
    GEORGE T. SAMPSON v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Congressional,
    10889.
    Decided May 6, 1907.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The bill referred under the Tucker Act is for the payment of $4,015.38 'for work done and material furnished on the'Mattabessett “ as per report of Thomas 0. Selfridge, commodore and president of hoard.” The only question is whether in such a case the court can find and report a larger amount than that named in the bill.
    I.Where a bill referred under the Tucker Act is for the payment of a specific amount “in full payment and discharge of the claim,” the findings of the court must be limited to that amount.
    II.The “ casa ” referred under a Tucker Act reference by one of the Houses of Congress is the case set forth and described in the bill; and if the bill for the relief, of a claimant is limited to one amount named it can not be assumed that the House would have referred a bill for a larger amount..
    III.The resolution referring a bill to the court does not broaden or affect jurisdiction, which is derived from the statute and from it alone. One of the Houses of Congress can not enlarge the statutory jurisdiction of the court.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the preliminary statement of the case and the facts as found by the court:
    This is a claim for work done and material alleged to have been furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States d’ouble-ender Mattabessett.
    On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court under the provisions of the act of March 3,1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill reading as follows:
    
      “ [S. 703. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.]
    “A bill for the relief of George T. Sampson.
    
      “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to George T. Sampson, surviving partner of the firm of A. '& G. T. Sampson, of Boston, Massachusetts, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four thousand and fifteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, in full payment and discharge of the claim of said A. & G. T. Sampson for work done and material furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States double-ender £ Mattabessett,’ as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board (Senate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress).”
    The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 25th day of April, 1905, in which he avers as follows: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts. That Augustus Sampson, who was associated with him in business from the year 1862 to 1875, died about the year 1894. That they resided at Boston, Mass., throughout the years 1861 to 1865 and gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion and were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States.
    That petitioner and said Augustus Sampson, since deceased, entered into a contract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1862, to build and equip the hull of a paddle-wheel gunboat known as a wooden double ender, subsequently called the Mattabessett, and that they performed their contract bjr completing the vessel, and the defendants, by their proper officers, paid to them the contract price, $75,000. By the contract .she was to be launched January 13,1863, but she was not launched until about six weeks later. The agreement allowed fifty days more for completing the vessel, but instead of being completed March 4,1863, she was not finished until January 18, 1864.
    That at the outset there was delay by the United States in furnishing the drawings, which on their arrival showed changes. Alterations and changes were ordered by the Government and performed by tibe contractors. These orders for such alterations and changes were made from time to time from the beginning until the end of the work. Many changes were ordered after the vessel had been delivered by the contractors at the premises of the contractor for the machinery, which were more than 200 miles from the shipyard of your petitioner, where the hull had been built. These alterations "were expensive to the contractors over and above their direct cost, because they delayed the completion of the work beyond the contract term into a period when prices of labor and material were higher and because of the cost of the insurance, personal attendance, and other running expenses.
    That the contractors built this ship as quickly as they could and as economically as possible. Ity reason of the changes and delays of the Government the cost to the contractors was increased $19,703.24, exclusive of loss of $1,174.25 by reason of delay in payments. Petitioner has received $500 because of the nondelivery at the 'Boston Harbor and $3,723.70 for extras.
    The only ascertainment of how much the hull of the Matta-bessett cost the contractors over and above the allowance for extra work and the contract price was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the Secretary of the Navy on the 25th of May, 1865. The loss to the contractors by reason of the delays and changes ordered by the United States was $15,479.54 over and above all sums heretofore received from the United States, and exclusive of the loss of $1,174.25 by reason of delay in payments.
    The contractors were not guilty of laches, inasmuch as they presented their claim to said board on the 29th of June, 1865; they also presented their memorial to Congress March 16, 1864, and have been diligent in asking relief from Congress ever since. No assignment of this claim has ever been made.
    Thé case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of April, 1907. John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and interests of the United States.
    
