Mr. SAMUELSON. No; I didn't figure that way, because in that contract I figured out I had damage coming. But if I tell you the straight story about it, if I hadn't signed that release, I would never have got the check, because then I was pretty near on the verge of surrendering everything, and I had to sign anything they put before me to get that money. Mr. DOUGLASS. You had a mortgage on your farm, too? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes, sir; I did. Mr. DOUGLASS. How much? Mr. SAMUELSON. $7,500. Mr. SHAFFER. And you received no damages whatever on your land? Mr. SAMUELSON. No; I haven't received anything for the buildings nor the land. Mr. PEAVEY. So that all you have been paid was just your rental for the place, less the last four months, which was not paid? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. DOUGLASS. Have you a copy of what you signed? Mr. SAMUELSON. I received that. We signed three of them. Mr. SAMUELSON. I got one like this [indicating]. Mr. DOUGLASS. You signed a paper about the same as this? Mr. SAMUELSON. Exactly the same; but we signed three of them, and only received one back. Mr. SHAFFER. Are these foundations on your land similar to those on the farm of Mr. Johnosn? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes. There was a subway under the railroad tracks, and on my land there was approximately 10,000 square feet of cement slabs. Mr. DOUGLASS. Have you figured out what it would cost to restore your premises to their former condition? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes. Mr. DOUGLASS. That is figured in your damages? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes; it is figured in. Colonel HATCH. Have you prepared a statement as to the damage to your buildings? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes. Colonel HATCH. I will ask you to identify that as the statement. (Handing the witness a paper.) Mr. SAMUELSON. That is it. Mr. SHAFFER. I wish you would file that as an exhibit. Colonel HATCH. That will be filed as Exhibit 1 for Mr. Samuelson. (The paper referred to was thereupon received in evidence and marked "Samuelson Exhibit No. 1, " and is as follows:) QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, SAMUELSON EXHIBIT No. 1 Munitions Building, Washington, D. C. I herewith present for your consideration and for adjustment my claim for damage to buildings, barns, and other similar structures or improvements on the following-described real estate, to wit: The west one-half of the northwest quarter of section 13, township 43 north, range 1 east of the third principal meridian; also the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 12 in the same township and range; also the east one-half of the northeast quarter of section 14 in the township and range afore said, excepting therefrom the rights of way of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy and the Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railroads. The total number of acres included in this description being 193.09, situated in the county of Winnebago and State of Illinois. I wish to state that this land was leased by the Government of the United States and was used in connection with and as a part of Camp Grant, Ill. I wish to call your attention to the fact that this land was retained by the Government approximately three years without any payment of rent; that it was leased to the Government for a yearly period, which lease expired April 1, 1924; that the rent for such land for such period has not been paid; that the owner of the land, being this claimant, has already suffered great loss and inconvenience and asks that the claim may be acted on at the very earliest convenience of the governmental officials in charge. STATE OF ILLINOIS, County of Winnebago: Charles Samuelson, being first duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says that he is the owner of the land hereinbefore described; that he is the claimant who has subscribed to the foregoing claim, and that he has a just claim for the damage as heretofore suggested. Subscribed and sworn to before me at Rockford this 21st day of April, A. D. 1924. Notary Public. Colonel HATCH. If you received bids to restore your land to the condition in which it was before you released it, tell the committee? Mr. SHAFFER. Now, wait. I do not think that would be a proper basis for a man to go out and get bids. Colonel HATCH. That is just to restore the property to the condition in which it was. Mr. PEAVEY. Of course we would have to know all the