anything to the claimant on account of the freight which he contracted with McCoy, Smith & Waldo to transport. The claimant is not shown to have made any preparation to transport this freight, and of course it cannot be said that he has been damnified by any

failure to furnish it.

But it is shown that he did fully prepare himself, at a heavy cost, to transport the 60,000 pounds to Taos and 150,000 pounds to El Paso, and was ready and willing to do so in accordance with the advertisement and contract aforesaid. And they think that justice requires that the claimant should be put into the same condition he would have been in if the freight had been transported and paid for according to the contract rates. This will be arrived at, in their opinion, by calculating the amount the transportation would come to at the contract rates, and adding thereto the amount realized by the claimant by the sale of his outfit, and then by deducting therefrom all the expenses of transportation, including value of oxen and wagons, hire of hands, provisions, &c. The amount of transportation. would be as follows:

One hundred and fifty thousand pounds to El Paso, at

$12 84 per hundred ....

Thirty tons, or 60,000 pounds to Taos, at $8 83 per hundred.....

$19,260 00

5,298 00

Making an aggregate of.............

24,558 00

When the freighting for 1852 was broken up by the government failing to furnish anything to be transported, the claimant had his outfit of wagons, oxen, mules, horses, provisions, and all other necessaries, in the country beyond the Missouri border, and was compelled to make sale of them there, and under such circumstances as must, of necessity, have entailed a heavy sacrifice. They were sold to the best possible advantage, and yielded only the sum of $5,437, which, added to the amount of transportation, gives the sum of $29,995.

Nathan H. McKinney, whose testimony was taken in the case, testifies that he had the charge of claimant's trains during the summer and fall of 1851, and had the general control of the trip to El Paso and Doña Ana; and also had like charge and control in 1852 until the business of that season was broken up by the United States failing to furnish the freight to be transported. He was, therefore, in a condition to know accurately the expense of transporting the freight. He fixes this amount at $14,325, which, deducted from the last named sum, leaves a balance of $15,670; and this balance your committee set down as the amount necessary to make good to the claimant the loss sustained by him by reason of the failure by the government to furnish freight to him in 1852. They think, therefore, that that amount ought to be refunded to the claimant, and report a bill accordingly.

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Charles M. Perry, report:

The petitioner was a messenger in the office of the Treasurer of the United States, at a salary of $840 per annum. From September 28, 1853, to January 1, 1857, (as stated by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury,) he faithfully and efficiently performed the duty of a clerk in the Treasurer's office, which enabled him to dispense with the services of one of his clerks, who was transferred to the First Auditor's office, where additional force was necessary: The evidence before the committee is abundant that the services were required, and that they were faithfully performed, and useful to the government. Although the committee is averse to the allowance of additional pay to clerks and other officers for alleged extra services, they think that in cases where messengers, receiving a small compensation, are required by the proper authority to perform the duties of clerks, they should be allowed a suitable compensation for such extra services.

The petitioner asks to be allowed at the rate of the salary of a clerk of class 1 ($1,200 per annum) during the time he performed these services, deducting the amount he has received.

The Treasurer says: "I consider Mr. Perry justly entitled to the $1,172 94 asked for in his petition," being at the rate of $360 per annum additional.

The committee concur in this opinion, and report a bill accordingly.