      The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following finding of fact:
    I. George T. Sampson and his brother Augustus Sampson resided in Boston, Mass., and were associated in business from the year 1862 to 1875. They gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion, but were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war — from 1861 to 1865. Augustus Sampson died about the year 1894, and neither his estate nor his heirs are represented in this suit as parties claimant.
    II. The said George T. Sampson and Augustus Sampson entered into a contract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1862, to build, launch, deliver to the engine contractor in New York City, and thereafter complete, the hull of the wooden double-end er gunboat Mattabessett, for the sum of $75,500. Under the contract the vessel was to be launched within one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the contract, or by January 13, 1863, and promptly thereafter delivered at the premises of the contractor for the steam machinery; but the vessel was not launched until April 3, 1863, two hundred and six days after the date of the contract, and was not delivered to the machinery contractor until May 2, 1863. ("Reply of Navy Department, filed July 19, 1905, pp. 13, 84, 138.) The contract called for the completion of the vessel within fifty days after its delivery to the machinery contractor in New York, May 2, 1863; but it was not completed until eight months thereafter, the principal cause of this delay being the delay on the part of the machinery contractor in completing the installation of the engines and machinery of the vessel.
    III. During the construction and equipment of the hull of said vessel by the contractors there were numerous alterations and additions ordered by the Navy Department and made bjr the contractors, for which the contractors, upon the completion of the vessel, presented a claim to the Navy Department, upon which claim they were allowed and paid the sum of $3,723.70, this being the full amount of the -claim, with the exception of an item of $487 for cost of awnings for hurricane deck and an item of $1,325 for additional compensation for delivery of vessel at New York. This allowance and payment of $3,723.70 was in addition to the contract prices of $75,000 for the construction of the vessel and $500 for its delivery to the machinery contractor in New York, thus making a total payment to the contractors of $79,223.70.
    IY. In consequence of numerous contractors and builders of Government vessels during the war having asked additional compensation for the construction of such vessels on the ground that they had cost the contractors more than they had received for them, the Senate of the United States on March 9, 1865, passed the following resolution:
    “Resolved!, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board of not less than three competent persons whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessel of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price, and the allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its next session, none but those who have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered.”
    The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore Thomas O. Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, commonly known as the Selfridge Board; and the contractors in this case presented to said Board a sworn statement of claim alleging the entire cost to them of the said vessel, Mattabessett, to have been $83,239.08, thus claiming the extra cost to them over and above the $79,223.70 theretofore paid them to have been $4,015.38.
    Upon consideration said Board decided that the vessel had cost the contractors this amount of $4,015.38 over what they had received for it, and the Board so reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was transmitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866.
    Y. No evidence has been offered by the Government to disprove the findings of the Selfridge Board, but some evidence has been produced by the claimant to confirm it. . ’
    YI. The contractors presented this claim to the said Self-ridge Board on June 29, 1865, since which time no action appears from the record to have been taken in the prosecution of the claim -until its presentation to the Fifty-seventh Congress by Senate bill No. 703, as hereinbefore set forth.
    
      Mr. John S. Blair for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Charles F. Kincheloe (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Van Orsdel), for the defendants.
   BaRney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes to this court under the Tucker Act by a resolution of the Senate.

The bill referred is given in full in the statement of case herein, and, briefly stated, is a bill providing for the payment to the claimant of $4,015.38, in full payment and discharge of the claim of the claimant for work done.and material furnished in the construction of the United States double-ender Mattabessett, as per report of what is commonly known as the Selfridge Board.

This Board consisted of Commodore Self ridge and two other naval officers, and ivas organized pursuant to a resolu-* tion of the Senate passed March 9, 1865. By the terms of said resolution it was made the duty of this Board to inquire into and report to the Senate how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for-by the Government during the years 1862 and .1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work. This Board made investigations of these matters pursuant to said resolution, and its report is embodied in Senate Report No. 1942, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. Arising from this report several cases have come before this court from Congress under the Tucker Act. The bills so referred have been for the payment of a specified sum, “ as per report of Thomas 0. Selfridge,” or words of similar import, and that is the form of the bill referred in this case.

This court, in determining the amount of damages accruing to the claimants in such cases, confines itself to the amount as found by said naval Board. These bills generally, if not invariably, correspond in amount to the findings of the Selfridge Board. That Board was appointed and discharged its duties shortly after these questions arose and while all or nearly all of the witnesses to the whole transaction were still living and the facts were fresh in their recollection. After the lapse of more than forty years evidence introduced will be but a faint echo of what was certain at that time. The testimony produced in the case at bar is a good illustration of that fact, being little more than a belief in the verity of the evidence given before the Selfridge Board.

We are further constrained not to go beyond the report of the Selfridge Board from the form of and the amount stated in the bill referred to us. It is for “ the sum of four thousand and fifteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, in full payment and discharge of the claim of said George T. Sampson for work done and material furnished, as per report of Thomas 0. Selfridge, &c.”

By the terms of the fourteenth section of the Tucker Act Ave are required in such case to report to Congress “ the facts in the case, and the amount, where the same can be liquidated.” Now, what “ case ” has been referred to us to report upon? Evidently the case made out by the bill in question and no other. In this case the bill is for $4,015.38, as per the report of the Selfridge Board, and AAre do not think we are called upon to go beyond that board or that amount, especially as no evidence has been offered to impeach the finding of the board, while some evidence has been produced to support it.

Again, if a bill for a greater amount or depending upon any other report or state of facts had been introduced in the Senate, that branch of Congress might not have consented to refer it to the court, but it did consent to refer this bill and this case to this court, and no other. Any other vieAv of the case would authorize this court to return findings for a million dollars when the bill provided for the payment of but one thousand, thus evading the evident intention of the Tucker Act and making possible a fraudulent deception of Congress. Under the Bowman Act the provision is that Avhenever a claim of matter is pending,” it may be referred to this court, while under the Tucker Act the reference is of a bill “ providing for the payment of a claim against the United States, legal or equitable,” which implies the payment of the sum provided for in the bill and no more.

It is urgently contended by the claimant that the resolution of reference in this case broadens the jurisdiction of this court in making up its findings, and should be looked to for that purpose. We do not agree with this contention. This court gets its jurisdiction in this class of cases from the Tucker Act, and from that alone. The resolution of reference is but the vehicle by which the bill comes to this court and serves no other purpose; otherwise one branch of Congress alone would be enabled to enlarge the jurisdiction of this court. When the case is in this court we look to the bill referred to us, and no further, to determine the matter before the court for investigation and report.

Taking- this view of the case, we deem it our duty to report only upon a claim, as reported by the Selfridge Board, for the sum of $4,015.38. The findings and this opinion will accordingly be certified to Congress.  