33D CONG....2D SESS. of the present Postmaster General in reference to this mail, after he came into power, was to repudiate the contract. Now you have a proposition to pay damages for its repudiation. We get no mail, and yet we are asked to pay damages. We get no mail, and we ought to pay damages, because our officer has refused to obey the law. For two years, because of the repudiation of that contract, which was valid in itself, because it was made in obedience to the law, we were without a mail. Then the whole western country rose up together and demanded that a mail should be put there. We passed an absolute order that it should be done; and now what do you find the Postmaster General doing? Instead of executing the law, as it is his bounden duty to do, he sends us a message about every two weeks making excuses for not obeying it; and when you come to ascertain the whole matter of his several communications to Congress, they amount to this, that he has got no bid that does not seem to him to be extravagant. Who told him, as an Executive officer, to consider the bids, because they were extravagant or not extravagant? He was told to put the mail upon the river, and he was given ample power to enable him to do that. But now I desire to call the attention of the Senator from Texas to this declaration of extravagance in reference to this mail. Cain's bid was $185,000 for carrying the mail from Cairo to New Orleans, a distance of one thousand and forty miles. Mr. RUSK. I would like to ask the Senator whether he knows Cain? Mr. BROWN. I do not know anything about him. Mr. RUSK. Has he a boat of his own or not? Mr. BROWN. It makes no difference whether he has a boat or not. If he gives good security to enter into a contract, it is the business of the Postmaster General to enter into it with him, unless he is satisfied that he is incompetent and unable to perform it. The Senator seems to have the same idea that the Postmaster General has, that the parties should own the boats themselves. It is all nonsense; it would take twenty boats, and perhaps more, to carry the mail there, and no one can be expected to own so many boats. There is no more necessity for a man who carries a mail there owning the boats than for a man who carries a horse mail owning the horse upon whose back it is carried. Mr. RUSK. I desire to ask the Senator another question. What advantage would there be to the United States in giving to a man $200,000 for doing what the agent of the Department now does? Mr. BROWN. I see that the Postmaster General has been infecting my friend from Texas with his opinions. Mr. RUSK. No, sir. Mr. BROWN. Then I will set my friend right. There is this difference, as I tried to explain before. The Postmaster General ships the mail by transient boats, but those boats start at their own time. If they have freight and passengers they go, if not they stay. Perhaps, to-day, he would get a boat, and to-morrow, and the next day, and the next two or three days none; and the mail would be delayed until he gets a boat which is ready to go. Whereas, if he has a contract with competent parties to carry the mail, the mail boat must go whether it has freight, or passengers, or not. other words the mail is made the primary object, and the freight and passengers become incidentals of the trip. But if the agent of the Department sends the mail simply by a passenger or freight boat, the passengers and freight are the first consideration, and the mail becomes the incident. That is the difference between carrying the mail by contract and carrying it by chance. These transient boats stop at every landing. They start from New Orleans; if they make it profitable to stop by the way, they will not get to Louisville for three weeks. If any body puts out a little flag and says he has two or three little packages to send, they will turn round, and be detained perhaps two or three hours. It sometimes happens that the mail boat leaves New Orleans under this system, and another boat starts three or four days later, and gets to Louisville four or five days sooner, and why? Because it is picking up freight and passengers all along the way, and doing all it can to make money, Post Office Appropriation Bill-Debate. the mail being an incidental matter with it, it But what I want to bring my friend to is this: Mr. RUSK. It may all be true, but then on Mr. BROWN. What hundred others? Mr. BROWN. Of what benefit is it to carry a Mr. ADAMS. I beg leave to call the attention SENATE. lated by the Postmaster General, and if so, then to inquire the amount of damages, and provide for its payment. I say to the Senate, that of all the questions I have had to examine since I have been a member of this body, I find those involved between the Postmaster General and these parties the most difficult to determine. Has the contract been violated or not by the Postmaster General? It is a difficult legal question; and I ask the Senate whether they are prepared now to determine it. They have not, as we have in the committee, read the contract, and weighed it, and examined it with the advertisement, and its reference to it. That is the first question which arises; and it is one in reference to which my mind is not made up, though I have examined it to some considerable extent. I am not satisfied that the Postmaster General has violated the contract in this case; but suppose he has violated it. Another question arises. The parties agreed that, if he should discontinue it at any time, the damages which they should receive would be one month's extra pay. Here the parties had agreed among themselves what their damages should be. But the question arises, did the entering into the contract in writing waive the requirements of the advertisement as to the character of the bids? for the bids were all put in in accordance with the advertisement. It is true that, when reduced to writing, it was not stipulated that freight should not be carried upon the boats, but they did stipulate that, if the Postmaster General discontinued the contract, one month's extra pay should be received as compensation for the discontinuance. The question, I say, then arises, when the Postmaster General refused to deliver it unless they would carry the mail without freight on their boats, and they refused to take it upon those terms, if the Postmaster General was in the wrong, what amount are they entitled to? I should say they were entitled to the one month's extra pay. No particular language is required to discontinue a contract. The most that you can make out of a rerefusal to deliver the mail, is that it was a discontinuance, and that they are entitled to one month's pay. But the amendment provides that they shall receive consequential damages, that all their losses, to be ascertained by the First Comptroller, shall be paid. I say, Mr. President, we are legislating in the dark. If I should be governed by the inclination of my mind, with a disposition to relieve the men from the difficulties into which, perhaps, the Postmaster General brought them, I should not oppose this; but I have no right to give legislative votes as a favor to any man, or set of men. I am not satisfied, in the first place, that the Postmaster General violated the contract. If he has done so, I am not satisfied that the parties are entitled to more than about $25,000, one month's pay. Therefore, I cannot vote to authorize the First Comptroller to go into an investigation to ascertain the amount of consequential damages which resulted to the parties, assuming that the Postmaster General violated the contract. We have passed a law creating a court of claims-the only tribunal known to our institutions where this matter can be fully and fairly investigated and the truth, and right of the thing ascertained. It is impossible for any legislative body to do it, unless each man