add to the bill the following section:
'Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That, for the purpose of enabling the President of the United States to carry into effect the provisions of this act, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars be, and the same hereby is, appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.'
The amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurred upon the adoption of the amendment reported by the committee as amended.
Mr. BRODHEAD. Mr. President, the objects of the amendment which I now propose to offer as a substitute for the bill I can very briefly state. In offering this bill as a substitute, I have modified it in two or three particulars. In the first place, sir—
Mr. BADGER, (in his seat.) We would better have it printed.
Mr. BRODHEAD. I will ask to have it read at this time, or it can be printed if it is thought necessary. I think the Senate will understand it, as I have made but little change. I will state, if it is the desire of the Senate, in what particulars I have changed the bill; or if it is their desire to have it printed by to-morrow morning, and then taken up, I have no objection to the adoption of that course.
Mr. GWIN. To-morrow is private-bill day.
Mr. BRODHEAD. Very well, sir. I am quite willing it should be acted upon to-day. I have made this alteration: In 1850, a joint commission made their report, fixing the site at Mare island, where there were 40 feet of water. The present Secretary of the Navy, I understand, has sent out another commission. That may be all proper, sir. Now, I have left it optional for the Secretary of the Navy, with both of these reports before him, to choose between them. That is the first important amendment.
Then, sir, I have provided that this work shall go on; and I also direct and authorize the Secretary of the Navy to proceed and establish the pier; and the main question is between the pier and the basin and railway. I ask the reading of the substitute.
The PRESIDENT. The question will first be taken upon the amendment reported by the committee as amended; and it will then be in the power of the senator to strike out and insert as proposed. As we are now in committee of the whole, the first question is upon the amendment as amended.
Mr. GWIN. Mr. President, the senator from Pennsylvania has, on two occasions, alluded to this joint commission, whose acts, he says, are conclusive in the case. He no doubt supposes they are. Now, sir, let me tell him what that joint commission did. They selected this site at Mare island, it is true; but they did not select it because there were forty feet of water there, for they did not know how much water there was there. Subsequently, the coast survey has been there, and it has been ascertained that, although it is one of the best points upon the coast, there is not water enough; and the Secretary of the Navy, in order that there should be no mistake, as there has been in Philadelphia, with regard to this question, has sent a board of commissioners to examine the location, with particular reference to the depth of water. Nobody opposes the selection, sir; and this subsequent board has been sent there with a view to ascertain whether or not there is water enough for the working of the dock. The dock has been ordered. That is not the question under consideration now; and they are going to make this examination in order that no such mistake may again occur as occurred at Philadelphia. At the location chosen by the recommendation of the former board, it was subsequently represented that there was not water enough; and the object now is to ascertain whether there is no other better location, or even one equally good, with a sufficient depth of water.
The question being then taken on the amendment of the committee as amended, it was agreed to.
The question was then stated to be on the amendment proposed by Mr. BRODHEAD—to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert a substitute.
Mr. ATCHISON moved that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with, and that it be printed: which was agreed to.
On motion, the Senate then adjourned.
"LIBERTY, THE UNION, AND THE CONSTITUTION."
CITY OF WASHINGTON, SATURDAY MORNING, MARCH 27, 1852
TWENTY-FOUR CASES LONDON BOOK-FOR SALE BY WM. MORRISON, corner of 4½ street and Pennsylvania avenue, at reduced prices, previous to their being sent abroad, comprising law, divinity, history, voyages, travels, and the fine arts, &c.—amongst which are The Mirror of Parliament, 33 vols., half calf—the best collection of speeches from 1827 to 1837, each corrected by the author. Parliamentary History, 36 vols., half Russia. Macklin's splendid Bible, 7 vols. folio. Bayle's Dictionary, 10 vols. Nicholas's Order of Knighthood, illuminated, 4 vols. folio. Beaumont and Fletcher, 11 vols. A very fine copy of Valpy's Delphin Classics, 172 vols., calf-extra. Musée Français, 4 vols.; Musée Royale, 2 vols. Atlas Universel, 380 colored maps, 3 vols. folio. Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 vols.; Loddige's Botanical Cabinet, 16 vols.; Miller's Gardener's Dictionary, 4 vols. folio; Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews; Allcott's American Geography, 5 vols., calf; Pinkerton's Voyages, 17 vols. 4to., half Russia; Frazer's Himalaya Mountains, plates, colored; Hogarth, by Nicholas; Ackerman's Oxford and Cambridge; Bayle's Historical Dictionary, 10 vols.; Physica Sacra, 750 plates, 5 vols.; Philosophical Transactions, by Hutton, Shaw, and Pearson, 18 vols.; Bryan's Dictionary of Painters; Lardner, 130 vols.; Gibbon; Robertson; Dodsley's Annual Register; Gentleman's Magazine; English Law Reports—Littleton, Holt, Palmer, Shower, Strange, Vernon, Coke, Davis, Domat, Blackstone, Durnford and East, Term Reports, Peake, Espinasse, Bosanquet and Puller, East, Maule and Selwyn, Barnewall and Adolphus, Adolphus and Ellis, Meeson and Welsby, &c., &c. Catalogues are ready. March 27—3t
New Spring Goods all Opened.
