Mr. Lang testified (pp. 31 and 32):

"Question. Mr. Lang, when you were negotiating with Major Carlisle regarding the amortization of this building, you were not sure whether the Government would allow you the total cost for amortization or not, were you?

"Mr. LANG. No; we had not thought that it would take in the total amortization, but it was thought about and talked about at random; but we thought, in the event that only this amount was coming through, this company could stand $14,000 or $15,000 on that building, which could be used as a storehouse or other similar purposes.

66

Question. Major Carlisle told you definitely that he would allow you $15,000 for amortization?

"Mr. LANG. On the mounting and crating.

"Question. And that is what definite understanding you had? "Mr. LANG. Yes.

"Question (p. 5). Do you recall whether or not there was any conference with Major Carlisle at this time in regard to the cost of the building?

*

"Mr. LANG. We figured that the building would run in the neighborhood of $30,000 or more; * * that the building would be worth to us * half of the $30,000 it cost at that time."

*

*

4. The claimant's president, E. J. Lang, testified he was advised by Mr. George Randles, chief of the maintenance section, to go to Camp Holabird and study the Government buildings there used for storage purposes, which he did; that claimant also constructed additional railroad tracks and railroad facilities to connect with the new building; that claimant paid therefor the total sum of $35,768.37, and that the said work was completed in December, 1918; that the building is detached from the claimant's main buildings and can only be used by claimant as a shipping and receiving depot, which it could have built for the sum it is now offering the Government for said building, $14,000; that the additional railroad tracks are of no value to claimant.

T. H. Hollenback, assistant, to the Cleveland district Claims Board, states in his letter of May 9, 1919, to the Cleveland district Claims. Board:

"The contractor has offered $14,000 for this building. This offer we believe to be fair and just and is approved by price approval committee (see Exhibit 'B' attached). The railway switch must be removed and the lot regraded to adapt plant for their regular commercial business. The cost of the work of putting yard into proper condition will absorb all of the salvage value of this switch."

5. The claimant in its claim states:

"The cost of additional facilities for the promised contract for mounting, camouflaging, and crating twelve to fifteen hundred reconnaissance and machine-gun bodies, as explained by Major Carlisle,

153973-PT 3-20-23

were to be partially absorbed by adding an additional charge to the price we were then getting for similar work. This additional charge and the price for the work was to be determined later, for the reason that there was nothing positive at that time as to the cost of the building, nor the increased cost that labor was demanding of this company."

6. The claimant entered into contracts and incurred obligations for the construction of the building before November 12, 1918. 7. E. J. Lang testified in relation to the railroad switch, page 5:

66

Question. Did he (Mr. Randles) give you his verbal approval for putting up any type of building?

"Mr. LANG. Yes.

"Question. Also for increased railroad facilities?

"Mr. LANG. It was not necessary to have that. It was only a matter of throwing a switch around from our own switch."

"Mr. LANG. At the time we talked about building we did not talk about railroad facilities. The Shipping Board could handle that. They, however, got real nasty about it and wanted to know why we did not put cranes out over the railroad to load the cars."

DECISION.

1. Maj. T. W. Carlisle requested E. J. Lang, the claimant's president, to erect a storage building of a type recommended by the Government engineers and agreed to allow the claimant $15,000 toward amortization of the cost of said building.

2. The question arises whether anything further is due the claimant on the said building. E. J. Lang testified that he figured that the building would cost about $30,000, and that the building would be worth to the claimant half of the $30,000 at that time. The claimant now offers $14,000 for the building, although it cost $32,265.48. It seems the cost of the construction of such a building would be as much, or more, now than it was then. When E. J. Lang learned the Government would allow $15,000 on the cost of the building he went ahead with its construction. There were discussions between E. J. Lang and Maj. Carlisle as to whether a further sum should be allowed, but the final cost of the building was not then known, and they were unable to determine whether any further sum should be allowed. The claimant anticipated an increased volume of business and an increased profit, and was satisfied to erect the building upon the promise of $15,000 to be paid it by the Government. It seems it assumed costs beyond that sum as a business risk, and the expenditures were made on the faith of the agreement that claimant should be allowed $15,000. That sum seems a fair allowance, and we are unable to find any agreement that the claimant should be paid any further

sum.

3. It seems the claimant constructed the additional railroad tracks on its own authority. We find no agreement on the part of the Government to pay any part of the cost of the railroad tracks.

4. The Board finds an agreement was made with the claimant by an officer acting under the authority of the Secretary of War, within the provisions of the Dent Act, to compensate the claimant to the extent of $15,000 for the cost of the said building.

Col. Delafield, Col. Boggs, and Lieut. Col. Junkin concurring.

O

269

200

276

279

636

200

90

90

227

Blanke, C. F., Tea & Coffee Co.. Additional machinery, facilities

536

107

200

232

234

254