)!ii; REPORTS MAJORITY AND MINORITY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATB POST OFFICE AND POST ROADS^ TOGETHEU WITH THB DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE SAME; TO WHICH IS VBEFIXSO AN INDEX PRINCIPAL MATTERS IN THE REPORTS. WASHINGTON; PRINTED BY DUFF GREEN. lSi«5. \ INDEX TO THE REPORTS. 1 SUBJECT. Majority Rept. Minority Rept. Page Page > Finances .---.-. 1 90 /} Available fund in 1829, . - . - - 3 John Herron's case ..... 9 97 Removal of Henry Safford .... 9 97 Removal of Postmasters . - - - - 8 97 Removal of William Wyman .... 11 97 t\. Improved bids and extra allowances 12 101 James F. Robinson's contract from Cincinnati to George- town -.-...- 18 102 ' J. and B. Bennett's contract from Bellefont to Meadville, y Pennsylvania .-..-- ^ William Tillow's contract from Newark to Paterson, New ot Jersey ...... Paper and twine, supplies . - • . . 23 109 25 110 28 93 James Reeside's contract from Hagerstown to McCon- nellsburg ...... 31 107 "^ James Reeside's contract from Bedford to Washington, ^ Pennsylvania ...... 38 107 ' James Reeside's contract from Cumberland to Blair's ^ Gap 39 109 J James Reeside's contract from Baltimore to Chambersburg * James Reeside's contract from Philadelphia to Pittsburg 45 108 • 47 105 ^ James Reeside's contract from Philadelphia to New York 59 111 Expresses of Government on do do 66 112 Extra allowances on do do 59 111 STotal of payments on do do 76 1 ^ Extra allowance on contract, Philadelphia to Pittsburg 50 105 0. B. Brown's pecuniary transactions with Reeside and ! ^ Slaymaker -.--.. 81 si O. B. Brown's pecuniary transactions with Edwin Porter 82 98 1 Do. do deposite in the Bank of Maryland 84 100 Alterations of entries in books of department 86 99 Loans by department from contractors ... 86 Legal provisions recommended ... 89 115 iji 23d Congress, f 86 1 2d Session IN SENATR OF THE UNITED STATES. January 21, 1835. Read. January 2S, 1835. Ordered to be printed, and that 20,000 additional copies be prfnled for the use of the Senate > Mr. EwiNG made the following REPORT, (with senate bill no. 128.) The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, iii obedience to the resolution of the Senate of the 25th June, 1834, have continued their examination, heretofore commenced, into the condition and proceed- ings of the Post Office Department; and having made further pro- gress therein, report: That your committee met at Washington city on the 19ih day of Sep- tember last; and having informed the Postmaster General that they were ready to proceed with their investigation, he provided them a room in the post office building, and designated the heads of bureau and the clerks who would furnish such books and papers, copies and extracts; as might b<* called for in reference to the several subjects embraced in the inquiry. One of the principal difficulties which had been encountered in the inves- tigation during the last session of Congress, was that of arriving, even by approximation, at the state of the finances of the department. It was a subject on which the opinions of different members of your committee were Avidely variant, and they could determine nothing with certainty from a mere inspection of the books, or a footing of the accounts. Many very large and important items were merely made the subjeci of a marginal no!e, and that often in pencil mark. On the whole the accounts were in a stole of great uncertainty and confusion, and so extensive and tomplicated the transactions which they embraced, that it was deemed wholly iinpracti- cable for your committee, by their own personal labor, to balance the books, and arrive at any result at all approaching to accuracy. It was the more difficult, as the ordinary books of entry do not appear to contain the materials for a full and fair adjustment of the accounts which they purport to exhibit: as, for example, Your committee called for the account of James Reeside, and it was shown to them on the leger, where there appeared a balance against him on t')e 1st of April, 1S34, of $54,369 07. The accounting officer?, however,, informed your committee that the leger did not present [all the credits to .which Mr. Reeside was entitled; and they have since exhibited an account xontaialng many credits, by which there appears to be a balance in hi.* CS6] 2 favor on the Isl of July, 1834, of ^7,529 5r), making a diflerence in tlna single account of about §6 1,000. Some of the credit?, it is true, bear date between the Ist of April and 1st of July, but a large part of ihe amount iai iTiacIc up of entries which, if entitled at all to a place in the account, belonged lo a dale prior to the 1st April, 1834. The correctness of tliose several credits will be considered in another part of this report. — (See Doc. No. 1.) . The account of Edv.-in Porter, as if appeared on tlie Icgcr, showed a balance a^ainsthim of S21,095 99. — (See L\)c. No. 2.) ' The acoovint of R. C. Stockton, showed a balance against him of S7S,170 4S.— (Sec Doc. No. 3.) All these balaiices were 5aid lo be incorrect; but if they be so, they stand upon the leger. in such a manner as to mislead those wi.o rely upon the books merely, as evidence of the condition of the department. The law expressly forbids an advance to any contractor in anticipation of his services, unless it be authorized by act of Congress. And yet, if the books stale the matter truly, there was advanced to, and due from, con- tractors, on the fif^t of April, 1834, $302,655 61. Tiii.N confused and imperfect, if not erroneous situation of the account.^ togetlTcr v.-ith the want of a balance sheet, brougbt up to stated periods, rendered it a burdensome task to put these books in such order that your commiucc couid ascertain by their inspection, and by the testimony of wit- nesses, -wi.nt was the actual condition of the department, and the balance for or ag.vinst it on the day to which it was proposed to bring down the exa- mination. When your committee presented their last report, they had no adequals idea of the extent of tiiis labor. They supposed that the balances which appeared upon the hooks were in all cases the frue balances, and that the simple process of addition and subtraction was sufficent to solve the pro- blem. In this, however, they were mistaken. But it i)cing desirable that the actual state of these accounts should be as- certained., your committee, as the best m£>de of arriving at it, employed two individuals, skiltul accountants, approved by their unanimous assent, to examine ilie books, and j)repare a general balance sheet. Those accountants liave, since about the 23d day of September, 1834, been diligently en- gaged and still jgrc diligently engaged in their work, which, when completed and carefully exaiiiined, will be laid bclbre the Senate. Until that be done, any report which your committee can present, so far as relates to the finances, jiiust necessarily be conjectural and imperfect. The state of the finances, as set forth in their former report, was drawn partly from the statement of the officers of the department, and partly from an examination of the books by the committee or some of its members. The san-ic must be tlie case new, with this difference only^ that a greater familiarity with the books, and tiic possession of a number of statements, made out at dillereat periods, and some additional items furnished, enable your committee to compare and contrast them; and although no one is, in their opinion, to be enlircl}' rekied ©n, from the whole to elicit something near the truth of the case. Ill their comparative view of the revenue and expenditures of the de- partment, for the next four years preceding, and the four years next following, the time at which it was placed under the superintendence of the present Post- master General, your committee noticed the difference between the statements of Mr, McLean, the late Postmaster ftcneial, and the present incumbent, TTTT as to the amount of available funds on hand on the 1st July, 1829, bat could not then pronounce with certainty upon the correctness of either. The amount of surplus funds left on hand, according to the statement of Mr. McLean, was - - . . - -.$289,140 17 The amount, as stated by Mr. Barry, was - - 230,489 00 Making a difference of - - - - - $ 58,651 17 Which, according to the statement of the former Postmaster General, came into the hands of his successor; but which, according to the reports and statements of the present Postmaster General, never did come into his hands. Your committee considered this a subject ivorthy of a more particu- ]ar investigation. Mr. Barry, in his rejDort to the President, of the 24th of November, 1829, says, that there appears a balance in the books of the department of - - - - - - . S541,6S0 Of which there are old balances, considered desperate, $284,289 Postages prior to July 1, 1S2S, since found to be des- perate -*.__.. 22,235 Counterfeit money on hand - - - $2,634 Notes on broken banks - _ ., 1,672 4,306 310,830 Leaving, as the whole amount of available funds, above the amount of debts due by the department ... $230,850 And in his report to the President of the 30th November, 1833, the first in w'hich he acknowledges a deficit in the funds, he, by way of accounting for that deficit in part, says: "On the 30th of June, 1829, which was the close of the first quarter in which I had assumed the functions of the de- partment, the expenses which had been incurred for transporting the mail were ;g64,24S 76 more than the amount stated in my report to that day." Thus leaving the inference irresistible, if his reports from the beginning were correct, that the surplus available funds on the 1st of July, 1829, were .-----.. §230,850 Less by -..-.._ 64,248 And therefore but ----- - Si 66,602 Before taking into consideralKon this iiem of S64,24S, discovered by the Postmaster General, and reported to the President on the 30th November,, 1833, your committee will examine briefly the discrepancies between the. above statements; and they believe it is now in their power to show v^if^ere the error lies. The present Postmaster General, in his report to the President of the 24th November, 1829, exhibits as the whole amount of balances apparently on hand, which includes ail debts, good and bad, which have accrued from the beginning of the Government, and which remained due, at - $541,680 Of this he says there are of desperate debts, and counterfeit notes, and notes on broken banks - - . - - 310,830 Leaving arailabU . . - . - S?230,SflC [ 86 ] 4 In order to determine whether this statement, if correct when made, re. mains so at this day, your committee called before them Mr. Hand, the solicitor of the department, and required of him a statement of the amount of the debts which were due to the department on the 1st day of July, 1629,. which remains unpaid at this time; and we have his report, under oath, that jt amounts to about ii5l33,29S. — (See Doc. No. 4.) There was presented to your committee byO. B. Brown, chief clerk, one other paper, showing the amount carried to bad debts, profit and loss, and suspense account; by which it appears that there has been carried to those several accounts, since the 1st July, 1S29, j^30,S89; a part of which may be chargeable to the balance reported on ihat day. Your committee cannot determine what part; ihey, therefore, to avoid the possibility of injustice to the present officers of that department, place the M»/ Balance against the department ... S286,59& 4S Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN. Sworn to. Hon. Fei>ix Gkundy, Chairman of the Coiyiinitlee, 4'C. Your committee assumed the above statement as correct, so far as it re- lates to the debts due from the department, the aggregate of which is there set down at $1,036,599 48. But they received from the Postmaster General, on the 26th December, 1834, another more particular statement of the financial condition of the department, which they have herewith presented, marked Doc. No. 6. from which they will now extract the several corresponding items, and compare them with those in tlie above statement of 0. B. Brown. And 1st. The amount <\i\Q to contractors on the 1st day of April, 1834, which the last named statement presents as follows: 1st. To old contractors, agents, and on miscellaneous accounts prior to 1st of January, 1S33, which amounts to ^3,470 53 [ 86 3 6 2d. To contractors whose accounts were still ninning, or had not expired prior to January 1st, 1S33, lor services performed prior to January 1, 1834 . . . 223,484 95 There was due on the 1st April, 1834, for transportation, which had not yet been audited, to contractors . 49,487 80 The expense of transportation from January 1st to April 1st, 1S34, was ..... 454,514 22 Making the amount due for transportatfon . . 730,957 50 The balance due to banks above the amount of depo^'tes . 451,599 48 Making the whole amount of debt . . . 