facts. Mr. SAMUELSON. I will be right short about it. That can't be done. Mr. SHAFFER. That is purely hearsay evidence, of the rankest kind. Colonel HATCH. It is offered in writing. Mr. SHAFFER. But that is hearsay at most. Mr. PEAVEY. I do not think that would have any bearing with the committee. Colonel HATCH. The contractor went over the premises and submitted a bid to remove these foundations a id these roads and reduce these ditches. Mr. SAMUELSON. That is all right; but you can't restore it back in the shape it was in before. It can't be done. Mr. DOUGLASS. You said yesterday that you had cleaned up some of this place yourself. Mr. SAMUELSON. I cleaned up a lot of it, but there is an immense lot left. Mr. DOUGLASS. That part was easy? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes. Mr. BUCKBEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one thing that may possibly clear up the minds of the committee: That in the Samuelson area between 15 and 20 acres of land, that was used for practice trench areas, could not be restored; and I would always say that it was one of the most valuable sections of the Samuelson farm. You could not restore it. Mr. PEAVEY. Colonel Hatch, which of these next cases do you want to take up? Colonel HATCH. 9063-the Beckstrom Co. Mr. PEAVEY. This is for the relief of the Ross P. Beckstrom Co., for reason of breach of contract on the part of the United States. Is Mr. Beckstrom or his representative here? Ill. STATEMENT OF ROSS P. BECKSTROM Mr. PEAVEY. Give your name and address to the reporter. Mr. PEAVEY. Mr. Beckstrom, can you state briefly now to the committee just what your business is, and how your claim arose between you and the Government? Mr. BECKSTROM. I had what was known as an emergency contract for repairs and alterations to Camp Grant, and this contract was given to me by Col. William O. Smith, quartermaster at Camp Grant, Rockford, Ill. The contract was a fixed fee, and this contract provided for the payment of a fee of $15,000. Mr. DOUGLASS. It was a written contract, of course? Mr. BECKSTROM. It was a written contract; yes, sir. Mr. SHAFFER. Have you the contract? Mr. BECKSTROM. Mr. Hatch has a copy of it. I have not one with me. Mr. PEAVEY. Colonel Hatch, will you introduce the contract between Mr. Beckstrom and the Government at this point? Colonel HATCH. I will try to locate it. I did not know which case would be called up. Mr. PEAVEY. All right; we will proceed. Mr. BECKSTROM. The contract, as I recall it, provided for this fixed fee, but it also had a sliding scale. In other words, it started at 10 per cent and went on down to 31⁄2 per cent. In making the contract I discussed with Colonel Smith just what this work contemplated, and he informed me that the Government had estimated carefully that the total amount of work to be done for this fee of $15,000 would approximate $200,000. In fact, it ran a little over that. The total amount that came within his estimate ran, as I recall, about $204,000. It is a long time since it happened, but I hope that you can bear these figures out just to the exact dollars and cents as audited by the Government auditors. When this maximum amount of the contract had been completed, or approximately that time, Col. William O. Smith was transferred to the East, I believe to Philadelphia, and a new quartermaster was put in charge; but before he left he asked me to go to Washington and take it up with the War Department as to the balance of this work; and I proceeded on down here and did that. Mr. DOUGLASS. What did you say this work was that you were doing under contract? Mr. BECKSTROM. "Alterations and repairs to Camp Grant," was the way the contract was worded. But I did a great deal of new work there. Then I came on to Washington-it was February 22; I remember it was a holiday Mr. DOUGLASS. What year? Mr. BECKSTROM. That would be 1918. I went to the contract division, and I first saw Major Maloney, and he told me that in all cases supplemental contracts had been given a contractor, and that I should ask for a supplemental contract. The officer in charge of the contract division was Colonel Betts, as I recall his name; and he told me the same thing that everybody else had been given a supplemental contract with the exception of two contractors who, when they had completed approximately their $200,000 worth of work, abandoned their contract. But I proceeded on the orders of Colonel Smith and his successor, and I did an additional sum to my contract of about $115,000-$116,000, I will say; I am sure that