would take the papers and proof in the cause, and investigate them for himself. Now, sir, we ought to require parties who have claims against the Government for consequential damages to file their bills in that court. If we commence to do otherwise so soon as this, we may as well have never passed that law. I voted, to be sure, a few minutes ago, to change a contract; that required legislation. But that court can investigate this thing without any legislation. It can report to Congress at the next session. It may operate hard upon the parties. It is their misfortune; but I do not see how we can, in justice to the Government, act in any other way than refuse to agree to the amendment. Let the parties file their bill in this court of claims; and let it report to Congress whether the contract has been violated or not, and if so, let it decree the amount that the Government should pay, and then we can, with propriety, appropriate that amount. Mr. BELL. I do not impugn the motives of the Postmaster General; but my opinion is very 33D CONG....1ST SESS. clear that the contract was violated. I do not understand the amendment to be, that the parties shall be entitled to speculative damages; and as for consequential damages, I do not know exactly how to discriminate between consequential and real damages, which the honorable Senator from Mississippi might be willing to give if there was a violation of the contract. I do not understand his meaning of consequential damages. I would suppose it to be this: If there was an investment of a considerable sum of money in preparing to carry into execution the contract on the part of the Government, I should think the consequential damages would be to remunerate them for that expenditure which would not be useful to them, otherwise than by going on with the execution of the contract; so that I do not consider them as mere speculative damages. But I did not rise to go into the consideration of the propriety of the amendment. As I understand it, however, I think it is fair, if we consider that there was a violation of the contract on the part of the Department refusing to carry it into execution after the parties had made preparation to execute it. If there was such a violation, one party complying as far as he could, and the other failing to comply, I think there may have been considerable damages visited upon the disappointed party. But I rise to speak with regard to the discussion which preceded the remarks of the honorable Senator from Mississippi. I have nothing to say against the motives or competency of the Postmaster General. I have had one or two conversations with him upon the subject of the failure to execute the contract; and I think, to some extent, just complaint has been made. He appears to have his reasons. His suggestions are very plausible, and no doubt his mo. tives are very fair. But still, Mr. President, here is a law upon our statute-book-an enactment positive in terms, of which there can be no evasion. There was no limit to it. Two or three biddings have taken place since the time this proposition to carry the regular mail from Cairo to New Orleans, or from St. Louis and Louisville to New Orleans, has been provided by Congress, and in every instance there has been a failure to execute it on the part of the Government. Now, I want to know of the honorable Senator from Texas, for I have not had time particularly to examine the provisions of this bill, what provision he does make in regard to the further execution of this contract. It seems to me propriety requires either that we should repeal it altogether, or else modify it, according to the pleasure of|| Congress, in such a way that we can have the benefit of it. It seems to me it is an unseemly acquiescence in failing to carry out your directions on a question of such importance, to let it stand on your statute-book not complied with. I should like to hear from the honorable Senator from Texas what provision he makes for the future. What does he mean? Does he coöperate with those who seem to think that it is no matter whether this law be executed or not? I appeal to him as to the nature and character of the argument upon this floor, when that provision of law was first ingrafted on our legislation. I had a hand in it, I remember; and when it was objected that this might lead to a very extravagant expenditure, on the ground that the revenues of the Post Office Department in the West would not pay sufficiently, I appealed to the Senate in regard to it. I had not proceeded more than ten minutes in expressing my views, when the honorable Senator from Texas, and other honorable Senators around me, agreed that what was said was sufficient. I appealed to the Senate to look at the vast amount of money expended for the maintenance of postal communications between this country and Europe, and between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I appealed to them to consider the state of the western country particularly, it being a planting and farming region, with very few great commercial establishments, with a population so sparse in many sections in which this great line will pass, and yet there was a commerce of some $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 passing down the Mississippi annually. With these views the Senate concurred in the proposition. Now, I appeal to the Senator from Texas whether he still proposes that this law shall stand on the statute-book Post Office Appropriation Bill-Debate. unrepealed or unmodified, or what provision he Mr. RUSK. My opinion, at the time Congress Mr. BELL. I have no doubt of it. I suppose it is very likely, because we may establish some routes which would be very improper, and require an extraordinary expenditure; but here is a provision of law made as long ago as four years. The question was then considered, whether the amount of expenditure should be incurred for the purpose of establishing this line of communication between such vast sections of the country. I understand now, from the declaration of the honorable Senator from Texas, that he did not think it expedient that this law should be passed. It ought to be repealed, or so modified that it will be brought within the limits of the discretion, and the ideas of economy prevailing in the Post Office Department of the Government, and in the minds of those who have charge of this subject; one or the other ought to take place. Mr. President, I have stated already that I do not mean to impugn the motives of the Postmaster General. In his conversations with me, the allegation has been made that the Central railroad between Chicago and Cairo is only being made, and about coming to a conclusion; and that it would be inexpedient and improper, in his view, to make a contract of this description till that line was established and put in operation; but that is now in operation, and I ask the Senator from Texas what he proposes to do? The Postmaster General went into a statement and estimate of the difference in the cost of carrying the mail on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers between Louisville and New Orleans and St. Louis and New Orleans, in the way he now manages it, and the bids that have been made are for carrying a regular line. I do not doubt that there would be a great difference; but what is that difference to be considered when we look at the interests of the country and the system of carrying the mail? The one brings you certainty and regularity; the other neither one nor the other. Without this regular system there is no reliability. Men who have tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands at stake, want regular communication. What they want is regularity, certainty, and a communication on which they can depend; a speedy communication; that is the difference; and although for less than $300,000, or