1st Session. No. 88. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MARCH 15, 1850. Submitted, and ordered to be printed. Mr. SHIELDS made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 152.] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of "citizens and seamen of Pennsylvania," most respectfully report: That in their opinion the seamen of the gulf and Pacific squadrons who served in connexion with the army during the Mexican war, on the Pacific or gulf coast of that republic, are entitled to be placed on the same footing, and receive similar donations of the public lands, in the shape of bounties, with soldiers and marines who served in the same war. The claims of that gallant and meritorious body of men are presented in so just and forcible a manner in the memorial under consideration, that your committee think they cannot do better than adopt the language thus employed, and make it part of their present report: "That seamen in the gulf and Pacific squadrons, in the line of their duty, were exposed not only to the attacks of the public enemy, but to the perils of a dangerous coast and a pestiferous climate; that they were on this station long before the army had entered the enemy's country; remained there till the last soldier had embarked; and, in every way, were exposed to at least as hard and dangerous service as any other branch of the public force. These services are not enumerated with any desire to undervalue the eminently successful operations of the army, (with whom indeed the seamen in question were often entitled to share the honors of victory,) or to ask for any different action in regard to the sailor, than has already been had in relation to the soldier; but your memorialists submit that it is only just that those men-by whose exertions and services the army was transported, landed, and sustained in the enemy's country; without whose presence some of the operations on shore would have been impracticable; who largely assisted in many of the actions of the various campaigns; and who gained several victories on land, totally alone-should have at least the same reward given them as has been granted to those whose fortune it was to serve their country in a different branch of military life." The committee, therefore, see no good reason why the services of those brave seamen who participated in the dangers and glories of the Mexican war should not meet with the same reward which has been already accorded to soldiers and marines for like services. They accordingly report a bill for that purpose. 1st Session. No. 89. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MARCH 15, 1850. Submitted, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Rusk made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 153.] The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the memorial of Rufus Divinel, praying compensation for services for". carrying the mail, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report: It appears in evidence, that in the year 1832, James Thomas, of the State of Maine, entered into a contract with the Postmaster General for carrying a daily mail between certain points therein specified, which contract was intended to remain in force for four years from the time of its date. It further appears that subsequently, in consequence of the embarrassed condition of the Post Office Department, the service to be performed was made tri-weekly, and that for several months of the year there was no service whatever, with a view to a reduction of the expense. The contractor had in the meanwhile made all of his arrangements with a view to the transportation of the mail daily, and had for that purpose procured the best carriages and horses, in order to give satisfaction to the public. The change ordered by the department not only reduced in a Corresponding degree the profits of the contract, but it also made it necessary for the contractor either to keep constantly upon the road a full force half employed, or to sell off his stock at a great loss, at a season when this description of property is not in demand. Under these circumstances, the contractor felt bound to hold himself in readiness to carry out his original contract at all times, and presented his accounts to the department in the same form as if the full service had been performed. The charges for service during the periods of suspension were not allowed; owing to which fact, there appeared a balance against the contrac tor of $991 19. Col. Thomas, the contractor, requested that a suit should be brought, with a view to a thorough investigation and settlement of the matter, and accordingly an action was instituted against him for the balance claimed to be due. The trial took place before the circuit court of the District of Columbia at the March term 1841, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the contractor for thirteen thousand and thirty-seven dollars and seventy-two cents, with interest from the 4th day of March, 1837. To this judgment there was no exception taken on the part of the government. The plea offered at the trial on behalf of the government for having disallowed a part of the contractor's account, was, that there had been a change in the service with the assent of the contractor, and that consequent ly he could not claim under the original contract. In support of this plea, letters from the contractor were produced in evidence in which, as they insisted on the part of the government, he acquiesced in the change. In answer to this, it was proved by the evidence of Mr. Brown, an officer of high rank in the department, that he had been instructed by the Postmaster General to inform the contractors, and Col. Thomas among others, that the change was made in consequence of the embarrassed state of the department, and that so soon as the department should be in condition to do so, any losses would be made good which he had sustained.. Your committee do not recognise the right of either party to a solemn contract under seal to modify or cancel the contract, except by mutual consent, in which case they think it can only be done by an instrument of equal solemnity with that in which the original contract was set forth.. In the present case no such formal modification took place; and although it is alleged that the contractor acquiesced in the change made by the department, and went on to perform the contract as modified, it is evident that he could not have done otherwise without entire ruin to himself. In addition to this, the acquiescence took place, as appears, under assu." rances from an authorized source that any loss incurred in so doing should be made good so soon as the condition of the department would permit. In other words, the contractor was willing to waive his right to the payment of a part of his remuneration under the contract until the government should be relieved from difficulties which were temporary in their character. Owing to the refusal on the part of the government to allow for the entire service as stipulated for in the original contract, on the presentation of his accounts by the contractor, there appeared to be a balance against him of $991 19. At his instigation a suit was brought against him to recover the above amount, in the circuit eourt of the District of Columbia, and at the trial term in March, 1841, the jury, under the direction of the court, returned a verdict in his favor for thirteen thousand and thirtyseven dollars and seventy-two cents, with interest from the 4th day of March, 1837. Although, in the opinion of your committee, the verdicts of juries do not furnish, in general, safe standards by which to be governed in estima ting the liabilities of the government, the circumstances of the present case are such as to induce them to believe that no better guide can be found in forming a correct judgment. The jury which rendered the verdict was composed of men whose integrity, intelligence, and respecta bility are attested in the strongest manner by high authority, whilst the court is universally admitted to have been one of great experience, extensive legal knowledge, and entire impartiality. For the amount of this verdict, which had been assigned by the origi nal contractor to secure a friend for advances made to him in money to enable him to carry out the contract, a claim is now urged. The present petitioner, also a friend of the original contractor, having also made advances to a large amount for the same object, was, as appears, obliged, in order to save himself, to purchase the assignment, paying therefor the entire sum due to the first assignee.. When these advances were made, the |