I have no opinion to express as to the amount of extra compensation he is entitled to receive. Yours, truly, Hon. RICHARD BRODHEAD, Senate. W. L. MARCY. It is evident from this letter of the Secretary, as well as upon the face of the instructions requiring the performance of this work, that there was no intention of laying the foundation of a claim for extra compensation. The instructions are as follows, viz: "The Secretary directs that translations of papers of any considerable length will be made by the assistant translator, and revised by Mr. Tasistro. The latter gentleman will devote his leisure to the examination of materials which have been submitted to the Secretary for a new volume of the American Archives." It thus appears that a portion of Mr. Tasistro's ordinary duty was transferred to the assistant translator for the express purpose of affording Mr. T. the "leisure" which he was required to devote to the particular duty required. The views entertained by the committee, in regard to this class of claims, are given in a report made by them at the present session (No. 230) in the case of Daniel J. Browne, to which reference is made. The committee are of opinion that the memorialist presents no just or equitable claim against the United States. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 13, 1858.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. SIMMONS Submitted the following REPORT. The Committee on Patents and the Patent Office, to whom was referred the petition of Nathan Scholfield, for the renewal of a patent, report: The petitioner obtained, on the 15th of May, 1836, letters patent for "an improved governor or regulator for equalizing and governing the motion of machinery driven by water or steam power," and at the expiration of the original term of fourteen years obtained from the Patent Office an extension thereof for seven years which term expired on the 15th day of May, 1857. He now applies for a further extension of the patent for a term of seven years. The petitioner alleges that he has not received an adequate compensation for the time, labor, expense, and ingenuity bestowed upon the invention and in its introduction to general use, and presents an account showing the nett profits of the patent to have been $3,912 90, all of which accrued during the extended period of seven years, and that nothing was made upon the patent during the fourteen years of its original existence. The account shows, however, that 539 governors were sold during the first fourteen years, while only 142 machines were sold during the extended term of seven years, to which should be added certain privileges to make and use, sold to the corporations of Lowell, Manchester, and a few other corporations and individuals. The petitioner presents no evidence of the utility of his invention beyond the number of machines he states to have been sold. The committee think that the petitioner does not present a case calling for the special legislation of Congress in his behalf, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. May 14, 1858.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. IVERSON made the following REPORT. [To accompany Bill S. 340.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Ann L. Rogers, report: Mr. John A. Rogers, the husband of the petitioner, was appointed, in August, 1841, to examine the land offices in the States of Mississippi and Alabama, for which service he was to be allowed a compensation of eight dollars per day while engaged in the examination, and six dollars for every twenty miles' travel. In the settlement of his accounts, after the completion of the service, his charges of per diem for seventy-one Sundays, at $8 per day, $568, and eight days examining records at Mobile, $64, amounting in all to $632, were, amongst other items, disallowed at the treasury. Also, his mileage for 2,163 miles, which was disallowed on the ground that the nearest routes were not pursued, or that the travel was performed between some points more than once. This item amounts to $648 90. Your committee consider that he ought to have been allowed pay for Sundays, whilst he was in the service of the government. He was to receive a stipulated sum per diem whilst engaged in the work. There was no exemption or exception as to Sundays. His expenses were as great on Sundays as on any other days. It is very probable that he travelled as well on Sundays as on other days. They made up a portion of the time that he was away from home and in a distant country, amongst strangers. It is reasonable and just that he should be paid for them. In the per diem allowances made under similar circumstances, Sundays have not been excluded-as in the former pay of members of Congress, who always drew pay for Sundays as well as other days, and such has been the general practice of government. The charge for examining certain records at Mobile, ought to have been allowed, as this service was performed by Colonel Rogers, and came within the spirit of his instructions, and proved beneficial to the government. In relation to the mileage, it appears that a longer distance was travelled over by him than the nearest routes between the offices which he visited, but this was doubtless rendered necessary from the causes and circumstances stated by Colonel Rogers. At the time he was engaged in the service, the country was comparatively new, the facility for travelling bad, and at that season of the year, during the rainy season, the water-courses were generally swollen and impassable. This is often, and, indeed, generally the case, in the winter in that country; so much so, that travellers are frequently detained days, and in some cases weeks, by these unavoidable causes. Your committee can very well understand and believe that the routes taken by Colonel Rogers were necessary and proper, and that if he had waited for the subsiding of the streams and charged, as he would have been entitled to, for the time of detention, it would have cost more to the government than the mileage charged. The chairman of the committee has much knowledge of much of the country travelled over by Colonel Rogers, and has had some very similar experience as that alleged by him in passing from point to point across the country. Under the circumstances, the committee have no doubt that Colonel Rogers acted for the best, and that he could not avoid the necessity of passing over longer routes, in the faithful discharge of his duty, than the nearest distances between the consecutive points of his visitations. They, therefore, think that this item ought to be allowed, and with the other sums above stated, make the aggregate of $1,280 90, for which a bill is reported. The claim of Colonel Rogers has been regularly assigned to his wife, now understood to be his widow, and the committee therefore report the bill in her favor. |