less than $180,000, the Department can blunder along, sending the mail, if you please, in some way, yet it is not carried in such a way as to accommodate the country. The advantages of carrying a regular daily mail would be very great, and they would justify the entering into a contract. We ought to have a contract to give us regularity. I know it is very possible sometimes, by the prevalence of dense fogs on the Mississippi, and sometimes by the accidents that happen to the steamboats, that the mail would be delayed, but that would be only occasionally. In the main the mail would be carried with certainty and due dispatch, according to the provisions of the contract and of the law. Why, then, should we stickle about $300,000 for carrying the mail from Cairo to New Orleans on such a line of communication as that which could be carried with reasonable certainty and dispatch? I cannot comprehend, when we come to consider the importance of that consideration, why we should do so, and when we know, as has been said over and over again in this body, that in the winter and spring seasons, when the great bulk of our produce is carried off to New Orleans, that the mails cannot be carried in the ordinary mail travel. Our railroad communication will remedy it by. and-by. That was one of the things to which I alluded the other day, when I stated that our railroad communications with the northwest from the southwest and south are incomplete, and it may be very long before they will be completed. Why should we halt at the expenditure of 300,000 to carry the mail regularly between New Orleans and Cairo, and the intermediate points, where such | SENATE. great public interests are at stake? The difference between that and what is paid for the present carrying, is nothing in comparison with the benefits which will be produced. That is the view in which the question presents itself to my mind, but this Congress or the Department may say that this is inexpedient. Why should we expend $300,000 for establishing such a route? It may be said that, when you get to Cairo, you have not a direct communication to St. Louis and Louisville, but you will soon have it, because we shall soon have a railroad communication, and that will make a speedy and sure communication. The Postmaster General has also suspended the carrying of the mail between St. Louis and Louisville, a most important and convenient object for the great commerce on the line of the rivers between those two points and Cincinnati. When I find that, without meaning, as I state again, to impugn the perfect honesty of his motives, I think his views are rather too narrow in reference to questions of economy. They are very far removed from true economy. When any public object is proposed to be established which promises to pay a hundred or a thousandfold to the people of the country, or to the great sections of the country, what the Government gives out of its Treasury for the support or establishment of such a work is well given. I desire to state that I know my colleague [Mr. JONES] had it in view to move some proposition to this bill. He told me so. I suppose I could not at this stage of the session ask that it should be laid over on account of his absence. I presume he is sick, although I have had no communication from him to-day. He is not in his seat, and I regret it very much. I do not know what his proposition was. Mr. BRODHEAD. This debate is very much aside of the real question. These gentlemen entered into a contract to carry the mail for a certain sum on this route. They prepared themselves to do so; they laid out a very large sum of money, but did not proceed. Now, one fact was clearly established before the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, of which I am a member. It is the prominent and controlling fact, that these gen. tlemen could not have carried the mail on the boats for the sum designated in the contract, without carrying the freight; that is a fact admitted on all hands. They could not carry the mail according to the specified terms of the contract, without carrying freight. They are not forbidden,... the contract, from carrying freight; they expected to carry it, as I firmly believe; they honestly expected to do it. There is, therefore, clearly a loss; that is admitted. There is a large loss; that is admitted. The two facts are admitted; first, that they could not carry the mail without carrying freight; and, secondly, that there has been a large loss. What do we propose to do? To refer the case to a very competent and impartial officer to ascertain, not the consequential damages, but the real damages; and the question is, whether we shall do that? I think we ought to do it; the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads have so decided. Mr. MORTON. As a member of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, it is proper that I should make a remark or two in relation to this amendment. Most of the discussion upon it has been irrelevant, and I am glad that the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania has drawn the attention of the Senate to the true question before us. The facts of the case lie in a nut-shell. Congress authorized the Postmaster General to contract for mail service on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, from Louisville to New Orleans. After some delay, a contract for that service was made with Mr. Glover and his associates. They were, under that contract, bound to furnish suitable and proper boats for the transportation of the mails. The Postmaster General, acting with great caution, as I understand, appointed an agent to repair to Louisville, and there inspect and examine the boats presented by these contractors. The agent did so, and reported to the Department that the contractors had presented proper boats for the transportation of the mail, complying with all the requirements of the contract under the law. There was no requirement that freight should not be When they carried, but simply that they should furnish suitable and proper boats for the transportation of the mail. This provision of the contract was complied with, and the boats of the contractors were reported to the Department to be fit for the service; but when they made application to the post office agent at Louisville for the mail, it was refused to them, on the ground that they were about to carry freight on their boats. There was no provision in the contract prohibiting the carriage of freight, and I presume there is no such provision in any mail contract throughout the Union. Every one conversant with the trade of the Mississippi must know that it would be the height of folly for contractors for a daily mail on that river, requiring twenty or thirty boats, to employ them simply in transporting the mails and passengers; and that to carry out such a provision must result disastrously to the parties concerned. They made formal application for the mail for fifteen days, and each day There was a difference between the contract, as it was refused to them. After a full examination the Postmaster General thought he ought to have of the papers, I have come to the conclusion that made it and as he actually did make it; but there the contractors fully and completely complied with was not the least suspicion of evasion, duplicity, every provision of the contract, and that the Post-misconduct, or misrepresentation on the part of the master General refused to deliver them the mail contractors. They came forward and made in on a ground not recognized by the law, or by the good faith the contract which was required. Afterwards the Postmaster General thought he ought to have made a very different contract. I repeat again, that, if the condition which he sought to impose had been insisted upon, it would have been impossible for these men to accept