is the figureand it is for that additional work that I am asking for additional compensation, in addition to this $15,000 that has already been paid me. Mr. SHAFFER. Have you received anything for this? Mr. BECKSTROM. No; I have not. I am trying to state it just as briefly as I can. Maybe there is something else you would like to ask me to bring it out. Mr. SHAFFER. You were doing this on a percentage basis? Mr. SHAFFER. And you were to do a certain amount for $15,000; did you say $100,000 worth of work? Mr. BECKSTROM. $200,000 was the amount of estimate that the Quartermaster Department had made, that I should do on the $15,000 fee. But I did $116,000 more that I should have been paid for, according to the schedule of fees, at the rate of 71⁄2 per cent. I think it totaled at that time a little over $8,000. Mr. PEAVEY. Your claim, then, is for the original $15,000 which has not been paid? Mr. BECKSTROM. No; the $15,000 has been paid. It is for the additional $8,000 that I feel that I earned under the contract. Mr. PEAVEY. Have you presented your claim to the War Department officials, and has it been disallowed? Mr. BECKSTROM. It has been disallowed. I first presented it to the Court of Claims, and it was disallowed there. I don't know whether you gentlemen know-not the court; what is it? Mr. PEAVEY. The claims board, you mean? Mr. BECKSTROM. Of the War Department. Mr. DOUGLASS. Not the court? Mr. BECKSTROM. No; it is a board; just a board of officers. disallowed by them; I mean, they did not allow it. Mr. SHAFFER. For what reason; do you know? It was Mr. BECKSTROM. I think because it was not properly presented on my part; I mean, not as far as the attorneys that handled my case. I think that was the only reason. I think that if the contracting officer, Col. William O. Smith, who made the contract, had been called, it would not have been disallowed; but I do not believe, to my knowledge, he was called. Mr. DOUGLASS. Of course the contract would speak for itself. Mr. SHAFFER. Then you did not institute any proceedings on this in court? Mr. BECKSTROM. Yes; I did. The way that came up, I was solicited by an attorney, and I did present it before the Court of Claims, and it was disallowed in the Court of Claims. Mr. SHAFFER. Then you have got a judgment against you in the Court of Claims? Mr. BECKSTROM. I don't understand that. Mr. SHAFFER. Your case, then, has been adjudicated? Mr. BECKSTROM. It has, before the Court of Claims; yes. Mr. PEAVEY. The Court of Claims or this board of officers? Mr. BECKSTROM. The Court of Claims, too. Mr. SHAFFER. This bill would not give you any relief. Mr. BECKSTROM. Here is what I thought about it: This attorney, I was told afterwards by one of the judges of the Court of Claims-he had dug up cases, and his standing before the Court of Claims was absolutely null and void. I did not know the man. He just wrote to me out at Rockford. The reason I did not press the claim was that I had reverses after the war, and I could not afford to come out here and do it; and he wrote to ine; and I have always believed that if I could present that case again before the Court of Claims, with counsel that really had some bearing before that court, I do not think there is any question in my mind but what I would be given relief. Mr. SHAFFER. You see, that has been adjudicated. He has got a judgment of the court against him. Relieving the bar of the statute of limitations would not give him any standing in court at all. Mr. PEAVEY. Colonel Hatch, have you anything that will throw any light on this claim? Colonel HATCH. Yes, sir. I knew nothing at all about this case, and I know little enough about it now. My partner, who died in October, was handling it. But the attorney who took the case went to the Court of Claims and sued upon a contract which on its face showed that the man was not entitled to recovery, and the Court of Claims promptly returned a judgment saying that the contract was not breached by the Government; therefore the man was not entitled to receive a thing. The facts were that this man proceeded under the 71⁄2 per cent basis to execute a contract in the amount of $204,000. When he arrived at that figure, he went to Major Smith, the man whose authority it was to sign the contracts for the Government, and stated, "I understood you to say that $200,000 was the limit of this work." He admitted it. He said, "I did say so." "Now, it has already gone beyond that, and you want me to proceed with $160,000 more. You don't expect me to do that on the 7% per cent?" "I certainly do |