which have not only been attended with great expense, but by casting a doubt upon their claims as patentees, have, for the time being, almost wholly deprived them of the benefit of their invention. While the force of this reasoning is admitted, still the conflicting decisions which have been made, and the very fact that the litigation has been so protracted, and is yet undetermined, shows that the improvements of the petitioners are not so apparent and distinct from those of other inventors as to entitle them to special favor. The act of Congress securing to patentees the exclusive benefit of their discoveries for fourteen years is believed to be sufficiently liberal to afford reasonable encouragement and protection to inventors in all ordinary cases; but when, from any cause beyond his control and without his fault, a patentee has not received such reasonable protection and remuneration, the law allows the Commissioner of Patents to grant him a further period of seven years within which to reap his reward. If he is unable to secure a fair compensation within that period, the inference is very strong, if not irresistible, either that his discovery is of little value, or that his failure to make it reasonably remunerative is attributable to his own fault or neglect. The statement of petitioners show that, since the extension of their patent in 1851, they have been receiving a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity and expense bestowed upon their discovery; and believing that the case presented by petitioners is not of such an extraordinary character as would justify an extension of their patent, by special act of Congress, after they have had its enjoyment for twenty-one years, the committee submit the following resolution: Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners be rejected, and that they have leave to withdraw the transcripts of judicial proceedings accompanying their petition. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 12, 1858.-Agreed to, and ordered to be printed. Mr. MALLORY submitted the following REPORT. The Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the petition of Samuel James, Ignatius Lucas, Charles Lilley, and Thomas S. Bingey, have had the same under consideration, and thereupon report: The petitioners claim compensation for extra services performed by them as watchmen at the Navy Department, and ask a reference of their accounts to the officers of the treasury, to be adjusted and paid by them according to certain rules of compensation heretofore recommended (as they allege) by the Secretaries of the Navy. The services are alleged to have commenced in 1842, and to have continued up to 1850. Your committee referred the case to the Navy Department for a report upon the facts, and received in reply the following letter from the Secretary of the Navy: NAVY DEPARTMENT, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your reference, on the 17th inst., to this department of the petition of Samuel James and others, watchmen in the southwest executive building, for additional compensation. On the 12th of September, 1838, Mr. Paulding, then Secretary of the Navy, defined the hours between which watch should be kept in the building of the Navy Department, from 3 p. m. to 8 a. m.; and this custom has prevailed ever since. At the time this order was given, the watchmen received $500 per annum each. The legalizing act of August 26, 1842, fixed the salary of the watchmen at $365, and it so continued until the act of September 30, 1850, increased it again to $500, commencing on the 1st July, 1850. In reply to the nquiry what amount is involved in these applications, I would state, that if the claim is made for the difference between $500 and $365 per annum, viz., $135, there would be due, if allowed, to 1,059 45 763 86 Ignatius Lucas, from August 26, 1842, to July 1, 1850...... $1,059 45 Making a total of ........ 294 84 3,177 60 It is, perhaps, proper to state, that Ignatius Lucas also received $750 per annum for his services as a messenger in the department during the period above mentioned. The petition is herewith returned. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. S. R. MALLORY, ISAAC TOUCEY. Chairman Com. on Naval Affairs, U. S. Senate. Upon this statement, your committee do not deem the memorialists entitled to relief, and therefore report adversely to their prayer, and ask to be discharged from its further consideration. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. APRIL 12, 1858.-Agreed to and ordered to be printed. Mr. MALLORY submitted the following report: REPORT. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Ambrose Whitlock, have had the same under consideration and thereupon report: That the memorialist alleges that he was appointed receiver of public moneys at the land office at Terre Haute, in the State of Indiana, in May, 1820, and that in 1823 the land office was removed to Crawfordsville, in said State. That by order of the Treasury Department he was required to deposit the public money received by him at Louisville, Kentucky; and that he received and deposited, while the office was at Terre Haute, $150,000, and after its removal to Crawfordsville, $800,000. That for this service he was entitled to receive, under the act of 22d of May, 1826, a commission of one per cent. upon such receipts and deposits, amounting to $9,585 67, whereas he has only been allowed by the department $2,839 06, leaving a balance due him, and which he claims, of $6,743 61. He further alleges that this allowance did not cover the actual amount of his transportation of the large sum of $958,267 in specie, independent of the additional expenses incurred by him of guarding it, and its risk of loss. That this transfer of specie was made at a time when there were no roads in that part of Indiana, when it was a dense forest, and when it was extremely hazardous and expensive to transport silver thus to Louisville. Such, in substance, are his allegations. If it be true that this officer, through a wild and uninhabited country was compelled to carry so large an amount of specie to make a deposit, it would be but simple justice that the United States should pay all the reasonable expense attending it. The receiver's salary was $500 per annum, and he alleges that all which he has ever been allowed for this service, viz: $2,839 06, is insufficient to pay his actual outlay of money for transporting the funds to Louisville, "to say nothing of the expense of guarding the transportation and the risk of loss." The memorial is unsupported by any proof, nor are its statements sworn to. This committee find from the records of Congress that the memorialist presented his claim to the 2d session of the 27th Congress, when it was referred to the Committee of Claims of the Senate, which committee referred it to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. This officer, on the 18th of April, 1842, made the following report: APRIL 18, 1842. The Commissioner of the General Land Office to whom has been referred the letter of the honorable Mr. Woodbridge, of the Committee of Claims of the Senate, to the Secretary of the Treasury, respecting the claim of Ambrose Whitlock, esq., late receiver at Crawfordsville, Indiana, for additional compensation for the transportation of the public moneys deposited by him at Louisville, Kentucky, has the honor to report: That Mr. Whitlock was receiver at Terre Haute from the 4th September, 1820, to 31st May, 1823, and at Crawfordsville from the 1st June, 1823, to August 31, 1829, inclusive. That the distance between both those place and Louisville, was estimated at 170 miles, although the distance from Crawfordsville to the place of deposit is now stated at the General Post Office to be but 155 miles. That Mr. Whitlock was allowed the sum of $2,993 94, according to the statement herewith submitted, under the treasury regulations of 13th February, 1827, (in pursuance of the act of Congress of 22d May, 1826,) fixing the rate of compensation to receivers for the transportation of the public moneys at of one per cent. for every ten miles by land, to the place of deposit, and half of that rate by water. That those rates of compensation were changed by the subsequent regulations of 1st May, 1831, which authorize the allowance of the of one per cent. for every ten miles of the nearest route to the place of deposit, for the risk of transportation; and twelve and a half cents per mile going and returning for travelling expenses by land, and by water six cents per mile, with such additional allowances for the transportation of specie as will be a remuneration for the increased expense attending such transportation, provided that claims for such additional allowances be supported by satisfactory vouchers. That no application appears to have been made by Mr. Whitlock through the General Land Office for additional compensation for the transportation of his deposits, nor does it appear from the letter of the honorable Mr. Woodbridge, above referred to, that his claim now before Congress, after a lapse of nearly thirteen years since he went out of office, is supported by any evidence to show that the transportation was attended by extraordinary difficulty and danger, occasioning much expense and risk not covered by the allowance to him of the sum above stated, viz: $2,993 94. That according to the statement, also herewith submitted, of the moneys received and accounted for by Mr. Whitlock, his deposits were made at long intervals, between September, 1820, and June, 1826, after which latter date they were made quarterly; and that, consequently, he incurred the expense and risk of transportation during the first period but seldom, and was amply remunerated therefor by |