the contract unless by receiving a sum double or treble the amount which the Government actually agreed of their duties under the contract. were ready to perform it and demanded the mails for the purpose of carrying them, the Postmaster General refused to allow them, insisting that they should convey the maila in boats not carrying freight-a provision which was not contained in the contract which he had executed. They insisted upon car||rying freight, as the contract which they had with him, or with the Government, allowed them to do. He refused to permit them to carry the mails at all, unless they would, in addition to the terms of the contract which had been agreed upon, also adopt another condition which would be ruinous to the whole enterprise-a condition, which, if required in the original contract, would have prevented them from accepting it—a condition which would impose on them an expense double the amount of all the advantages which they were to derive from the contract itself. contract. As I presume the Senate is always glad to conform its action to precedent, I desire to recall to its recollection a similar case in which we granted relief at the last session of Congress. The circumstances of that case were these: A Mr. Kelly made a contract for the transportation of the mail from Bainbridge, in Georgia, to Appalachicola, in Florida. A few months after he entered upon the service, under representations made to the Post Office Department, the contract was taken from him on the allegation that he was not prepared with suitable boats for the transportation of the mail. He petitioned Congress for remuneration for this violation of his contract by the Department. The fact was established to the satisfaction of Congress, that the Postmaster General had improperly withheld from him the transportation of the mail, according to his contract? What relief|| did Congress afford to him? Although he did not transport the mail, they passed a law allowing him the full amount of his contract price from the time when the service was stopped until the period when the contract expired. In order to do full and complete justice to these contractors, I think we should provide, in like manner, to pay them the full amount of their contract price from the time when the Postmaster General withheld the mail from them until the expiration of their contract. The act to which I have alluded, for the relief of Mr. Kelly, is in these words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Postmaster General be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to have the accounts of John W. Kelly, iate contractor on route No. 3540, from Bainbridge, Georgia, to Appalachicola, Florida, audited and settled by the proper accounting officers, and to allow said Kelly the contract price stipulated to be paid to him, to wit, the sum of $2,400 per annum, from the 1st of September, 1852, to the 13th of June, 1855, the day on which his contract would have expired." Congress, in that case, allowed the contract price up to the day on which the contract would have expired, although the services were not performed, it appearing, to the satisfaction of Congress, that the whole service would have been performed if the Post Office Department had not attempted to annul the contract on the same principle. I am inclined, in this case, to go further than this amendment does. I think that, in justice and equity, these contractors are entitled to their full contract price up to the very day on which their contract would have expired. I shall, of course, support the amendment, although it does not carry out my own ideas of justice. to pay. Now, then, the Postmaster General has brought the matter into this dilemma: The contractors built several vessels; they sacrificed those vessels; they have been ruined, or nearly so, in the attempt to execute the contract as they made it. The Postmaster General, without any reservation in contract authorizing him to do so, refused to allow them to perform it. It seems to me that it would be a very convenient, though not a just, thing to have a Postmaster General to break contracts, a Postmaster General to refuse to award damages for their violation, and a Congress to refuse to review the action of a Postmaster General so acting, and to have the Government justify its blunders on the one side, and the individual citizen bear its consequences on the other. Mr. HUNTER. Mr. President, this amendment, in the first place, affirms that the Postmaster General has violated a contract. Now, we have neither the time nor the means to enter into an inquiry in order to satisfy ourselves that he has done so. It next proposes that the First Comptroller shall ascertain the damages, and that whatever he may say ought to be paid shall be paid. It does not leave it to him, or any other officer of the Government, to say whether or not the contract has been violated; but it is to leave it to the First Comptroller to say what ought to be paid in the shape of damages. Now, if there ever can be a case properly belonging to the court of claims which we have established, this is the case. That will be a tribunal before which these men can go and have their claims examined and adjudicated. It seems to me that there could be no more unsafe tribunal than this body, with such means of information as we have before us to pass upon such a claim. The other issue which was raised by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BENJAMIN] does not belong, it seems to me, to this amendment, and am not disposed to enter into it. Clearly this amendment ought not to be put upon an appropriation bill. It is to provide for a private claim, which legitimately belongs to the court which we have established. Mr. GEYER. Mr. President, when this amendment was first offered, I was disposed to Mr. SEWARD. Mr. President, the state of vote against it, because I thought it was out of this case seems to me to be about this: Congress place, and properly belonged to the jurisdiction of authorized a contract to be made for a certain the new court of claims which we have agreed to service on the Mississippi river in a certain way. establish; but, on reflection, I am convinced that The Postmaster General issued advertisements I ought to vote for the amendment. I have no specifying the terms, manner, and form of service; doubt, and never have had that this contract was proposals were received, and the proposition of violated by the Postmaster General; I have no these parties was accepted. The contract with doubt, and never have had, that, on the very first them was reduced to writing and executed. The opportunity, we ought to administer a rebuke to parties went on in good faith and prepared them- him. selves at very great expense for the performance Objection is made to this amendment as out of SENATE. place. I have heretofore almost uniformly voted against the introduction of any claim upon an appropriation bill. I voted, but a few days ago, against my wishes and feelings in regard to a private claimant, whose claim was urged as an amendment to the Indian appropriation bill. I have acted on the principle that the appropriation bills ought not to be made the vehicle for carrying pri vate claims, or making provision in regard to the general laws of the land. But we have fallen into the habit in the Senate, and the example is being followed by the House of Representatives, of converting the appropriation bills into an omnibus to carry every measure which can receive a majority. We find now in the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, which will be before us in a few days, provisions regulating the tariff, a complicated and intricate subject, interesting to the people of the United States. Those provisions have been inserted in that bill by the House of Representatives, and I suppose, judging