tion of the district court, disallowed said charges, and returned a verdict in favor of the United States, against said Andrews and his sureties, for the sum of $1,142 27. The case was carried by writ of error to the circuit court; and the judgment of the district court was reversed by Judge Story, on the ground that the district judge had refused to instruct the jury that Andrews was entitled to compensation for office rent, fuel, stationery, and clerk hire. And, on a trial of the case, after reversal, at the October term of the circuit court, 1842, Judge Story instructed the jury that the defendant was not entitled to compensation for the performance of new duties of a strictly official nature, unless specially provided for by the act of Congress which imposed them, and, therefore, that the commissions. charged on the disbursements of the fishermen's bounties, and the charges for services as surveyor, ought not to be allowed; that if the business of that port required the services of a deputy collector, and the Secretary of the Treasury had sanctioned the appointment, the United States ought to pay some compensation therefor, but that the burden of proof was on the defendant to show a cause for such allowance; that expenditures for office rent, fuel, clerk hire, and stationery, are properly to be deemed incidental to the office of collector, and ought to be allowed as proper charges against the United States, and that an omission to keep and transmit annually a verified account thereof to the Comptroller of the Treasury, as required by law, does not occasion a forfeiture of the right to be reimbursed the amount of such expenditures reasonably incurred. The jury, under the instruction of the court, rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue joined in the cause, and further found that the United States were indebted to the defendant, Andrews, in the sum of $1,943 81. In the opinion of the committee, while the verdict of the jury conclu sively establishes the fact that the defendants were not indebted to the United States, it furnishes no evidence at all of any indebtedness by the government to the memorialist. It is an extra-judicial opinion merely of twelve men who were sworn as jurors to try the issue between the parties and render a true verdict thereon, but who, beyond that, had no duty to perform, and incurred no responsibility whatever. If, on the prin ciples of law applicable to the facts in the case, the government should be indebted to a larger amount than the estimate of the jury, the claimant would not be precluded thereby from urging his claim to the full measure of redress to which he would otherwise have been entitled; and so, on the other hand, the government is at liberty to contest the claim in the same manner as it would have been if no such opinion had been expressed by the jury. In pronouncing the opinion of the court on the writ of error, Judge Story alludes to the fact that the cause was submitted without argument, and states that the question in regard to the charges for office rent, fuel, clerk hire, and stationery, was one upon which he felt much difficulty. To sustain those charges, he mainly relied on the provision at the end of the second section of the act of March 2, 1799, making it the duty of collectors to keep accurate accounts of all fees and official emoluments received by them, and also of all their expenditures, particularizing those for rent, fuel, clerk hire, and stationery, to be transmitted annually to the Comptroller of the Treasury. This provision has been regarded at the Treasury Department, from the time of its enactment, as a regulation adopted for the purpose merely of enabling the government to ascertain the actual emoluments remaining to the collector over and above the expenditures of the office. The charges in question, the committee are informed by the Secretary of the Treasury, have not been regarded as charges legally falling upon the revenue, but payable only out of the official emoluments of the collector. This construction seems to be in accordance with another provision of the act referred to, prescribing the proportions in which these expenses shall be paid by the collectors and naval officers of the several ports-a provision which may have escaped the notice of Judge Story, as no allusion is made to it in his opinion, with which it appears to the committce to be hardly reconcileable. Under the circumStances, the committee do not feel themselves at liberty to disregard the practical construction of the law by the Treasury Department, commencing from a period coeval with its enactment, and continuing during the entire term of the service of the memorialist, by giving effect to the decision of the circuit court beyond the exigencies of the case in which it was pronounced. In this opinion, however, the committee are not unanimous. A minority of the committee are of opinion that, as the instructions given were pertinent to the matters in issue between the parties, the ruling of the judge on the several points presented should, as between those parties, being unreversed, be deemed correct, and that the principles of law, as declared by him on the trial, should form the basis of the settlement of the accounts of the memorialist, when the facts to which those principles are applicable shall be duly ascertained. But, as all the committee concur in the opinion that the verdict of the jury furnishes no evidence of indebtedness by the government to the memorialist, and as the claims of the memorialist are not otherwise established, they recommend that the bill referred to their consideration be not passed, and ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the Sth instant, in behalf of the Committee of Claims of the Senate, covering a copy of the opinion of Mr. Justice Story, delivered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, in May term, 1842, in the case of Asa Andrews, in error, vs. the United States, and requesting to be informed whether the construction at the Treasury Department has been such as to authorize the allowance, under the several acts establishing the compensation of officers employed in the collection of duties, &c., of charges for "office rent, fuel, clerk hire, and stationery," or for the services of deputy collectors employed pursuant to the 22d section of the act to regulate the collection of duties, approved 2d March, 1799, or the 7th section of the act of 3d March, 1817, in any other cases than those specified in the 10th section of the act of 7th May, 1822. You further desire to be informed whether any deputy collector or collectors were appointed or employed by the said Asa Andrews, while collector of Ipswich, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury. In reply to the foregoing inquiries, I have the honor to state, that the expenses of office rent, fuel, clerk hire, and stationery," are not charges legally falling upon the revenue, but payable out of the official emoluments of the collector, and so heretofore treated by the accounting officers of the treasury, under the compensation acts before referred to. Collectors have, from time to time, been allowed, with the approbation of the department, in pursuance of the 21st section of the act of 2d March, 1799, "to provide, at the public expense, storehouses for the safe-keeping of goods, and such scales, weights, and measures as may be necessary, and been suffered, when convenient, to hold the collector's office in such stores, thereby saving the office from the charge on his emoluments for office rent; but fuel, clerk hire, and stationery, as before stated, were paid out of his emoluments. No allowance was ever made out of the revenue for compensation of the special deputies authorized to be employed by collectors and other mentioned officers, under certain contingencies, by the 22d section of the act of 2d March, 1799. These deputies, if remunerated, were required to be paid by the principal out of his official emolu ments. Deputy collectors, appointed with the sanction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuance of the 7th section of the act of 3d March, 1817, are paid out of the revenue, at compensations not exceeding the maximum pay of inspectors of the customs, of three dollars per day. The 15th section of the act of 7th May, 1822, authorizing the Secretary of the Treas ury to limit and fix the number and compensations of clerks and deputies, of collectors, and other mentioned officers, has not in practice at the treasury been deemed to authorize the payment, under former laws, of such subordinate officers out of the revenue, but merely to regulate the charge for such services on the officer's emoluments. This provision of law is understood to have been designed to correct abuses heretofore practised at some of the larger ports, by simulated charges made for alleged payments to deputies and clerks, with a view of absorbing the emoluments, and thus leaving no surplus to be paid into the treasury, as required by the 10th section of the act of 7th May, 1822, as well as former acts. Owing to the destruction of the records of the department by the conflagration of the treasury buildings in March, 1833, no positive information can be obtained here respecting the inquiry whether Asa Andrews, while collector of Ipswich, employed any deputies with the approbation of the department; but, judging from the proceedings in the suit in the United States district court, reported in Story's Circuit Court Reports, vol. 2, page 206, it would seem that no deputies were employed by said collector with the approbation of the department. The district judge states that, "the collector having not made any charge for such services contemporaneously, nor at any time, in his quarterly accounts rendered during his continuance in office, a demand for any discretionary allowance which the officers might make in the premises could not, in this suit, be sustained." If the collector had been authorized to employ deputies by the department, he would most likely have charged for their services, as rendered at the time, which would have been allowed on the settlement of his accounts at the treasury accordingly. The opinion of the judge is herewith returned. Very respectfully, Hon. ROGER S. BALDWIN, R. J. WALKER, Secretary of the Treasury. Member of Committee of Claims United States Senate. 1st Session. No. 131. IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 16, 1850. Submitted, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Rusk made the following REPORT: [To accompany bill S. No. 233.] The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the memorial of Almanzon Huston, have hud the same under consideration, and respectfully report: That it appears, from the papers submitted, that said Huston, in October, 1848, became the sub-contractor, under one Robert W. Martin, to carry the mail from Sabine Town to San Augustine, in the State of Texas, in two-horse post coaches, (a distance of twenty-eight miles,) at an annual compensation of five hundred and seventy-five dollars. About the same time he became a sub-contractor, under one George W. Grant, to carry the mails from San Augustine to the city of Houston, a distance of upwards of two hundred miles, in two-horse coaches, and a horse mail from Huntsville to Washington, about seventy-five miles, for the annual compensation of five thousand one hundred dollars. Soon afterwards the service from Huntsville to Washington was increased to two-horse coach service, and an additional allowance was made to him by the Postmaster General of seven hundred and fifty dollars; an increase of speed was also ordered, from seven to five days, on the lines, for which an additional allowance of five hundred dollars was made. It also appears that the mails increased so much in weight that he was compelled, in November, 1848, to place four-horse coaches upon the lines. It is also shown that, during the past winter, the roads have been unusually bad, and, in consequence of high waters, the expenses for ferriages have been much increased. The whole allowance to said Huston, including the additional compensation, was six thousand nine hundred and twenty-five dollars. The contracts which have just been made for carrying the mails upon the same routes amount, in the aggregate, to sixteen thousand two hundred and ninety dollars. The memorialist, under these circumstances, prays that an additional allowance may be made to him by Congress. The committee feel unwilling to recommend the establishment of a precedent by which Congress may interfere and increase the allowance above the amount stipulated in the contract, whether that allowance may have been |