1,182,556 98 More by $96,000 than by the statement of the 24th of April, 1834. But it was the amount of available funds only, as set forth in that state- nient, that your committee felt themselves required to examine. They are there given in round numbers thus: " Available amount due from postmasters is estimated as follows, to wit: To January 1st, 1834 . . . §300,000 From January 1st to April 1st, 1834 . 500,000 „■ 800,000 00'' I ■=— H Ey the statement of the Postmaster General S of the 26th December, '1834, the whole ;ja balance of available funds, due from post- "" masters prior to the 1st of January, 1834, was ..... g241,6i0 47 And the net proceeds of postages from the 1st January, 1834, to the 1st April, 1834, was ^496,677 21, of which was paid to t!ie department prior to April Isf, $1 18,489 50, leaving the balance . . . 378,187 71 Making the whole sum then due for postages . . $619,798 18 Which, if there were no items introduced to vary the amount except the?e, the only ones exhibited in (he statement of the chief clerk, in April last, T/ould leave the dc])artment insolvent, according to its own showing, by Jg562,758 80. But your committee, not being satisfied that the sum slated to be due from postmasters was correct, Ihey caused the books which show (he amount of deposites made b}' them in banks to the credit of the dcpaitment within the last quarter of 1S33, and the first qi.iarter of 1834, to be carefully examined, hvA the amount nccuralely stated. They also directed to be ]>repared, by ;ne principal pay clerk, a statement showing the amount of checks which vere drawn on postmasters within each of the before named quarters, for postages accruing within said quarters. That statement from the pay clerk your committee have not yet received, but .^rom the evidence before them, it 7 [86] appears that the net proceeds of postages within the quarter ending the 3lst December, 1S33, was ..... §467,449 00 j The amount derposiled by postmasters within that quarter . 325. 4S I 29 Net proceeds of postages above the amount of deposites i^_ within that quarter . . . . . $l4l,96,7i4l The net j^roceeds of postages within the quarter ending the 31st March, 1833, was . , . " . $496,677 21 Deposites in banks by poslmasters within tliat quarter ■ 324,954 76 Amount of net proceeds not so deposited . . §171,723 45 Leaves the balance of postages accruing in tliose two quar- ters which was not deposited l)y postmasters on the 1st April, 1S34 ...... $313.6 9 16 The statement of the finances (see Doc. No. 6,) made by the Postmaster General to your committee, on the 2Gth December last, appears to tiieni erroneous in this, that it gives the amount due on the 31st March, 1S34, for postages accruing within the quarter ending that day, at S37S,167 71 Whereas, it appears by taking the amount shown to have been deposited in banks wilhin that quarter from the amount which accrued therein, that the wlioie amoiuit remaining due on that day of that quarter's proceeds did not exceed . S171,722 45 By a siniibr process, it is ascertained tiiat the whole amount due of the next preceding quarter was no more than . ^141,967 71 Thus making the whole amount of postages which accrued in those two'quarters, due on the 1st day of April, 1834, $313,690 16 Which, deducted from the whole amount of debts admitted by the statement of the Postmaster General, of the 26lh Decem- ber, shown to be due from the department, would leave its debts greater than its credits, in this part of its available funds by ....'.. SfOS,S66 83 Theavailahlc funds v.-hicli accrued prior to the Isl of Oclooei", IS33, and vi?hich remained uncollected, were not taken into the account by your com- mittee, in their forn^icr report, because it was out of their povver to examine or estimate them, ilence the balance by them struck is and was expressly ' stated to be subject to that reduction. Such, too, must be the case with this statement, as your committee have no means in their power of fixir.g its amount until they obtain the report of their accountants. The snni, however, cannot be large, unless there have been great neglect in compelling the p^}- rnent of the moneys received by deputy postmasters. There is one other item introduced into the statement of the 20th Dece"i- ber, 1834, of which yoisr comm.ittec knew nothing until since their former report, and did not even suspect its existence. It is a ''bala^lce against co!i- tractors for payments made them prior to the 1st April, 1S34, for tiic current services of the quarter which ended that day, and for prior services which had not yet bepn placed to their credit, ^284,897 38." Your com- n-'ittce did not suppose a fund of this character and amount existed to t!:o [ 86 ] 8 credit of the department, because they knew by former statements, that there were very large sums actually due to contractors, for services fullj'^ and faithfully performed, in previous quarters, which tlie department was bound, ill good faith and in justice, to pay promptly. Those sums, actually due, were not paid for want of funds. Large sums were also borrowed from banks on interest; and it seemed inconceivable that, under these circum- stances, so large a sum of money should have been advanced to a few (^oil- tractors before they were entitled to receive it by the terms of their cou- tracts. But the present investigation has satisfied your committee that very large sums were, and still are due, from contractors, for illegal payments and allowances of money; and that this sum, at least, and probably a much larger sum, ought *o be reclaimed from them, and placed to the credit of the department. Deduct this from the above balance, and it leaves S.5S3,- 9(39 44 deficit in the funds of the department, as they now appear on the evidence before the committee, independently of the arrearage of postages wliich accrued prior to the 1st October, 1834; and independently also of the amount drawn on postmasters within the last quarter of 1833, and 1st quarter of 1834; which two sums, standing on different sides of tlip account, ma}^ nearly balance each other. The exact state of the finances must, however, be left to the report of the accountants employed by your committee. The investigation of the committee, thus far, corrobroates their former report as to the insolvency of the department. It appears by a letter from the Postmaster General to the chairman of your commitleey in answer to a resolution of the 29th of September, 1834^ that between the ist April, 1829, and the 1st Sept(MTiber, 1834, there had been tliirteen hundred and forty postmasters removed from office. Public opinion ascribes tbose removals, with few exceptions, to motives of party policy. This subject seemed to your committee to require investigation; and they thought, and still think that it fell within the scope of the autho- rity confen-ed on them by the resolutions under which they acted; and that it was one of those subjects into which the Senate, as a branch of the legis- lative power, had aright to direct an investigation. If, indeed, the extensive patronage of this department were so wielded as to influence, as far as pos- sible, the political actions of men; if its numerous offices were made a sub- ject of sale and barter for party influence and political power; if it were a part of the established system, that honest men and faithful officers should be removed from office, for no other reason than that they had ventured to be freemen, and exercise the rights of freemen and American citizens at the polls; and that their places should he tilled by men having no other quali- fieations than those of efficient partizuns and supporters of the men in power, it was of the first importance that the nature and extent of the mischief should be known to the Legislature and the people of the country; and lliat a remedy should be apj)lied by law, to check, and if possible eradicate the evil. It was represented to the members of your committee, from sources enti- tled to consideration, that there were many cases in which those things had been done. That deputy postmasters, upright and honorable men and faithful officers, had been removed for no other known cause than that of their political opinions; and that there had been appointed in their stead active political partisans, notoriously deficient in talent, and destitute of in- 9 [ 86 ] tegrity; and who, since their appointment, had appropriated the whole proceeds of their offices to themselves, first neglecting to account, and at last absconding wiih the funds; and that, in some instances, the officers cf the department had neglected to prosecute, until their sureties were fully dischaiged by lapse of time. Herron's Case. One of this class of cases was that of John Herron, who was appointed, postmaster at Putnam, Ohio, in the place of Henry Saffiard, removed. Your committee called in the first place for a statement of the date of the appoint- ment of Herron, the time he held the office, the state of his accounts with the department, and the measures, if an}', which had been taken to collect such balance as might appear against him. In answer to this inquiry, the following communications were receive-J on the 23d September, 1834. General Post Office, Sept. 20, 1S34. Sir: It appears from the books and documents of this office, that in July, 1829, John Herron was appointed postmaster at Putnam, Ohio. That he continued to hold that office till November, 1831, when he was dismissed from it b}- the discontinuance of the office on the 10th November, 1831. The office was discontinued, as appears from the files, because the post- master failed to make his quarterly returns, and he persisted in the neglect to do so after correspondence had, and notice given him, and because there was no person recommended to be appointed his successor. He enclosed to the department !3l25, on account of his office, in a letter, dated 18th May 1830, consisting of notes of a bank or banks in Ohio. The bank in this place refused to receive them, and the money was therefore re- turned to Herron. Except this assay to make a payment, he does not appear ever to have paid any thing over to the department, nor to have ren- dered any accounts. His accounts for the whole time of holding the office, have been estimated according to law, at $558 64. The measures taken to effect a settlement will appear from the accompanying statement of the acting solicitor. V^'ry respectfully, your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN. Hon. Felix Gru.vdv, Chairman of the Committee on the Post Office apers on alleged constitnlional grounds, which applied aliiie to the whole class of cases referred to, which rest on the same principles, of course put an end to this branch of the investigation. Finding the doors closed upon Ihem hercj they turned their atlention to other subjects of inquiry, touching the cond^on of the dei)artment and the management of its concerns. But in^he examination of other subjects, one case of appointment and re.r.oval fell under their o'^scrvation, and ihcy deem it proper to state II [ S6 ] the facts and append the '^videncc connecfcvl with it. It may serve as one specimen of the mode of operation in such cases, and the principles and :notives of the parties, and of the department. Wyman's Cask. William Wyman had for some time been postmaster in Lowell, Massa- ••setts. He -was removed, snd Eliphalet Case appointed in his place. Th» committee called before them Colonel S. A. Coburn, an intelligent citizen of Lowell, who mingled hourl}- among its inhabitants, and had constant in- tercourse with the post office, (see Doc. No 7,) and the following question was propounded to him: <' Do you know Mr. Wyman, fornicr postmaster of this place? Whatwashis characteras postmaster.'"' To this interrogator}- ihechair- nian of the committee objected, but as one of the members of the committee happened to be absent, agreed tliat the answer to the question might be taken, suljject to the opinion of the absent member. The answer was in the fol- lowing words: ''I have known him very well, and I never heard his cha- racter impeached, and aever heard a complaint against him as postmaster.'"' In consequence of the objection of the chairman, and the situation of the committee, this inquiry was not further pursued; hut the committee do not doubt that the evidence' of Colonel Coburn presents the truth in regard to the character of Mr. W^ This removal, and the appointment of Mr. Case, was effected in this manner : jNIr. Case was the editor of the Lowell Mercury, a zealous administration newspaper, and received for his services as editor S300 [)er annum. He also held the press for somie tune under a deed of trust, to secure him for a claim which he had upon it to the nmount of ^650; and after this was satisded, the balance belonged to Mr. Thomas Billings, its owner. Pvlr. Case paid a visit to Washington, and On his return informed Mr. Billings that he " had made application to be made postmaster; he had not got the office, but did not doubt he would get it;" antiif he was appointed, as he expected, he v/ould continue to edit the paper as for- merly, without charging any tb.ing. (See Doc. No. S.) After this, a printed no- tice was issued, calling a mealing at Mr, Case's private room, of the IJemncratic Commiilee for calling Cducuses^ 4'C, in toiun. This meet- ing was held, "Mr. Case was present, and it was stated by some one that there had been complaints matle againi-t the postmaster; that he would be un- doubtedly removed; and proposed that Mr. Case should be recommended as his successor, which was accordirigly done." T!ie petition for t'r.e ap- pointment was '-signed by a part of tiie committee of Lowell." Mr. Bil- Jings, one of the committee, attended, but did not sign the petition; and Thereupon Mr. V/yman was removed, and Mr. Case appointed, acted as postmaster, and continued his services as editor; and Mr. Billings, who had .an interest in the press and its proceeds, added, that he did not know ihst Mr. C. had " cliarged any thing" for these services since his ap- pointment. In this mode, one editor of a party newspaper has beea supported by the patronage of the department. And this postmaster has not failed to profit by other advantages from his poMaine; as soon as he discover- ed them he returned them to the post office. — (See Doc. No. 9.) A practice has of late prevailed extensively in this department of adver- tising proposals for carrying the mail on the principal mail routes in a differ- ent manner from that in which it is in fact to he carried; of receiving bids for carrying it in a difierent manner from that which is advertised; which are called ^^ improved bids ;^' of accepting the bids as m^<\e (til together, and entering their acceptance as applied to that part of the bid which con- forms to the advertisement, and immediately changing them to the improved hid, and so executing the contract; thus in effect letting or making the con- tract without advertisement. This is a violation of law, and has given rise to, and is made the apology /or other violations of law and official duty. The tenth section of the act of (/ongress entitled "an act to reduce into one the several acts establishing the Post Office Department" provides '' that it shall be the duty of the Postmaster General to give public notice in one newspaper published at the seat of Governmeiit of the United States, and in one or more of the newspapers published in the State or States or Territory, where the contract is to be performed, for at least twelve weeks before entering mto anj^ contract for conveying the mail, that such contract is intended to be made, and the day on which it is to be concluded, descri- bing the places from and to which the mail is to be conveyed, and the time at which it is to be made up, and t/ie day and hour at ivhich if ?> to'be delivered." The clause above cited designates the only mode in which an original contract for the transportation of the mail can be legally entered into, except it be under that provision relating to packets and steamboalSj which is in its terms still more special and restricted. Therefore any ori- ginal contract entered info for the^transportation of the mail, w'hich is not in pursuance of an advertisement, thus special and distinct in its terms, "de- scribing the places//-6>wi and /o which the mail is to be conxeyed, and the time at ivhich it is to be made up, and the day and hour at which it is to be delivered," is not a conlraci made in conformity with the law; but is in violation of one of its most important provisions. This practice, of entering into contracts without the ob>ervance of this provision of the law, throws the door wide open to unfairness, favoritistr.. and collusion. The public know nothing of the purposes or the wishes of the department as to the time and manner of transporting the mails, ex- cept through the medium of the public advertisement; and the honest business man who would wish to seek a contract through fair competition, would naturally suppose that a bid pursuant to the advertisement would be the one, and the only one by whicii he could procure such contract; and he would farther suppose that he would be bound by such bid. With the pub- lic at largest! is probably has been the case; it appears to have been so with the small Whitractors generally; but it has been far otherwise with a class of large contractors, who appear to be on terms of intimacy and confidence with 13 C 86 ] some of the officers of the General Post Office, and whose affairs are inli. matcly .blended with the fiscal concerns of that department. For example, in looking over the bids of the fall of 1831, it will be found that such individuals who obtained contracts upon the great mail routes, or a great - number of the small routes united, included in their bids not onlj' a propo- sition to carry the mail according to the advertisement, but with stipulations • that the bidder would bind himself to carry the mail in a different manner ■ at a different price. Of the favored contractors, the bids to carry the mail -pursuant to the advertisenjent are generally very low, so as to enable the ' department to award them the contract; while their improved bid, in pur- . suance of which the contract is at last executed, is very high, so as to in- sure to the contractor an enormous profit. The acceptance is marked on • the proposal book opposite the sum which was bid for conveying the mail . pursuant to the advertisement; and the rival bidders will see at once, on an inspection of this book, that they are nnderbid, but the contracts are exe- cuted according to the improved bid^wWxch is often twice or three times the sum at which it is t;ntered on the proposal book laid open to the inspection j- of the public. For example, at the lettings in 1S31, James Reesidebid to carry the mail from Philadelpiiia to New York, pursuant to advertisement, (daily,) at $6,000 a year, or at ^19,000 improved. The bid was entered " accepted'* at $6,000, and the contract executed at $19,000, Reeside, Slaymaker, and-Tomlinson bid to carry the mail from Philadel- != phia to Pittsburg, (daily,) pursuant' to advertisement, at J57,000 a year, or at $27,000, imp7-oved, and extended to Wheeling. The bid was accepted at ;g7,000, and the contract executed at $27,000. Stockton and Neil bid to csrry the mail on routes from Cumberland to Wheeling, Washington to Steuhenville, Baltimore to Cumberland, Wash- ington, D. C. to Frederick, and Frederick to Winchester, at §7,000 a year, as advertised, or at $15,500 improved; the bid was accepted at iS7,000, and the contract executed at i? 15, 500. Stockton and Neil bid to carry the mail on 17 routes in Ohio (of which that from Wheeling, Va. to Zanesville is first in order) as advertised at $30,000, or at §50,410 improved. The bid was accepted at $30,000, a'nd the contract executed at J?50,4I0. It were tedious to enumerate the cases in which this difference exists, be- ; tween the bid made pursuant to advertisement, and accepted, and the con- tract as executed. Your committee have caused to be prepared by their secretary, and they exhibit herewith a table compiled from books and pa- pers in the department; from the blue book; from the letter of the Post- master General of the 3d of iMarch, 1S34, in reply to a call of the Senate, and from his report of the ISth of April, 1832, which shows in each indi- vidual case, in the contracts of 1831, the difference between the bid, as en- tered on the bid book, and the contract executed. It shows also the cases in which no difference exists, from which it will be seen that the whole amount of the bids accepted pursuant to the advertisements in October, 1831, was - - - - - - $340,626 54 Amount of contracts as executed for the same division, (by the blue book), -.---- 488,859 40 Making a difference of - - - - $147v632 86 [ 86 ] 14 And this whole diflercncc, amounting to theenonnoiis sum above shown, is made in favor of not more than fifteen contractor.-j, or com|)anies of con Iractor?, most of whom your committee h.xve found it their duty to notice ill their former report as the recipients of other pecuniary favors from the department. — (See Doc. No. 10 It will he seen that there is a difHicrence of about gsr,000 between the ag- preu;'Vte of ori-^inal contracts for tl^is division of moii routes, as it is set down in the blue hook, and the amount as extracted from the contracts themselves by the Secretary of your committee; the st.'ttement in the Blue Book ma liino' them so much the larger. The joint resolution under which that book was compileil requires that the sums paid by the original contracts^ and all additional allowances to mail contractors, should be reported, distinguishing between that which is paid by the original contract and that which is addi- tional. But in the repoit of mail contracts there are many cases in which the o/'i^'-inal contracls, as execufed.&ve set down in that book much uboi^e. and the extra allowances much beloiu their true amount, as understood b> your committee; and hence the difference between that statement in the Blue Book and the one made out by their Secretary from the contracts. As, for example, a contract was executed by R. C. Stockton, in w-hich he agreec to carry the mail on 13 routes, among others from Philadelphia to Balti more at sl4,950, as advertised, and lo make certain improvements for the additional compensation of $20, 150 a year. This is set down in the ab stract prepared by the secretary of the committee as an original contract, a !i«14,954, precisely as it is stated in the letter of the Postmaster General o the 18th of April, 1S32; but it appears to be set dowii in the Blue Book as an original contract of ^35, lUO, making in that single item a diflerence o $21,150. A few cases of (his kind make up the difference, large as it is, be tween the amount of original contracts, as stated in the blue book, and tlu same as extracted from the executed contracts. But aside of the train of inauspicious circumstances which attend that clas of cases in which contracts are executed on improved bids, your committet can discover no principle of law or reason on which those contracts can b justified. It is not easy to ascertain in what light the Postmaster Genera himself viewed this subject, or what provision of law he supposed sustainec him in entering into these contracts. What was his opinion of the ^^ con tract'' mentioned in the lOlh section of the act of JNIarch 3, 1825, and whei and how did he consider that contract as *• concluded ?" If the written an( sealed obligations to transport the mail, which in the common language the officers of the department are called ''the contracts," be so wi ' " meaning of that section of the law, then is that provision violated cases in which that bond is executed, and the contract '■^concluded performance of a servico different t'roni (.hat which is set forth in the publish ed proposals. The law requires that before a contract be entered into th< precise service to be performed shall be distinctly designated in a publishec advertisement. If different services are accepted in the bid, it is as if no ad Tertisement had been made; or worse, for it makes the advertisement but false sign, which serves to deceive rather than notify the public of what is t be performed. It cannot at all change the case that there is also a propositioi in the same paper pursuant to the advertisement. If that be not the bid vvbicl is homt/We accepted, it is the same as if it were not there. If it be accept I lllCIl Uill inguage o within ihJ in ail th'l r for th| 15 [ SS ] ed, aad if tlic acceptance be the contract, then a new question arit^es. Has the Poslmaster General a right to change and enlarge the contract b}- a pri- vate arrangement with the contractor? Under tlie provisions of this section, it is clear that he has not. He cannot change it without anoihcr pirblic no- tice, pursuant to the statute, setting fnrlh the proposed modification as a new contract, and inviting compciition. if no other clause in the hiw authorized it, tlie Postmaster General could not cliange or modify any conlroct, nor or- der an}' extra service, nor pay any extra compensation by j)riv:Ue contract. j3ut public notice must have been given, and competition invited for each in- crease of service and of compensation. But the law permits that contracts be entered into for four years, and within that time the wants of the country may require a change in the time and mannerof transportingthe mail on any given route, and it would be inconvenient to provide in that manner for small but nej;cssary alterations. Yet all the difficulties wliicii might arise froni this state of things are obviated by tiie forty-third section of the act of Con- gress above referred to, which permits, by implication, an additional allow- ance of extra pay for increased services; but it is express in its provisions *' that no additional allowance shall be made to any contractor or carrier of any mail on any route over and beyond the amount stipulated in his contract entered into for the transportation of the mail on such route, unless additional service shall be required; and then no sucli additional compensation shall be allowed to exceed the exact proportion of the original amount io the addi- tional duties required.'