from the nature of the vote in the House, they are to be carried here. If an amendment of that description is to be placed on the civil and diplomatic bill, I can see no reason why we may not as well make the appropriation bills carry every measure which can meet the approbation of Congress. Ishall, however, vote for this amendment, principally because I wish to put on record my vote of disapprobation of the conduct of the Postmaster General in reference to this transaction. I desire to say nothing about his disobedience of the mandate of Congress at the last session, because I think that does not belong to the occasion. Nor do I think that it needs reënforcement at our hands. The Postmaster General appears to have few, if any, friends upon this floor, and I there. fore decline the invitation given by the Senator from Louisiana to join in the discussion of his conduct. Mr. RUSK. I think the honorable Senator from Missouri is mistaken in the assertion that the Postmaster General has no friends on this floor. I believe I fairly stated in the outset, in answer to a question from some honorable Senator, the general grounds on which this claim is based; but the record was immediately traveled out of to make an assault on the Postmaster General. As the honorable Senator from Missouri says he will vote for the amendment to mark his disapprobation of the conduct of that officer, I send to the Secretary's desk, and ask to have read, a letter from the Postmaster General, in answer to one from me, in reference to this case. The Secretary read the letter, as follows: POST OFFICE Department, February 20, 1855. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 25th ultimo, inclosing" a copy of the memorial of William R. Glover and T. W. Mather, asking for compensation for the refusal of the agent of the Department to furnish them with the mails under a contract with the Post Office Department," and asking me to "furnish such information as will throw light upon the subject." It must be supposed that the design of the eleventh section of the act of Congress, approved August 31, 1852, directing the Postmaster General to make a contract to convey mails on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, was to meet the demands of that section of country for a new and better mail arrangement than then existed, under the plan of shipment by the trip on transient steamboats, running between Louisville, St. Louis, and New Orleans. The Postmaster General accordingly issued an advertisement on the 31st of December, 1852, in which was set forth the precise character of the required service. After specifying the frequency of the trips, and hours of departure and arrival at the termini of the several routes, the first requirement was that "the service must be performed in suitable and safe steamboats, of the very best class, constructed for the conveyance of mails and passengers only." Bidders were further distinctly notified that "the object of Congress in enacting the law, and of the Department in executing it, is to obtain regular and reliable lines of mail packets." The result is given in detail in my report, made on the 9th Feb. ruary, 1854, in answer to a resolution of the Senate of 24th January, 1854, to which I beg leave to refer. See Senate Document, 33d Congress, 1st session, No. 31. The contract of Messrs. Glover & Mather demanded that the service should be performed in "suitable and safe steamboats ;" that is, boats suitable for the service required by the advertisement, constituting a regular and reliable line of mail packets, arriving and departing at fixed hours at the principal points, and not subject to the delays conséquent upon the reception and discharge of freight. Some time after the execution of the contract, I was first informed that the proper class of boats for its fulfillment could not be immediately provided, and being anxious that the service should commence at the earliest day, I permitted the contractors to report for the line such bcats as could be obtained, for temporary service, until they might be able to complete the regular line of mail packets of the class described by the advertisement. 33D CONG....2D SESS. Messrs Glover & Mather then presented a list of boats, all of which, except two they were having constructed, were found to be already engaged in conveying mails on the old plan, by the trip. They were pursuing the usual freighting business, and no change in this respect was proposed. Had they been accepted as regular mail boats, under the contract, the design of the law would have been defeated, and the just expectations of the public disappointed, because the service would have remained practically unchanged. The shipment of mails by Messrs. Glover & Mather would have differed from the existing service only in this: that the Department could levy and collect fines from them for failures to arrive in time, or to ship a mail on a given day, without effecting any improvement in the mail facilities. In the correspondence and negotiations between the contractors and myself, the feasibility of employing low pressure boats was considered, and the only point of doubtful legality in my mind, in connection with the advertisement, was as to the excess of service originally specified. The other requirements of the advertisement, as to the construction of boats for mails and passengers only, were never discussed. Being satisfied that high pressure boats should be allowed, and that the wants of the public would be sufficiently inet with a reduction in the amount of service, contemplated by the acceptance of 1st March, 1853, I ordered the modifications expressed in the letter of my second assistant, (Mr. Dundas,) to Messrs. Glover & Mather, on the 23d May, 1853. No new contract was contemplated. The acceptance of 1st March, 1853, according to the advertisement, was simply changed, so as to dispense with the restriction to low pressure boats, and reduce the service and pay. In every other respect it remained as binding as if no modification had been made. It must have been designed by Congress to provide new and improved mail service, different from that which had been tested for many years, and found inadequate to the public wants. The Departinent demanded such service. Messrs. Glover & Mather unconditionally bid to carry the mails, "agreeably to the advertisement of 31st December, 1853," in steamboats," as required by the advertisement." Their bid was accepted, but failing to present suitable boats, er to run the boats presented in a proper manner, the mails were withheld from them. There were other bidders who had, no doubt, fixed their prices, after duly considering all the requirements of the Department, and it would have been the grossest act of injustice to them to dispense with any of the published conditions and restrictions, in favor of the accepted bidders. 1 am, sir, respectfully, &c., JAMES CAMPBELL. Hon. THOMAS J. RUSK, Chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, United States Senate. Mr. ADAMS. I have an amendment to offer to the amendment. It is a provision which was unanimously agreed to by the Post Office Committee, but subsequently a majority changed their views. My amendment is to strike out all of the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, after the word "enacted," and insert: That the proper Comptroller of the Treasury, under the instructions of the Attorney General, inquire whether the contract made by the Postmaster General with William R. Glover and Thomas W. Mather, and their associates, for carrying the United States mail on route No. 5102 in the year 1853, was violated by the Postmaster General without legal and adequate cause, and if it was so violated, then to ascertain and allow such damages as they are entitled to in equity and justice by reason of such violation; and that such damages be paid to the said Glover & Mather and their associates, out of any money in the 'Treasury not otherwise appropriated. The amendment to the amendment was rejected; and the question recurring on Mr. BRODHEAD'S amendment, Mr. ADAMS asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered and taken, and are, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Clayton, Cooper, Dawson, Douglas, Foot, Geyer, Gillette, Gwin, James, Jones of lowa, Morton, Seward, Sumner, Thompson of Kentucky, Wade, Weller, and Wilson-24. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fitzpatrick, Hunter, Mallory, Pearce, Pettit, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Toombs, Wells, and Wright-14. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. RUSK. I move to amend the clause appropriating $5,921,938 for the transportation of the mails, by striking out "twenty," and inserting "eighty," so as to make the sum $5,981,938. The additional sum of $60,000 is the amount estimated by the Department for the transportation of the mails in the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. They were not included in the original bill, because there were no mail routes there established by law. I have a letter from the Postmaster General inclosing the estimates. At all events no injury can be done by the appropriation, because it is left to his discretion. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. RUSK. I have another small amendment from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads: SEC.- And be it further enacted, That the Postmaster Beneral be, and he is hereby authorized to pay Cranston Post Office Appropriation Bill-Debate. Laurie, a reasonable compensation for performing the duties of two desks in the Post Office Department, not to exceed half-pay of a clerk for the time he was so employed. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. RUSK. I have another amendment to propose from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads: SEC.. And be it further enacted, That the Postmaster General be, and he is hereby, authorized to pay Uriah P. Monroe, his representatives or assigns, his pay in full for extra mail service on the mail route from Sacramento to Shasta, in the State of California, commencing October 1, A. D. 1851, and ending July 15, 1852, the sum of $5,541 61. Mr. HUNTER. Is not that a private claim? Mr. RUSK. I have here a report of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads of the House of Representatives, explaining the matter, and showing that this is not a private claim within the exception of the rule; but it is to pay for services performed under the direction of the proper officer. I ask that the report be read. The Secretary read, as follows: "The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the memorial of Uriah P. Monroe, asking compensation for extra mail service, report: That in the month of June, 1851, the memorialist contracted to transport the United States mail from Sacramento to Shasta, in the State of California, once in each week, for the annual compensation of $7,000. That on the 1st of October, 1851, the special agent of the Post Office Department for California, having full authority so to do, directed the memorialist to furnish a semi-weekly service over the same route. In compliance with such directions he performed semi-weekly service until July, 1852. "These facts are clearly set forth in communications of the said special agent to the Post Office Department, which clearly showed the importance and extent of the service. It appears, further, that for much of the time the service was rendered particularly difficult on account of the overflow of the valley of Sacramento, which made it necessary for the memorialist to employ a steamboat on a portion of the route. The statements of the special agent are supported by several affidavits, and the committee can see no good reason why pro rata compensation should not be allowed. The memorialist claims $7,000, and the special agent recommends the payment of that amount. The committee, however, can see no sufficient cause for a departure from the rule of pro rata compensation, and report a bill accordingly." Mr. HUNTER. This is a private claim. It is not a claim under any law of the United States, or under any contract. It appears to have been reported as a private bill in the House of Representatives. If we admit this, I do not see what limit there is, or where we shall stop. We might just as well put on this appropriation bill all the private claims which have been reported by the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. I know that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. GEYER] has advanced the theory, that because the House have put certain things on an appropriation bill, therefore everything should go on those bills; but I think he will find cause to review his opinion. If he acts on that theory for an hour longer, I think he will find ample reason for reviewing his opinion. There is more reason now for keeping the appropriation bills clear from such things than there ever was heretofore, because, as I have said, there is a court established to try such claims as these; and it can better try and determine them than we can. Mr. RUSK. The report states that the additional service performed upon the route which was already in operation, and for which this gentleman was the contractor, was performed by the direction of the special agent of the Post Office Department in California. According to law, if that service had been performed by the special direction of the Postmaster General, a pro rata allowance would have been made for it; because the law provides that the Postmaster General may either diminish or increase the service on every contract, allowing pro rata compensation. Instead of the Postmaster General ordering the increased service on this route, it appears from the report that it was ordered by the special agent of the Department in California. The distance between the seat of Government and California renders it extremely necessary to have some person on the spot to take charge of this branch of the service. The Senate, on one or two occasions, have agreed to provisions giving extraordinary powers to the special agent in California in consequence of the distance from here to there, and the difficulties which might attend waiting for instructions from the Department in cases of emergency. Such enactments have been introduced at the request of former Postmasters General, and 1 believe the SENATE. present head of the Deparment has recommended them, in consequence of the difficulty which I have stated. If the service in this case had been ordered by the Postmaster General himself there would have been no necessity for coming to Congress for payment of this amount; but it was ordered by the special agent, when the Postmaster General could not be consulted, and, therefore, it seems to me that it is a case clearly admitted by the rule. It is in compliance with the spirit of the law. The service has been performed. It has not been repudiated by the Postmaster General. It was done under the direction of the special agent, and we only propose to give a pro rata compensation which would be allowed by law if it had been done under the personal direction of the head of the Department. According to the report it appears that the claimant asked for $7,000, but it was determined not to go beyond the pro rata compensation recognized by law. Mr. GWIN. If the law was then as it is now, this money would have been paid without the necessity of coming to Congress. I hope there will be no objection to the amendment. The laws have been amended since the transaction occurred so as to give the special agent in California the power referred to by the Senator from Texas. Mr. WELLER. I may be allowed to say that the papers in this case show that the reason given by the special agent for requiring this extraordinary service, was in order to break up the private expresses. Those expresses were carrying all the mails on the route, and in order to break down the expresses, the special agent of the Department directed this additional service; that is, he directed the mail on this route to be carried semi-weekly instead of weekly, as provided for by the original contract. The proof shows that the service was rendered at great sacrifice by the contractor; that he was compelled to put a steamboat on the route for the transportation of this mail, and the delivery of it at the different points on the Sacramento river. He performed the service for nine months, and all the amendment proposes is, that he shall receive a pro rata compensation for nine months service, according to the terms of the original con tract. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fooт.) The Chair feels compelled to entertain the amend ment, both under the rule and the practice of the Senate. Mr. CLAYTON. It seems, from the statements of gentlemen, and the evidence in the case, that here is a good claim. No objection is made to it on its merits, but the objection is made that it is a private claim which is proposed to be added to an appropriation bill; and it is said that we have agreed to constitute a court of claims to settle questions of that character. Sir, if the bill establishing a court of claims which we passed here had been signed by the President, and were now the law of the land, I should vote against the introduction of this claim, but I do not know what may happen. That bill is not yet a law, and until it does become a law, I must proceed to legislate precisely as if there were no such law. There is none such. I should have voted against one or two other propositions to-day if it had not been for that fact. I mean to vote for this claim. But now let me say that if the bill which we did pass here, establishing a court of claims, shall be signed by the President, and become the law of the land, I do earnestly hope that the Senate of the United States, after constituting a tribunal to decide these questions, will entertain jurisdiction over them no longer. Sir, let me admonish gentlemen that if, at this session after that bill shall become a law, we entertain these claims, our decision will be quoted hereafter at every succeeding session, and we shall, by our action, completely nullify our own law. When that bill shall become a law let us adhere to it; let us stand by the decision of the tribunal which it establishes, and give that great scheme a full and fair trial. I anticipate immense good from it; but I should anticipate no good at all from it, if the Senate of the United States were to reverse its own decision, and proceed to take up private claims after we have constituted that court, and go on as we have heretofore done. Whenever that bill shall come here signed by the President, being a law of the 33D CONG....2D SESS. land, so far as my vote is concerned I shall go against all attempts to take away jurisdiction from the court we have established. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in. Mr. RUSK. I now renew the following amendment, which I offered in Committee of the Whole, and which was then rejected: SEC. And be it further enacted, That the proper Comptroller of the Treasury, under the instructions of the Attorney General, inquire whether the contract made by the Postmaster General with William L. Blanchard for carrying the United States mail on route No. 5066, in the year 1853, was violated by the Postmaster General without legal and adequate cause given by said Blanchard; and if it was so violated, then to ascertain and allow such damages as he is entitled to in equity and justice by reason of such violation; and that such damages be paid to the said Blanchard out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Mr. COOPER. I voted against that amendment when we were acting as in Committee of the Whole, but I did so from a misapprehension of the question. I desire now to say that I shall vote for it. I deem this explanation due to the change of my vote. The amendment was agreed to. The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time; and the bill, as amended, was accordingly read the third time, and passed. THE TARIFF. SPEECH OF HON. SAM. MAYALL, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. MAYALL said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: I enter upon the discussion of the tariff bill with a great degree of reluctance; for I know it is a subject that has engrossed the attention of the wisest statesmen who have gone before us, and one on which they have been widely divided. It baffled their skill and judgment to reduce it to that perception in which it would have an equal and satisfactory bearing on the various sectional interests of our country. It has ever been a subject of strife and contention in this Hall; because there are various and conflicting interests represented on this floor; and it is morally impossible to fix upon any tariff that will be satisfactory to all parties. Hence it becomes us to meet it in a spirit of concession and compromise. Sir, if I understand the policy of the Secretary, [Mr. Guthrie,] it is to reduce the revenue to meet the current expenses of our Government, and afford equal protection to the agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests of our country, and thus reduce taxation, ameliorate the condition of the poor, and meet the wants of the people. In this measure I concur with the Secretary in the recommendation of this principle, and shall cheerfully support him to this end. Proposing, as the bill does, to revolutionize, to some extent, our tariff system, it becomes more directly interesting to the New England States, engaged, as they are, extensively in manufacturing business. Hence I have taken some pains to examine into the history of the legislation of our country on this subject, and to refer to the practical effect that the principal tariff acts produced upon the business of the country. From the histery of the past, we shall be able to draw correct conclusions as to the effects of similar tariff acts in the future; from which we infer, that if a twenty per cent. tariff produced a certain effect at any past period in the history of our country, the same per cent. duty will produce the like effect again. So with a twenty-four per cent. duty, or any other that may be fixed on, whether it be in favor of an ad valorem or a specific duty-that is, a percentage upon the value of the article, or on the quantity, without regard to the value or cost of it. In my view of this matter, not professing to have examined it with great care, a duty ad valorem, ur, The Tariff-Mr. Mayall. in other words, a duty upon the value of an article, is more just and equitable than a fixed specific duty, without regard to its cost or value. To illustrate my idea I will take the article of broadcloth. A specific duty would impose a certain sum upon every square yard or inch of it, without regard to cost or quality, and thus a man who is only to wear cloth worth two dollars per yard would pay as much money into the Treasury as a man who wears cloth worth ten dollars per yard. This is clearly unjust. On an article of cutlery, the cost of which varies as much, probably, as any other imported, the system of specific would impose as high a duty on a farmer's coarse jack-knife, costing only twenty-five cents, as on the Congressman's highly polished knife, costing five dollars. Whereas the ad valorem system would fix the duty in proportion to its value. Sir, I am therefore in favor of a tariff of duties upon the ad valorem principle, so long as the expenses of maintaining