THE UNDERSIGNED respectfully announce to their customers and the public generally, that their spring purchases are now all at hand, and ready for inspection, which consist of the most complete assortment to be found in any retail house in the country, suited to the wants of the public; all of which we are enabled to offer cheaper than can be obtained elsewhere. We invite the special attention of the ladies to the following goods, viz:
IN SILKS—20 pieces rich new-style spring silks, in new designs; 15 do. plain Poult de Soie, in all shades; 25 do. plain glace and armures; 20 do. light-colored reps silks; 20 do. low-priced brocade and other figured silks; 15 do. narrow checked silks; 20 do. rich 4-4 India foulard, in very handsome styles; 12 do. 3-4 India foulard, very cheap.
IN BLACK SILKS we have—30 pieces plain black silks, including all widths and grades; 5-8, 3-4, and 4-4 black watered silks; black levantines and black satins; black brocade silks, in great variety of prices and qualities.
IN BEREGE, MOUSSELINE DE LAINES, BEREGE DE LAINES, &c., we have—100 pieces extra rich bereges, in dress patterns; 50 do. extra-rich bereges, cut to suit any demand; 50 do. medium-quality bereges, in beautiful styles; 100 do. low-priced bereges—some beautiful styles at 25 and 31 cents; 25 do. plain bereges, mode, gray, and all fancy shades; 10 do. fancy shades mousseline de laines, in blue, green, pink, salmon, and white, in superior qualities; 10 do. plain mode and gray mousselines; 20 do. small-figured, all wool mousselines, for children; 30 do. all-wool rich berege de laines; 100 do. medium berege de laines; 100 do. low-price, in handsome patterns; 25 do. plain black and half-mourning berege de laines; 30 do. plain black and half-mourning bereges.
IN FRENCH MUSLINS, LAWNS, AND CHINTZES, we have—20 pieces French muslins; 20 do. French printed jaconets; 15 do. organdie muslins; 25 do. small-figured chintzes, for children.
In addition to the above goods enumerated, we would remark that our present stock embraces a great variety of ladies' dress goods which cannot be enumerated in an advertisement: in fact we can supply the public with almost any article in the trade.
Mar 27—2t CLAGETT, NEWTON, MAY, & CO.
Mantillas, Shawls, &c.
WE respectfully invite the ladies to an examination of the annexed beautiful and attractive line of goods, adapted exclusively to their wants, viz: 50 rich spring mantillas and mantilla scarfs, in plain and embroidered silk; 1 dozen white lace mantillas; 12 light-colored silk do.; 12 rich embroidered white-crape shawls; 50 plain white do. in assorted grades; 25 plain-colored crape shawls; rich and medium black lace do., and scarfs in great variety; 25 printed Cashmere shawls; Cashmere berege shawls and scarfs; plain black silk, black crape and grenadine shawls; light shades colored silk shawls. Ladies wishing to purchase any article above enumerated will find the assortment complete as represented, and offered at the lowest prices.
Mar 27—2t CLAGETT, NEWTON, MAY, & CO.
RICH DRESS GOODS.—McLAIN & HARRY will this day open 500 pieces of new and fashionable dress goods, embracing plain, plaid, and figured silks, of the various shades and prices; rich styles bereges and shallies do.; plain and figured poplins—a new article; berege de laines, all qualities, styles and colors among them some beautiful cottage and tapestry styles, to which we would invite the particular attention of the ladies. Lawns, all prices; ginghams and prints in great variety. Purchasers will be well compensated by examining our stock before supplying themselves elsewhere, as the above goods have been selected with great care in the Philadelphia and New York markets, and on the best terms: consequently, we are determined to sell very low, for cash, and cash only.
McLAIN & HARRY,
Between 8th and 9th streets.
Mar 27—co2w
MEN and Women of the Nineteenth Century; by Arsène Houssaye. Tales and Traditions of Hungary; by Madame Pulszky—portrait. Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers and Other Poems; by Wm. E. Aytoun. The Book of Ballads: edited by Bon Gaultier, with illustrations. Sorcery and Magic; by Thomas Wright, M. A. F. S. A., 1 vol. Characters in the Gospels, illustrating phases of character in the present day; by Rev. E. H. Chapin, 1 vol. Long Leaves from the Book of Life and Nature: by an American. Lectures and Miscellaneous by Henry James Anderson, 1 vol. Ladies of the Covenant: by Rev. James Anderson, 1 vol. Clovernook; by Alice Cary—Day dreams: This day received and for sale by TAYLOR & MAURY, Booksellers, near Ninth st. Mar 27