^ Whether ii was by the suj)posed authority of tliis section of the act, or of that above referred to, or whether it was without reference to either that the Postmaster General entered into these contracts, is unknown to your com- mittee. This subject was briefly touched by them in the report laid before the Se- nate at tiie last session; and about the time of the adjournment of Congress a paper bearing the signature of the Postmaster General, and styled " An Ad- dress to the people of the United States," issued from the office of the Offi- cial Journal, in which paper the Postmaster General notices the fact that " the committee animadvert upon this class of contracts." He speaks also of the manner in which some of these bids and acceptances were made, espe- cially those of Stockton and Neil, and of Reeside and Slaymaker. ' The additional compensation was then allowed from January 30th, 1833, at the annual rate of §3,000." The above extracts do, as far as we know, comprise all that lias been written by the Postmaster General, in defence or explanation of the trans- action under consideration. The statements therein contained are singu- larly erroneous, especially when we consider the means of knowledge in the power of those from whom they emanated, or who prepared and furnished the materials from which they were drawn. A simple narrative of the pro- gress of this negotiation, and a statement of the true condition of things, will show to the Senate, not only the truth of the present case, and the erroneous light in which it has been before represented to your committee, and to the public, but it will afibrd a fair sample of a very large class of cases, the same in principle, aftd similar in their details, in which immense sums of money have been transferred from the coffers of the public to the pockets of favored individuals. At the letting in the fall of 1831, this route was bid for, amongst other individuals, by J. F. Robinson, Oliver W. Gaines, and Robert J. Wardj their bids ranging from $2,750 to $1,990, for a daily mail. But a bid was put in, in the name of John Thruston, whom no one knew, but who was vouched for by John Ilutchins, at §1,000, for a daily mail, which bid was accepted. And there is next on file (see Doc. No. 12) a letter dated Paris, Kentucky, October 22, 1831, signed by John Thruston, requesting the Post- master General to issue the contract for carrying the mail on this route to James F. Robinson, which was acceded to, as appears by a letter from the department to Robinson, dated November 16, 1831. See Doc. No. 13. On the 3d of December, 1831, Robinson addressed a letter to the Post- master General, which proposes to increase the sjjeed on the route " so as to meet the increased speed on the routes in Ohio and Kentucky connect- ed with ity for the annual compensation of $ — in addition to ihe compensation under iny present contract^'* (See Doc. No. 14 ) And accompanying this letter is an estimate going to show that his daily line ol four horse post coaches would cost S5,250 more per annum than all that would probably be received from passengers. (See Doc. No. 15.) This is also ac- 86 1 20 c . companied with a letter from II. J. Ward, who is shown by the evidence to be a partner of Mr. Robinson in this /contract, in whii>h he refers to and reca- pitulates the calculation of expense by Robinson, and says ♦' he proposes to increase the speed of transportation so as to connect ihis line with the im- provement bids of the Oliio Company from Columbus to Cincinnati, and the Kentucky Company from Maysville to Nashville: to make tfiis connexion he must run through in fifteen hours. According to his present contract he is allowed twenty hours fir the performance of the Irip.'^ He then proceeds to enlarge upon the advantage which will accrue to tlie department and the country from this increase of speed, and also the great expense which it will cause the contractor. He says " it ivill be ucknoivledged as another evidence of the. enterprise and ability of the head (of the) department^*' and in conclusion, that an additional allowance of iS-,500 per annum would not be more than a fiiir compensation for the increase of speed. At the foot of this letter is written' tlie following note, by the representative in Congress from the district: " Read this particulajly and decide." See Doc. No. 16. This letter is dated December 4th, 1831; and on the 29th December, 1831, an order is issued from the department directing that the trip be performed in twelve hours, instead of the time set forth in the advertisement. See Doe. 17. Next follows a letter from Robert J. Ward, addressed to the Postmaster General, bearing date the 1 1th of April, 1832, in which he refers to a calcu- lation made by Mr. Robinson. He goes info a particular detail of increased expenses in consequence of the increased speed; speaks of the remarkable punctuality with which the contract has been performed, and concludes by pressing upon the department the allowance oijhitr thousand dollars a year for the daily line. And then a letter from J. F. Robinson to the Postmaster General of the 14th June, 1S32, contains an estimate of increased expense, in consequence of increased speedy which he fixes at 2>4,80O, and ends by claim- ing that the compensation ought to be increased to $4,000 a year. See Doc. 18. This is accompanied by a certificate signed by E. P. Johnson and John HutchinSf in which they vouch for the correctness of Mr. Robinson's state- ments and estimates, and say that the compensation asked is very reasonable for the services performed. See Doc. No. 19. Also a certificate by Milus W. Dickey and Robert M. Ewing, saying that they are acquainted with the line, that the property stated in ihe letter is employed, and that the additional compensation asked is reasonable. See Doc. No. 20, These papers appear to have been forwarded to the department, and ex- amined, and a letter is addressed by Mr. Brown to Mr. Robinson, dated the 6th of December, 1832, (see Doc. No. 21) saying, that the Postmaster General directs him to state that he does not reject the claim, though he cannot grant it on the ground of the calculation furnished by Mr. Ward, and adds " noejctra allowance is lawful unless it is based upon the original contract.'* He then, after stating that it was necessary to run through in 12 hours instead of 14, proceeds to say, what no person, it seems, had thought of before, ** that they had, diirijig the best season of the year for p asset} gers, to run from, Cincirmati to Georgetown in the night instead of the day.'* He then refers some special questions to J. Hutchins and J. G. Chiles for their decision, on which he says the allowance can be based. Whereupon, Mr. Robinson calls upon Messrs. Hutchins and Chiles; they certify. See Doc. No. 22. Mr. Milus W. Dickey and Robert M. Ewing again repeat in sub- stance their former certificate; See Doc, No. 23} and John Dudley certifies. f a\ [ S6 ] See Doc. No. 24. Ami thereupon the allowance of 4,000 dollars a year is made I o commence with the contract. See Doc. No. 25. In this iiej^otintion it is curious to observe on what nice points the de- partment made a stand before it would consent to grant the allowance. Mr. Brown says " no extrrt allowance is lawful unless it is based upon the orisinal c;mlract\^^ therefore, let Mr. Ilutchins and Chiles certify the ad- ditional number of teams and stages required, and the yearly cost of those teams and stages, and that will form a basis for the allowance. The law does in fact proviile that no additional allowance shall he made unless it is based upon t!ie original contract; and it also provide? that '•^ then no addi- iional compensation shall he allowed to exceed the exact proportion of the original amotud to the additional duties required.^^ Tha original contract of Robinson was to carry the mail at 1,000 dollars a year. He es- timates the stock required to run as per advertisement, 10 teams and 4 coaches; to run according to alleged increased speed, 17 teams and 8 coaches. Ex. pense of teams 600 dollars a year each; wear and tear of coaches 150 dol- lars a year each; so that by his estimate the cost, as per advertisement, would be yearly S6,600 00; additional cosi for increased speed, S4,S00 GO. So that an extra allowance which should be in ^'' the exact proportion of the original amount to the additional duties''^ (said to have been) ^^performed,^- must bear the same proportion to 4,800 dollars that 1,000 dollars bear to 6,600 dollars; this would give ^121 27 as the extent to which the law would have allowed them to go, had every thing been true as stated in these papers. But, strange as it may appear, the whole is a fabrication from beginning to end; the inducement, the details, every thing relating to it, except the mere fact of making the extra allowance, is entirely without foundation. According to the general arrangement for the transportation of the mail on all the several routes referred to in this negotiation, the speed of the mail lines on the other routes had nolliing to do \v\\\\ the speed of this, and it did not require that this .shA||||||^be at all hastened in order to give the in- terior of the State of Kenlucxy the fidl benefit of the other rapid lines. The eastern snail for the interior of the State of Kentucky entered the State at Maysville, and passed onward through Washington, Paris, and Lexing- ton, and a branch of this same mail went from Paris by Georgetown to Frankfort. The principal mail for Louisville went from Cincinnati by steamboat^ and it was only for a short time during the suspension of steam- boat navigation, that ('///y pari of the eastern mail could find ilsvvay by this route from (>incinnati to Georgetown, and this would haj)pca during the winter a}-7'a?igement only, when^ it seems by the testimony of the post- master at Cincinnati and Lexington, the mail was carried on fwrseback. P. S. Loughborough, the general agent for the department in that section of the Union, on his examination before the committee, says: See Doc. No. 26. " It is my impression that the eastern mail for the interior of Kentucky has usually entered the State by way of Maysville, and thence goes on through the Stale. Another msil, which goes to another part of the St.ite of Ken- tucky, passes through Cincinnati to Louisville, usually by steamboat. When tbe l)oats do not run, the mail is sent by Cincinnati to Georgetown, I be- lieve." Wm. Burke, (See Doc. No. 27) the postmaster at Cincinnati, testifies, that t 86 J 22 for eighteen days afler the 1st of Jan. 1832, the eastern mail for Louisville waa ssnt through by Georgetown; that on tlie iStii clay of January the steamboat commenced running from Cincinnati oute before you went to see Mr. Roy about it?" Answer. *' I cannot say that they did." Ques- tion. "Can you say that they did not?" Answer. *•! was told that Mr. Roy had this contract, and I went to see him, and got it." After some hesi- tation, and a suggestion that the truth must be told, he added, ♦' I was told by a person in the department to go to Roy. It was Mr. Brown who told me to apply to Roy." Thus a new route was created, joined to a longer dis- tance, separated in the contract from the other part, and the brother-in-law of the Qfficer who superintended the advertisements of the contracts is inform- ed, by this officer, that he must call on the contractor. He does so, and re- ceives the contract. The sum allowed to Mr. T. is §200, for carrying a distance of fifteen milee a mail of which he says, " It might weigh fifteen pounds, sometimes more, sometimes less; he cannot say, but guesses it would weigh fifteen pounds." It was carried in a stage for passengers, on a route where, for a number of years, a stage had run to carry passengers, and was still running, and to whiph Mr. Tillow was thus to establish a rival line; and this amount is con* siderably beyond the relative proportion of the whole distance of the route 956, as bid for by Mr. Roy. But Mr. Roy probably found his compensa- tion in other portions of this contract. But this recipient of the favor of the department has not been left to his original grant. Favors have been extended to him without his asking for them. His service has been increased from twice a week to three times, and then to six limes; and his pay from §200 to S300, and then to ^600, which is a very convenient addition to the profits of a rival line of two horse stages running 15 miles. For these additions and extras Mr. Tiliow never applied; he did not know that the allowance v/as to be increased; and when the service was in- creased, he did not inquire what was to be the additional compensation. All that matter was attended to by another, on whom he relied with perfect safety. The first he "knew of what would be paid to hi^n was vyhen he got his pay." The committee v^ere desirous of learning how this increase of service and compensation happened to be made on such a route.^ Mr. Tillow informed them that " the people petitioned for it daily; the Postmaster General ordered it so; and I got in proportion, being $600; I never saw the petitions." The committee thereupon called for the petition and other papers on the subject, which were exhibited. They consisted of a petition, a letter from the Hon. S. Condict, and an envelop, with an endorsement in the hand- writing of Mr. Brown. The petition sets out a desire to have a mail daily, but does not ask to have the contract or the service of Mr. Tillow extended. It states that "the subscribers have conversed with Mr. John Fine, a res- pectable and irustworthy man, who now, and for several j'ears pnst, has run « daily stage for carrying passengers between the aforesaid places, and find he is willing to carry the mail, for the four days on which no mail is now [ 86 ] 28 carried, direct from Newark, through Belleville and Paterson,up and down each day, for two hundred dollars a year; and, if desired, he will carry it every day in the week (Sundays excej)ted) for the same price," And they ** petition ti)at the mail may be carried between the aforesaid places, up and down daily; and that a contract may be made for that purpose with the said John Fine." The petition, then, was no^ for an increase of service on Mr. Tillow's contract, nor for an increase of expense; but was an offer to have it carried daily (Sundays excepted) for the same sum which ivas given to "^nilow for carrying it twice a week. Yet this petition was made the pretence, by the department, for trebling the pay of the brother-in-law of Mr. Brown. The letter of Mr. Condict was written merely to enclose the petition. But the endorsement on the wrapper, in the handwriting of Mr. Brown, and the sanction of the Postmaster General added to it, serve to explain the mode of operation in this matter. This endorsement is without date, and in the following; words: *'956 N. J. Wm. Tillovv,.of Newark, contractor, New- ark to Paterson, 2 VV. S. Newark is the largest town in the State, and Patersoii the principal manufacturing town, distance 15 miles. , Interme- diate offices yield — Belleville, - - gl66 91 Acquackanock, - 46 2S Together, - - $213 19 They desire a daily mail. Shall it run three times a week till the l9t of May, and then six times a week." To this is added, in the handwriting of the Postmaster General, **Lret it be done." And then there is an endorsement in these words, "Contractor and Postmaster, Newark and Paterson, written to 2d February,. 1832." Now, it so happens that the petition is dated « February 4th, 1832," and the letter of Mr. Condict the 8th of March, 1832. The petition was granted, it would soem, two days before it was signed, and one month and six days at least before it was received; and granted, not by making a con- tract with Mr. Fine, for four day?, or for the whole week at S200, but by adding $400 to the compensation of Mr. Tillow. Paper and Twine. The committee made some inquiries as to the manner of furnishing wrap- ping paper and twine for the use of post officx^s. They have not proceeded so far in this investigation as might be desirable, but sufficient has been done to satisfy them that the most economical mode has not been fol- lowed in regard to it. Some of the offices have been supplied by contract, or rather by an ordei- of the department, without public notice, and with- out competition. Oihers by purchases made by the postmaster, or by some person connected with him in the office. The latter, mode has, for some time past, been the practice at the post office in the city of New York. From the statements made by the officers at that city, it appears that thai of- fice has been furnished with a better paper, and at a much less price than those offices wliich have been supplied by private contract. Mr. Barnabas Bates (See Doc. 33, Ans. 8) states, in his deposition, that he purchased wrapping paper for the use of the New York office. He says, "I have bought some for @2,25, some for $2,50, some for ;^3, and the highest wa3 for )S3,75per ream." Mr. Bates was shown a sample of paper marked by the 29 r 86 ] committee, No. 7., which is proved to have been furnished the Providence post office by the contractors at Boston, who is of opinion it is worlli $2,85 per ream, for which the department pays $5 per ream to the contractor. On the — day of April, 1S29, Nathaniel Greene, a printer of a partizan paper in the city of Boston, and one of the contractors who furnished paper jind twine, was appointed postmaster at that place. See Doc. 34. About that time he tran-sferred his interest in tlic Boston Statesman to his brother, Charles G. Greene; See Doc. 35; and, as tiicy state, the contract with tiie Post Office Department passed also (as an appnrLenance to the printing establishment, or otherwise) to Charles. Although the statement of Mr. Derby, (See Doc. 36) in his deposition hereto annexed, as well as the peculiarity of the language used in giving notice of the transaction, seem to cast a suspicion ov^er it, still it is not the intention of the committee to impugn or question the validity of the transfer. The following is a copy of the notice referred to: *' Nathaniel Greene has this day retired from, and Charles G. Greene has acceded to the firm of True and Greene.^ The Boston Statesman will henceforth be published by Charles G. Greene, at the office of True^and Greene, Merchant's Hall, Boston. " Benjamix True, <' Natuaniel Greene, <* Charles G. Gbeenb. "May 5, 1S29." It also apjjears in evidence that some time after this Nathaniel Greene, the postmaster, became the partner of a Mr. Emersnn in a paper mill, (See Doc. 37, 49 and 56) and manufactured paper for Charles G. Greene, (the ostensible contractor under the foregoing assignment,) who furnished various postmasters with the paper manufactured by Greene and Emerson; and the postmaster, Nathaniel Greene, certified to the department that the paper fur- nished hy Charles was of the quality stipulated in the contract. Notvvith- etanding the inspection and certificate of the postmaster, it is proved that some of this paper, so manufactured, furnished, and certified, was unfit] fof use, and was returned to the contractor. These transactions had become so notorious as to draw public attention to them, as appe.nrs by the deposition of Mr. Charles H. Lock, (See Doc. 38) who testifies that Nathaniel Greene said to him that *'such a fuss was made about his (Greene's) owning a paper mill and furnishing paper to the Government while he was postmaster, that he would sell his share in the mill or let it to Mr. Emerson," which he accordingly did a few weeks past; and as the postmaster now seems to be convinced of the impropriety of being contractor and certifying officer to the paper made and furnished by himself and partner, the committee trust ihat similar improprieties will not occur again in that quarter. The committee do not mention these facts for the purpose of criminating the postmaster, but to show the necessity of constant vigilance in the department, and the great impropriety of permitting its officers to be concerned or connected in contracts with it. The inquiries of the committee in regard to paper and twine were mostly confined to Boston and Providence. What quality of paper is used at other offices and furnished by other contractors, is not known to the committee. We have the testimony of several dealers in paper as to price in Boston, [ 86 ] 30 which are appended to this report; See Doc. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43; and we have also a sample of the paper furnished the olTice at Providence, proved by the testimony of Robert H . Barton, who stated he had been the mail clerk in that office since the eighth day of July last, and had been a clerk in that office for one year previous to that time; and that the sample of paper marked No. 7 is the kind of paper that v;as used in the office when he commenced the mailing of letters, and was continued to be used until about one month since, when the paper marked No. 6 was received; and that similar paper to No. 7, if not the same, wa,s used previous to his being the mail clerk. This paper was shown by the committee to several dealers in paper, who valued it as follows : Martin Robinson - - $3 Thos, Jefferson Branch - 2 J. C. Brown, bookseller - 3 William Parker (See Doc. 44) 3 Moses Grant, a large dealer in paper (See Doc. 45) - 2 Barnabas Bates, of New York 2 Making an average estimate of two dollars and sixty cents per reamo. Moses Grant, the largest dealer in paper in the city of Boston, valued the several samples of paper, as shown him by the committee, as follows : No. op per ream ^ 50 <« « V 25 '' *' 3 of Providence \ 00 « <• ' of Boston. 00 " '< 25 " '( 1, %\ 25 No. 6, $3 00 No. 11, $2 50 2, 1 75 7, 2 00 13, 2 50 3, 2 50 8, 2 50 14, 2 75 4, 3 00 9, 2 50 15, 2 75 orgs 00 5, 3 00 10, 2 75 From all the evidence on the subject, (See Doc. 46, 47, 48, 52) it appears to the committee that paper is now, and for several years last past has been manufactured and sold from twenty to thirty-three and a third per cent. less than formerl)'; but there has not been a concurrent reduction in the price 6t paper furnished by contractors.. The same price is now paid to contractors that was formerly given, when it was twenty to thirty-three and a third pef cent, higher. It is apparent that the contractors make large profits on ihe paper furnished by them. These contracts are only orders of the department, directiRg the favored person to furnish paper, blanks and twine, on the terms and conditions named in the order, and are not obligatory on the department for any longer time than the officers of the department think proper to consider them so. The department is at liberty to abrogate the order at any time^ giving reasonable notice to the contractor. The committee are aware this is but a small matter, compared with other transactions of the department: notwithstanding, they consider it better to curtail unnecessary expenses than to discontinue mail routes that are useful and convenient to the business community. The abrogating of these orders, and obtaining supplies of paper and twine, either through the postmasters themselves or by fair and open competition of individuals, would, in the opinion of the committee, save money to the Government, without inflict- ing injury on the public, or producing any change in the business, pros- perity, or facilities of the people. The committee believe that the paper now furnished by conlractors is of 31 C 86 1 a better quality than that furnished the post office at Providence for some time past. Of this belter quality, William Parker testifies he sold to C. G, Greene, in October last, a quantity at $3 per ream; and Mr. Haywood tes- tifies that he sold to Hill and Barton at 83 12 per ream; for which Mr. Greene and Hill and Barton received from the department $5 per ream. This appears to the committee to be paying excessive commission to favored printers for the transaction of the business, and should be corrected. It appears that the Greenes supply about one thousand reams of wrapping paper, and Hill and Barton three hundred and fifty reams per annum. The price allowed by the department to Hill and Barton and to True and Greene for twine, was forty-five cents per pound. And it is proved by John Edwards, (See Doc. 51) that he manufactured the best quality of twine for the contractors at Boston, from the 27th February, 1S30, to SlstDecembsr, 1831, at 80 cents per pound. Since that time he has charged 334 cents per pound. That he annually sold True and Greene and Ciiarles H. Greene about twelve hundred dollars' worth per annum; and that he had also sold Hill and Barton to the amount of five hundred dollars in all. Ordinary twine, it is understood by the committee, may be purchased from 20 to 25 cents per pound, and cotton twine about the same price. What proportion of the best twine, and what proportion of ordinary, the several accounts of the contractors do not state. The Messrs. Greene state they furnished none but that manufactured by Mr. Edwards. On reference to the accounts of these contractors for two years past, it appears that the Greenes furnished about eighteen hundred dollars' worth per annum, and Hill and Barton about fourteen hundred pounds of twine, amounting to about $630 per annum. In regard to printing for the department, the committee have but little to add to their former report. They made such inquiries previous to that re- port, as to satisfy their minds that the amount paid for printing proposals for carrying the mail was a large, and, as they believed, a great proportion of it an unnecessary expenditure. But your committee possessing little know- ledge on that subject, appointed three printers in the city of Washington to make an examination and report. They reported (See Doc. 53) that they had *' taken the accounts for advertising proposals for contracts for the year 1832 as they stand charged, and have ascertained what the actual cost of advertising the same quantity of matter the same number of times, (that is to say,) onee a week in the National Intelligencer, would have been, and submit the results to the committee, viz.: The amount paid the Globe - . . . §8,386 50 Actual charge for the same in the National Intelligencer 2,763 37| Making a difference of §5,623 12^ Reeside's Contract — Hagerstown to McConnellsburg. The contract of James Reeside for carrying the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg, which was noticed in the former report of your commit- tee, has since become the subject of much public discussion. The atten- tion of the committee was again callerl to it; they have re-examined it with much care and labor, and they here* resent, somewhat in detail, all the in- formation which they have been able to collect, whether from document* or the examination of witnesses, which seems at all important to the cor- rect and full understanding of the transaction. Andrew Lindsay and Daniel Shaeffar were the contractors on this rwt j C 86 3 32 prior to the 1st day of January, 1S32: and Shaeffer, (See Doc. No. 54) in his depositon, wbinh vv;is taken by the committee on the 18th of Nov^ 1S34, says, that they got uiuler their contract S600 a year, and carried the mail in two horse post coaches, excej)t about. nine months of the last, when the}' carried it in four horse post coaches. " We thought," says the witness, '• it would make a good route for passengers, and we did carry a great man}';'* he add^, that they put in a l)id for it agnin in the fall of 1831, .it a price which he does not recollect, hut refers to the books of the department. It will be recollected tiiat this route was struck off to James Recside at the lettings in October, 1S31, at $40 a year; and that, instead of S40, he was paid by the department $1,400. The Postmaster General, in a letter of the I/5th of May, 1834, written in answer to a call by this committee for information on that subject, gives the following explanatory statement, which we quote at large, as it will the bet- ter enable the Senate to a])ply the evidence to which we shall afterwards refer. Having answered an inquiry as to another route^ the Postmaster General says: "In answer to your further call for a * statement of the bids and contract from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg,' I have the honor to state that said route (No. 1,231) was advertised to run three times a week in four horse post coaches, distatice twenty-six miles. The proposals received for this route were as follows, viz. : *' Fose and Wash, S600, or S450 in two horse stages, <400; and the words ^^ ninety -nine dollars ninety-nine dollars,^^ from what he intended to be 1^1,999. It being deemed expedient, on consideration of applications to the department to that effect, to have the route run daily, being s connecting 33 [ S6 ] route between t'.vo important daily routes, he was directed, verbally, to run the route daily, and told that the error, and the amount of the compensation far the whole service, would become the subject of future consideration. "Subsequently, and soon after he commenced the service, the following statement was reported to me by the chief clerk of the department, then in charge of the office of mail contracts, who made it from the verbal statement of Mr. Reeside, then present at the department. " 'No. 1,231, from Hagerstown, Maryland, to McConnellsburg, Pennsyl- vania, twenty-six miles, three times a week, four-horse post coaches — • James Reeside, at S40. Mr. Reeside says the bid was put in by mistake, as will appear from the small sum. He intended to have made it ^1,400, and to run daily, and so marked it witii bis pencil; but the clerk who copied it for him mistook his pencil mark, supposing the 1 was belonging to his dollar sign, and the at the right hand he overlooked, or considered it merely a point. "The Postmaster General gave him a verbal order to run daily, and re- served for consideration the correction of the error. He has run from the beginning of the year daily. Shall he be allowed to correct the error, and receive Sl)400? His distance is increased ten miles. No other bid.' "On this I endorsed ' grunted,'' and a contract, as appears by the files, was made out accordingly. " ' In the above statement there is an error, for there were several other bids, and the error must have arisen from the circumstance that three other bids which were accepted to Mr. Reeside, were on the same paper; to neither of which was there any other bid than his. It must have been under the impression that this was one of them, when it was noted ^ no other hid.'' " Immediately upon this discovery, the contractor was notified that the whole matter would be re-examined, and such reduction made from his pay on the route, from the commencement of the contract, as to bring the com- pensation to the amount at which it would have been fixed when he was permitted to correct the error, had the other bids been examined at the same time. "The contract was made with James Reeside, to carry the mail from Hagerstown, Maryland, by Welch run, Pennsylvania, and Mercersburg, to McConnellstown, daily, in four horse post coaches, (and it appears by state- ments on file, that it is carried by Greencastle, increasing the distance five miles each way, making ten miles additional travel each day,) at $1,400 per annum, from 1st January, 1832, to 31st December, 1835. "In reply to your farther inquiry, I have to state that there has been no extra allowance upon this contract; but there has been a reduction of the annual compensation upon it to the sum of {5700, and a reduction of the .service to tri-weekly, ordered in November, 1833, (to have effect from 1st January, 1834,) and reported to the Senate in the list of curtailments of mail facilities, 3d March, 1834. This reduction was made, not upon any examination into the circumstances of the original letting and contract, (such examination was not made, nor known to be required,) but upon a report of the postmaster at Hagerstown, that a portion of the daily service on this route could, without serious public inconvenience, be dispensed with. "I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, «« Hon. F. Grundy, " W. T. BAKRY. " (7A. Com. on the P. 0. and P. Roads.'' [ S6 ] 34 ll& The statemen here represented to have been made by James Reeside to the PostmastertGeneral, appears to your committee to bear the stamp of improbability upon its very face. It is not easy to conceive how the clerk of Mr. Reeside, in copying his bid, could mistake $1,400 for $40, if that were indeed the only improbability to be overcome before the state- ment could be credited ; but in the concluding paragraph of the same sentence occurs what he calls another errror, and it is equally extraordinary, where $l,999fis said to be mistaken for $99. It is remarkable in another particu- lar, if it be a mistake in copying. It is more consistent with itself than that which it is said was the true paper, and which was to be substituted in its place. If the bid were $40 for carrying a tri-weekly mail, then, according to the pro rata established by the present Postmaster General, the daily mail should bear the proportion to that sum which 7 does to 3; and if $40 be the price of the tri-weekly, the daily mail should be $93 33^, within $5 67 of the improved bid. But if the bid for a tri-weekly mail were $1,400, then, at the same ratio, the daily would be $3,266 66|, differing $1,366 66| from the alter- native of that which is alleged to have been the intended bid. But the Postmas- ter General says in the paper above set out, that Reeside alleged that both alternatives of that intended bid were to apply to daily lines. This would, if true, imply a third mistake in the copying clerk, or an impossible con- struction of the bid, which is clear enough and accurate in its general language: " we do agree to carry the mail on route number 1,231, from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg, via Welsh run and Mercersburg, as adver- tised, for the yearly compensation of $40; or we will carry the same so as to connect the mail at each place with the great eastern and western mails, daily f in four-horse post coaches, at the yearly compensation of ninety-nine dollars ninety-nine dollars." The word daily could not have been intended to connect with the first section of the sentence. Any individual, however uninformed in the rules of construction, would at once perceive that it could not be so connected. But one fact is decisive on the subject; the first clause of the sentence proposes to carry the mail ' ' as advertised," and it was ad- vertised to run tri weekly; and it is so stated by the Postmaster General in the above cited paper. But what is still more decisive on the subject is the fact, that on the 15th of October, 1831, Reeside executed a contract, by which he bound himself to carry the mail on this route tri-weekly for §40 a year. See Doc. 59. On the whole, it would seem to your committee that the pretexts used by this individual were so gross and palpable that it would require nothing but a perusal to expose them. Still, as the contractor is posi- tive in his assertions that the bid was put in by mistake, and as the Postmaster General in his beforementioned address also joins in the assertion, your committee thought it their duty to take the examination of several witness- es on that point, the substance of whose evidence they will now proceed to detail. Daniel Shaeffer (See Doc. 54,) testifies that he and Andrew Lindsay were the formercontractors on this route; that they put in a bid again for it in the fall of 1831; and he concludes in these words: ♦' I remained in Washington until after the bids were given in: and the next day after they were all put in, I met Reeside, and said to him, well, Colonel, I suppose you will take my route from me? Yes, said he, I will take it in spite of every body. I put in for that route at $40 for a tri-weekly mail, and for a daily mail ^90, or 35 [ 56 J ^90 odd. You need not be uneasy about it; I will establish the route and give you as much stock on it as you want. This was after the bids were all given ie. and before the contracts were cried off." C. W. McKinstry (See Doc. 55,) testifies that he was in the room in the Ge- neral Post Office when James Reeside's bid on the route from HagerstoAvn to McConnellsburg was announced; that «' at thetimeof lettingthis contract there was a good deal of talk among the contractors as to how Reeside could take it so low as $40. Mr. Reeside said, (I think it was in the room, but before I left the General Post Office,) that the reason of taking it so low w;is that he intended to connect that route with the Eclipse Line established through the Glades to Wheeling. I do not recollect who it was that wa? speaking to him about it; his observation was not made to me, but being generally addressed to those near him, I heard, as I suppose others did." Elliot T. Lane (See Doc. 56,)beingsworn, and the following interrogatory propounded: "Have you at any time had a conversation with James Reeside, concerning his contract for carrying the mail from Hagerstown to McConnells- burg? If so, state what he said" — Answers, " The time I am not certain, but I know it was soon or immediately after the contract was given out, in the fall of 1831. He asked me what 1 supposed he had taken the contract at. 1 told him I supposed he would get an increased price, as his stock was generally good, and stock on that road was not good. He then stated he had put in a bid, it was forty or forty-five dollars for every other day, and ninety, or somewhere in ninety for an every day stage. We had a good deal of conversation about the contractors on the national road. He was a good deal excited, and said he had not been used well by them. He said that rather than not have got that cross line to intersect the line at McConnellsburg, he would have given the department five hundred dollars His object appeared to be to have a direct line along that road to intersect the Wheeling line." Jacob Grove (See Doc. 57,) heard James Reeside say that he had contracted to carry the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg; and states the conver- sation as follows : " When Culbertson and I sold out our contract to Siders and Lewis, we were talking about it, we got 295 dollars from Hagerstown to Chambersburg, three times a week. We said it was not much. Reeside said he carried the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg for forty or forty-one dollars, I forget which." This was about two years ago. Silas Harry (See Doc. 58,) testifies that he had a conversation with Reeside on the subject, and says, " a short time after the contract was taken, he told me he had taken the contract at forty dollars. I asked him how it was he could carry the mail for that price. He told me he would carry it for nothing sooner than miss it. By having stock on that line, he would have a feeder for his great line from Chambersburg to Pittsburg, in which he was then or about to be engaged." This evidence puts the matter beyond doubt, if any doubt could have ex- isted on a bare inspection of the face of the paper, that the statement of mis- take on which the Postmaster General raised the allowance to James Reeside on this route, from forty dollars a year to one thousand four hundred dollars a year, was a sheer fabrication got up for the purpose. So, also, the repre- sentation of 0. B. Brown, the chief clerk, <* that there was no other didy" when the records of the department show that there were six other bids on that route. [ 86 ] 36 This latter error the Postmaster General admits in his letter above set forth, and he says that "immediately upon this discovery, the contractor was notified that tlic whole matter would be ro-examined, and such reduc- tion made from the pay on this route, from the commmencent of the con- tract, as to bring the compensation to the amount at which it would have been fixed when he was permitted to correct the error, had the other bids been examined at the same time." It does not appear, however, that this matter has been re-examined, and the money thus improperly applied to the use of this contractor, or any part of it, reclaimed. In the account of James Reeside, made out for this com- mittee by the department, and received on the 8th day of November, 1834, we find the credits for transportation on this route as follows: (See Doc. 1.) April 1, 1832, Same date, July 1, 1832, Same date, October 1, 1832, January, I, 1833, April 1, 1833, July 1, 1833, October 1, 1833, January 1, 1834, Same date. ^10 340 10 340 S.^O 350 350 350 350 10 340 Making for 2 years' transportation, . . . $2,800 The bid of Lindsay and ShaefTer, for the same time, and carry- ing the mail in the same manner, daily, would have amount- ed to ...... S),200 That of Jos. Boyd to . . . . Si, 000 On the 1st of April, 1834, after the mail ceased to be carried daily, and became tri-vveekly, the account of Reeside is credited thus: Hagerstown to McConnellstown, . . . . glO Three times a week in four horse post coaches, per quarter, 165 And on the 1st of July it is credited, . . . 175 Being, for 6 months, ..... $350 Or at the rate of S700 a year, for a tri-weekly mail, in four horse post coaches, Lindsay and ShaefTer bid to carry it in like manner at iS300 a year; Joseph Boyd at §300; and Thomas H. Boyd at $250, The Postmaster General, in his letter above set forth, says that <'The contract was made with James Reeside to carry the mail from Hagerstown, Maryland, by Welch run and Mercersburg, to McConnellsburg, daily, in four horse post coaches, [and it appears by statements on file, that it is carried by Greencastle, increasing the distance five miles each way, making ten miles additional travel each day,] at S 1,400 per annum, from Ist January, 1832, to 31st December, 1835." To the clause enclosed by the brackets, your com- mittee would now call the attention of the Senate. The mail was in fact carried by Greencastle, as staled m the parenthesis. 37 [ 86 ] but it is there so slated as to convey the idea that that is so much additional service rendered by the contractor to the department. Such, however, is by no means the case; we find no order of the department directing such change of route, and no service was in fact rendered by it; no mail was car- ried by Ihe contractor to Greencastle. His stages were sent that way for his own convenience merel}'', and in performing this circuit of five miles he left the post roiite^ and the post office at Welsh run Vv^ithout a mail, ex- cept as it was supplied by the postmaster, who went to Mercersburg occasion- ally for his share of the mail. On this subject your committee examined John Watson, the postmaster at Greencastle, (See Doc. 60,) who stated that, "there was a stage, said to be a mail stage, which cam.e round by Greencastle, commencing in January, 1S32, and ran for some time, say a year,and continues yet to run ; I see it going through," He adds that, "' there was a mail in Fe- bruary, 1S32, brought by this stage; and quit some time in the same year. In running through Greencastle the stage would not pass the Welsh run post office, but come into Mercersburg." And Elliot T. Lane, (See Doc. 56,) who says, '• for some time before I ceased to act as postmaster at Mercersburg, the postmaster at Welsh run, or his depu- ty, used to come about once a week for his mail, and take it from my office. I understood the reason why this was done was, that the stage ran around by Greencastle, and did not come past the Welsh run post office. Sometimes in the winter it was not safe for the mail to come by the direct road from Hagerstown, owing to ice and high water in the Conogocheage creek." Thus it will be seen that if the stages do run round by Greencastle, they do it, not in pursuance of their contract, and not for the benefit of the de- partment, but of the contractor himself. (See Doc, 65.) But in truth the mail on this route has, since about the 1st of December, 1833, been carried on horseback^ and not in four horse post coaches. Lane testifies that he ' ' received a letter from the department, dated the 22d No- vember, 1833, stating that they had given permission to the contractor to carry the mail on horseback occasionally; after the receipt of this letter the mail was, for a short time, carried sometimes on horseback, and sometimes in stages; then it was carried entirel}' on horseback, and continued till I ceased to act in the following April, no mail coming by the stages, which still continued to run." And Waison says, "about harvest last, say in July, I saw a boy on horse- back who told me he was carrying the mail." And John Siders testi- fies (See Doc. 61,) that he commenced carrying the mail on horseback on this route on the 1st November, 1833, and that it has continued to be so carried, except for a few trips, down to the present time. Through the various pretexts and pretences above examined and exposed, there has been paid over to James Reeside of the public moneys belonging to the General Post Office, down to the 1st of July, 1834, inclusive, upon that route, S2,932, for which no service whatever has been rendered. The bid of Reeside was to carry the mail at ^40 a year, triweekly, in four horse j;ost coaches, or daily at S99 a year. He carried it daily irom the 1st of January, 1833, to the 1st of December, 1833, and allowing him one month's pay for discontinuance, would make, in two years, at $99 a year, - $198 riI4i ^a1-* 20 [ 86 ] 38 He then carried itfrom that time to the 1st of July, 1834, tri-weekly, on horseback, for which allow him the rate at which he bid to carry it in four horse post coacheg, 40 dollars per year, - He would be entitled, in the aggregate, to ' ' ' ' '^.^ ?!? And he has received instead • '^^ Making the excess - - _ - - - -..".." IMS- Which is, in every respect, equivalent to a gift to this individual, tainted with this additional vice, that the contract has been taken from the fair and legal contractor, who was entitled to it by law and usage, and has been given to this individual, who, upon no principle of truth or fairness, was entitled to receive it. See Doc. 89. Reeside's Contract — Bedford to Washington, Pa. James Reeside was also the contractor to carry the mail on the route from Bedford to Washington, Pennsylvania, tri-wtekly, in four horse post coaches, from the 1st of January, 1832, to the 31st December, 1835, at $2,900 a year; (See Doc. 90;) and he was paid for carrying the mail daily on the same route, from the 1st of January, 1832, to the 1st December, 1833, the addi- tional sum of $3,866 68 a year, for one year and eleven months^ with one month's pay added for discontinuing, making the whole allowance, for assu- med extra service on this route, $7,733 36. • Your committee examined several witnesses, who proved conclusively that the mail was carried upon this route daily no more than about eight tnonths\ that is, from the early part of January, 1832, to the beginning of September, in the same year. William Lewis, (See Doc. 62,) who was the agent of Reeside, and superintended this line from the 1st of April to the first of October, 1833, is the most exact in his evidence concerning it. He says, that shortly after the commencement of the contract in January, 1832, the mail began to run daily on that route, and <' continued until a few days after the \st of September of same year, when half the line was with- drawn, leaving it a tri-weekly line, at which it continues at present.^' The amount of extra pay to which this contractor would have been enti- tled for the eight months, during which he carried the mail daily, accord- in"- to the manner in which a. pro rata allowance is estimated by the pre- sent Postmaster General, is 82,644 45. He has received $7,733 66 He has thus been paid, under this contract, for services which he did not per- form, S5,089 21. In this sum is included the month's paj^ for disconti- nuance, to no part of which was he entitled, as he discontinued the daily mail at his own option without the order of the department. The order to discontinue appears to have been made fifteen months after the actual dis- continuance took place. During the year 1832 Abraham Harback (See Doc. 63,) was a partner in the contract on this route from Bedford to Washington, and was entitled to his share of this extra allowance, if any were in fact made as a consideration for extra services; and it will be seen that his interest in that line continued during the whole time that this mail was carried daily, so also did that of Lewis, but neither of them ever heard of the extra allowance. Harbach, after stating that he was interested in that contract during the year 1832, and that James Reeside and Samuel R. Slaymaker conducted the business and received the pay from the department, in answer to the enquiry as to howr 39 [ 86 ] much they accounted for with the company, says, *'jal income upon this route of §3000, without any service whatever rendered, or any expense incurred as an equivalent. Here then is a case of a private contract made by the department with this individual, without notice of any kind to the public inviting compe- tition, and a sum is paid him for stipulated services for one third part of which he procures an individual living on the spot to render those services, and exonerate him froiii all trouble or cost on account of it. If an adver- tisement calling for proposals, had been inserted but a single day in the Bed- ford papers, and time had been given for bidders to come forward with their offers, there is no doubt that the department could have procured this ser- vice to be rendered as cheaply as Mr. Reeside has procured it. Why was no 43 [ S6 ] this clone? The law requires it, and a true and just administration of the public funds for the public benefit would seem also to require it. The commitiee have already referred to two certificates on file in tiie depart- ment; one of J. H. liofius, the postmasier at Beclford, which is set out above, and the other, of like tenor, by Thomas Vickory, postmaster at Allum Bank, in which they certify that James Clarke, contractor for car- rying the mail from Cumberland to Blair's Gap, has duly delivered the mail at their respective offices, from the 1st of January to the 27th of April, 1832. Yet, at the same time, the account of James Reeside is credited at the rate of iS4500 a year, for carrying the mail on the same route, from ike first ofjlpril, 1832, twenty seven days before Jas. Clarke ceased to carry it. Doc. No. 1). The amount thus paid to Reeside for the twenty-seven days that James Clarke carried the mail, and that he, Reeside, did not carry it, is S331 9G, and is m.ore by $5Q 90 than tliat legal and faithful contractor was to receive for actually cca^ryimx the mail, through fair and foul, for a ^^'hole year. It further appears, by the letters of Hufius to the Postmaster General, above set forth, that Reeside did not begin to carry the mail three times a week on horsebaek until the 2SthofMay. For these thirty-one days, between the 27th of April and the 28th of May, he received v&373 55. But if Clarke, the original contractor, had continued to carry it for the same time, and precisely in the same manner, he would 'have been entitled to no more than s$^3 25. Again, from the 2Sth of May to the 26th of July, Mr. Reeside carried the same mail three tim.es a week on horsebncky and received, for this service, $733 45; and John VV. Weaver, who was a sub-contractor on this route under Reeside, testifies that the mail was car- ried, from the last of October to the first of April, 1832, on horseback. For this, Reeside received at the rate of §4,500 a year, until the commence- mencemerit of his ea-Zra allowance on the 1st of March, J 833, and from that till the 1st of April, at the rale of S7411 73 a year; making for these five months, of a horse mail, §2049 94. For all the time that the mail was carried by Reeside on this route, on horseback, between the 1st of April, 1832, and the 1st of April, 1833, we can make a very exact comparison between the compensation received by hiin and that received by the original contractor, James Clarke, or which might have been paid to him, under his contract, for the same and sirailar services. It has been shown that Reeside received, before he commenced to carry the mail, or perform any service, from the 1st to the 27th April, 5-331 9G From the 27th of April to the 2Sth of May, while the mail was carried by him toeekly on horseback . . _ 373 55 From the 2Sth of May to the 26lh of July, during which it was carried on horseback tri-weekly, - _ - . 