the Government are paid from money raised by a tariff, it being a more just and equitable system than that of specific duties. These should be discriminating, leaving the highest percentage upon articles of luxury, and making as many of the indispensable articles of living free of all duty as possible. But my opinion has long been that money required for the support of the National Government should not be raised in this manner for several reasons. In the first place, it is impossible to regulate a tariff of duties, so as to raise the exact sum-or anything approximating to it, required for the expenses of the Government. You either have a deficiency requiring a loan, or a surplus. Now, the money thus raised, comes as directly from the pockets of the people as any other tax, and far more unequally in its operation. To explain my meaning, I will take one of my neighbors, who has an estate worth $100,000 and no children-perhaps a miser. He does not consume one tenth the amount of articles upon which duties are levied that is consumed by another neighbor, who, although not worth a thousand dollars, has ten children in his family. Now, sir, if I understand the object of Government, it is to protect the property and life of the governed; hence it is self-evident, that he who has the largest amount of property to be protected by the Government should pay the largest portion of the expenses of maintaining it. This cannot be done by levying duties upon imported goods, and therefore, I hope to see the day when this system shall be abandoned, and a more just and impartial one established in its place. Mr. Chairman, on an examination of this subject, I have one proposition to make to the South. It is said on this floor that it is for the interest of the South to have free trade. Now, sir, I with them will abandon protection, and will vote to abolish our revenue laws for the collection of duties upon foreign articles of importation; and, if it be the pleasure of the South, I will vote to sell all our custom-houses to the highest bidders, and thus dispense with the excuse for making appropriations to the amount of three or four millions per annum, merely to adorn and beautify some growing city, to make the property in its locality more valuable at the expense of the General Government. Dispense with these custom-houses, and we should be relieved of a burden of officers who are now political paupers, who are ever ready to do the bidding of the party in power, and who are used successfully for political purposes. Dispense with the custom-houses and establish direct taxation instead, and you would vastly curtail the expenses and the patronage of the Executive. Let the revenue for the support of the General Government be raised in the same way as that for the support of each State government is raised, and the operations of the General Government would be greatly simplified. I say, I will cooperate with the South to this end. But, I am aware the first man from the South cannot be found who will adopt this course; and why? It is the object of the South, from what I can learn, to levy the duties in such a way as to make the cotton growing interests of that section as great as the manufacturing interests of the North; or, in other words, to make the same amount of slave-labor as valuable to them as our free mechanical labor is to us of the North. And Ho. OF REPS. again, it is because there is a constitutional provision to which they object. It is this: "Representation and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." Thus" direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States," according to their population, including three fifths of the slave population, so that the South would have to pay direct taxes for three fifths of all their slaves. Hence, when put to the test, the South would universally object to direct taxation. There is one possible effect of the clause of the Constitution to which I have just referred, that I have never seen noticed. It is this: suppose a planter in the South had acquired so much wealth as to possess two hundred thousand slaves. This would be a sufficient population to comprise one congressional district, for three fifths of this number would be one hundred and twenty thousand. This planter would thus be enabled to elect himself to Congress without receiving any other vote than his own. This feature of the Constitution, therefore, is neither democratic nor republican. But to return to our subject. What I desire to show in this connection is, that the South ought either to abandon the tariff system, and resort to direct taxation, or harp no longer upon free trade. But the South will not adopt a system of direct taxation, for the reasons I have given; therefore, the great question to be solved is, how are the duties to be levied? I reply, in such a manner as will afford equal protection to agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests. I understand it has ever been one of the principal objects of our Government to afford protection to the manufacturing interests. The first tariff act ever passed in the United States, begins with these words: "Whereas it is necessary, for the support of Government, for the discharge of the debt of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandise imported." The messages of the Presidents of the United States, whether of Whig or Democratic Administrations, also prove most conclusively that it has ever been the policy of our Government to give encouragement to the manufactures of this country. Washington, in his first annual message, in 1789, thus refers to this subject: "Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of manufactures. The object is of too much consequence not to insure a continuance of their efforts in every way which shall appear eligible. As a general rule, manufactures on the public account are inexpedient; but where the state of things in a country leaves little hope that certain branches of manufacture will, for a great length of time, obtain, when these are of a nature essential to the furnishing and equipping of the public force in time of war, are not establishments for procuring them, on public account, to the extent of the ordinary demand for the public service, recommended by strong considerations of national policy as an exception to the general rule." Thus Washington regarded the encouragement of such manufactures as are required for equipments, including, of course, the woolen cotton, and leathern goods, as essential to the safety, as well as the prosperity of the nation. Jefferson did not withhold his sanction to a similar and even wider policy, for, in his fourth annual message, he says: "Whether the great interests of agriculture, manufactures, commerce, or navigation, can, within the pale of your constitutional powers, be aided in any of their relations; whether laws were provided in all cases where they are wanting; whether those provided are exactly what they should be; whether any abuses take place in their administration, or in that of the public revenues; whether the organization of the public agents, or of the public force, is perfect in all its parts; in fine, whether anything can be done to advance the general good, are questions within the limits of your functions, which will necessarily occupy your attention. In these, and other matters which you, in your wisdom, may propose for the good of our country, you may count with assurance on my hearty cooperation and faithful execution." And, in accordance with this recommendation of Jefferson, the act of March 4, 1804, was enacted, imposing import duties on certain manufactured articles therein specified. In his sixth annual message, Jefferson thus again refers to this subject: "Shall we suppress the impost, and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles |