pany, he bound that corporation by covenants to the performance of the ocean service, and relying only for compensation upon performance in the time stipulated after an appropriation by Congress. Mr. Morgan, also joining in the undertaking on the Atlantic side, and expending funds in such preparations as to "embrace an investment of nearly $300,000 for this first portion of the enterprise." To all this array of cumulative evidence in its favor before the department, the Postmaster General interposes his solitary opinion that he, "as at present advised," considers the route impracticable for mail purposes. And yet he furnishes no evidence upon which this solitary opinion was predicated, nor who furnished the advice.

The objection to conditional contracts again made its appearance, while in the same document he reported, having made an important one of that kind on the southern route in Alabama, which he was desirous Congress should confirm by an appropriation.

The annual report of the Postmaster General, in December, 1853, is herein dwelt upon, not so much for the purpose of exposing its discrepancies, as to clearly present the position assumed by the head of the department in regard to this contract. The faith of the department was undoubtedly pledged to the contractors for frankness, candor and justice in this matter, of so much magnitude to them. They had entered into its conditions and stipulations, with its heavy guaranties and wealthy sureties, with the understanding that it would be submitted by the department to Congress for its sanction and approval. The contractors had made all their preparations for the performance of the service in accordance with their undertaking, and while thus engaged, Mr. Campbell had informed them that the department could not recognize any arrangement by which this additional semi-monthly mail, clearly contemplated by Mr. Hubbard, would be dispensed with. He would not even change the schedule under a contract, lest the intent and object of his predecessor in this would be frustrated. In his great desire that the mails should be carried safely and by proper persons by this line, he suspended their delivery to the contractors until the department simply should be first satisfied on that point. Thus duly apprised of the progress of the contractors, and thus informing them of his sentiments, and thus encouraging the enormous expenses they were assuming, the Postmaster General, in his annual report in December, 1853, unmindful of all this, and without regard to the good faith which ought to be preserved in every department, without regard to the heavy expenditures and liabilities of the contractors, without regard to the evidence and facts which had come to his knowledge, and without regard to the truth and candor which should characterize his communications to Congress, submitted the remarks cited above in his annual report, and at the same time withheld the contract and estimates, thereby annulling the contract by withholding from Congress the documents to act upon; and preventing action, moreover, by the suppression of facts, misstatements, and misrepresentations made at the same time to the representatives of the

nation.

It may here, also, be noticed, that in the same annual report, the Postmaster General recommended another line for an additional semi

66

monthly mail to California, in direct opposition to his former declaration, that no arrangement could be recognized by the department, whereby that of his predecessor would be dispensed with; and in opposition, also, to the report itself, wherein he repeats, as one of his objections, that any further appropriations for the Atlantic and Pacific mail service, would be inexpedient and unjust." Yet, with all these assertions made by him, and repeated, he proposed an additional semi-monthly mail, which would not touch at San Diego and Monterey, and which would require the same number of days for the performance of the service, as the Panama route. His reason for preferring that line, was, because the department would save $124,000 per annum, while he forgot that the public would suffer a corresponding loss, from the delay in the receipt of their correspondence. Had the department applied for a clipper ship to perform this service, by the same process of reasoning, undoubtedly there might have been a still further saving in money. The department having thus virtually annulled the contract, made previously, the contractors were prejudiced in their rights, and at the same time ruined in their business. The immense accumulation of material, which they had collected for the enterprise, was thrown useless upon their hands; their credit in Mexico was paralyzed; their grants from that government, to procure which so much time and money had been expended, were in jeopardy; nearly fifty poor men, who were employed, had to be dismissed without any warning or preparation; and some six hundred animals, which could neither be sold, nor funds realized in time to feed, died of starvation, in a country where grain was in abundance.

At the same session of Congress, the Post Office Committee of the Senate reported an amendment to the appropriation bill, to carry out the contract. But, with the statements made by the department in the annual report, and which were believed at the time to be true, the contract seemed not only annulled, but the line abandoned by the contractors. At the last session, the same committee in the Senate reported a bill to indemnify the contractors, which passed that body without objection, and failed only in the House, on the last night of the session, from want of time to explain its provisions.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

AUGUST 14, 1856.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BRODHEAD made the following

REPORT.

[To accompany Bill S. 453.]

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the report of the Court of Claims in the case of H. and F. W. Meyer, report:

This claim, like that of Sturges, Bennett & Co., is for the repayment of overpaid duties. The amount is $187 60. The court decide in favor of the justice and legality of the claim. Judge Blackford dissents, on the ground that the payment was made without protest.

Reference is made, both by the court and the dissenting judge, to the opinions delivered in the case of Sturges, Bennett & Co., as containing the principles and reasonings applicable to this case.

The committee report the bill from the court and recommend its passage.