733 45 From the Ist of November, 1832, to the 1st of April, 1833, during which time the mail was again cdriied on horseback tri-ioeekly ------- 2,049 94 Making in the aggreg'^te, for carrying the mail on horseback within that year . - . - . - i?3,4SS 90 If James Clark, the original contractor, had performed the same service precisely, he would have been entitled, upon Uie basis of his contract, )o have been paid the following sums : From the 1st to the 27th of April, 1832; while nothing loas done, he would have been entitled to nofhimr. [ S6 ] 44 For carrying the mail weekly, from the 27lh of April to the 28th of May, at ^275 a year - - - - - §23 25 Tri-weekly on horseback, from the 28th of May to the 26th of July, at $125, which is three times his contract price, the mail being tri-weekly instead of weekly - - - - SS -"^O Tri-weekly on horseback, from the 1st of October, 1832, to the 1st of April, 1833, at S725 a year - - - - 343 75 Making in the aggregate g455 50 Which sum of $455 50 is all that James Clarke would have been en- titled to receive, on the basis of his contract, for the same service for whicli Reeside was paid $3,488 90. And James Clarke, to have entitled himself to receive, on the basis of his contract, the money which has been paid to Reeside for his 7iine months^ service, must have performed the like service for Jive years rane months and twenty days. This difference is too great to rest upon principles of equal justice. Nor does this transaction stop here: Reeside, by his agent, or sub-contractor, after the 26th of July, 1832, car- ried the mail on this route, when it suited his own convenience, in coaches, and when it suited him better he carried it on horseback. It is perfectly evident that his own pleasure and his own convenience were alone consulted on that subject. And on the 14th of February, 1833, at a time when it is proved, by both Weaver and Lewis, that he was carrying the mail on horseback, we find the following letter addressed by him to the Postmaster General. (Doc. No. 73.) ^'February 14, 1S33. ''Sir: The citizens of Bedford, Pennsylvania, desire that a daily mail be run between Bedford and Hollidaysburg, the latter being a place of great importance, being at the junction of the Pennsylvania canal and railroad, and an intercourse of communication being very great between the two points. J will agree to perform the service at a pro rata allowance, and put the arrangement into effect in ten days. "Very respectfully, &c., "JAMES REESIDE. ' ''Hon. Wm. T. Barry, P. M. G." Across the paper is written, in the hand of the Postmaster General, "granted;" and Reeside is credited on the books of the department for a DAILY MAIL between Blair's Gap and Bedford, at the rate of $2,911 72 a year additional, from the 1st of March to the 1st of December, 1833, with one month additional credit for discontinuance, in all amounting to §2,434- 52. It is proved conclusively by Hofius, the postmaster at Bedford, and by Lewis, then the agent of Reeside, and his superintendent on that very line, that no such daily mail was carried during that time, though coaches may perhaps have run daily for a short time for the sake of the profit de- rived from passengers who were visiters to the Bedford Springs. Hofius says it was a tri-weekly mail — but ^^fortwo or three weeks in the seaso7i of the springs it run daily I think — I do not recollect whether they brought the mall daily, or not." And Lewis, speaking of tlie route, says "it ran every other day — it was a tri-weekly line — it never ran dail}'' at anytime to my knowledge." And it will be recollected that this witnesssuperintend- ed the route for Reeside, from the 1st of April to the 1st of October, 1833, 45 [ 86 ] the time at which Reesidfe is paid 84,500 a year for carrying the mail in four four horse post coaches Iri-weekly, and 02911 72 extra for carrying \\.daily. It was in fact carried this year tri-weekly , and it was carried on horseback to the middle of May, and the residue of the summer and fall partly in four and partly in two horse post-coaches. On this route Reeside received, from the 1st of April, 1832, to the 1st of July, 1834, including extras^ an aggre- gate sum of §12,559 52^ to but a very small portion of which he was en- titled, for any valuable services actually rendered to the department or to the public. JReeside's contract, Baltimore to Chambersburg. The route from Baltimore to Chambersburg appears to have been struck off to James Reeside, in October, 1831, at Si, 900 a year, to run daily in four horse post-coaches. In the letter of the Postmaster General, of the 3d of March, 1834, in which he professes to give all the extra allowances which have been made to contractors since the 1st of April, 1829, there is no mention of any increased allowance on this route. Nevertheless, in the account of James Reeside, furnished to this committee by the department, he is credited with transportation on this route at the rate of §3,495 a year, for two years and three months, from the 1st of January, 1832, to the 1st of April, 1834. (Doc. No. 1). To ascertain the cause of this discrepancy, your committee called for such official papers as might be in the department, relating to the matter, and were furnished with, first, a paper of the following tenor: " Mr. SuTOR, Pay Clerk. ^' The contract pay, per annum, on route No. 1388, from Baltimore to Chambersburg, is $1,900, and I find no additional allowance en- dorsed on contract. Be pleased to inform me what pay is made from the pay list on the route: James Reeside, contractor. '' S. R. H." " The amount paid on the above route is $3,495 per annum. "JNO. SUTOR. " Difference is $1,595. See order for increased expedition." 2d. A paper in the handwriting of James Reeside, having neither date nor signature, in the following words: '' Leave Baltimore daily, at 4 A. M., or after the arrival of the eastern mail from Philadelphia, arrive at Chamberburg by 8 P. M. Leave Cham- bersburg daily at 5 A. M,, or after the arrival of the western mail from Pittsburg, arrive in Baltimore by 8 P. M. By this arrangement the mail will run through each way, between Baltimore and Pittsburg, in two days, which I agreed in my proposals, for §3,490." And 3d. A scrap of paper, which appears to have been part of an en- velop, on which is written, chiefly in red ink, the following: " No. 1388, '< Baltimore to Chambersburg, the schedule is, to leave Baltimore at 4 A. M., arrive at Chambersburg the same day at 9 P. M., 17 hours, to form a connexion with the rapid line at Chambersburg, so as to run from Baltimore to Pittsburg in 52 hours: it will be necessary so to expedite as to arrive at Chambersburg by 3 P. M. Shall the expedition be ordered ?" Across which is written in black ink, in the hand of the Postmaster General, " Direct the expedition." [ 86 ] 46 This application for increased expedition and the consequent increased pay^rests entirely I'pon the allegalion, that it was necessary to arrive at Chambersburg at '6 o'clock P. M. instead of 9 P. M., the hour fixed by the schedule, in order to connect with the rapid line from Phdadelphia to Pittsburg. It is, however, the undoubted fact, that no such necessity, nor even the semblance of such necessity, ever for a moment existed. The mail from Baltimore did, it seems, by the first schedule, arrive at Chambersburg at 9 o'clock P. M. John Findley, (Doc. No. 74) the postmaster at Chambers- burg, testifies, that the^/a*/ line from Philadelphia, when it first ran, came there about 10 o'clock P. M. ; it was then changed, and arrived from 4 to 8 in the iTiorning. The earliest hour of its arrival was, therefore, one hour later than Baltimore mail before the supposed order for increased expedition; so that the no change was at first necessary in order to connect with the rapid line; and indeed, after a short time, though the precise date is not in the possession of tlie committee, the Philadelphia mail did not arrive at Chambersburg until S or 10 hours after the required arrival of the Baltimore mail, as by the original contract. There was no reason, therefore, for paying a large extra for increase of speed. Reeside, in his testimon}- before t!ie com- mittee, on the 21st of INIay last, makes out a very different case from that which is made by the files of the department. Instead of starting from Bal- timore at the same hour, and so expediting as to arrive at Chambersburg at 3 P. M. , as is there represented, he says, '' We were ordered, instead of leaving Baltimore at 3 in the morning, to hold back until 7 o'clock A. M., which made an increase of four hours in speed, our arrivals at Chambersbui^g continuing nearly the same. The reason why we kept back till 7 o'clock was, that vve might form a con- nexion with the Washington city line, by means of which the mail from that city to Pittsburg gained one day." So that Reeside, in his testimony, reverses the order entirel}^ By the order of the department, if in truth any ever issued, he was to leave Balti- more at the usual time, and arrive six hours earlier at Chambersl^urg, to perfect a connexion with the rapid line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. Reeside swears that he was to remain four hours later at Baltimore, for the purpose of forming a connexion with the Washington city mail, and that he was so to expedite as to arrive at Chambersburg at the usual hour. But it is all alike unsupported by the evidence; no increased expedition appears to have been made in any Vv'ay or any manner upon that line. (Docs. No. 75, 76, 61, 77). From the evidence it appears that the time of departure of that mail from Baltimore was very irregular during the first six months of the year lS3.i. In the latter part of July, *or the beginning of August, it became regular, leaving Baltimore at 7 o'clock, A. M., and it has continued to set out at about the same hour since that time. But instead of arriving at Chambers- "burg at 3 P. M. as is said in the papers filed in the department, or at 9 T. M. as stated by Reeside in his testimony, its average hour of arrival luas been from 11 to 13 o'alock at night, making in fact tlie same speed as per original contract; that is, through in from 16 to 17 hours John Findley, the postmaster at Chambersburg, says, "lam not certain as to th^ arrivals in 1S32, but from the first of 1S3.S it has averaged 11 at night, or over, .sometimes before, often later, once at 9, and again as late as 2. And Thomas Lindsay, who was a sub-contractor on this line at the time of this alleged increase of expedition, teslified before the committee that he 47 [ SG ] Thus it appears that the reason which was assumed fur increasing the ex- pedition on this line did not exist, and that in fact the expedition was not increased; nevertheless James Recside has received of the funds of the de- partment from thelst of Janiiarv, 1S32, to the 1st of April. 1834, $3588 75 for that assumed increase of exjTedition. TJHie above route is noticed in the report of your committee of the 9th of June last (page 12) as one in which the additional service was not worth Is cost to the public. But there was, in fact, no additional service render- ed by the contractor, and your committee was led into the error of sup- posing that there was some actual increase of expedition on that line, and by the testimony of James Reeside, above referred to. A strict examination into the true circumstances of the case have enabled them to correct that error. Route from Philadelphia io Pittsburg. The route from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh was, in 1S27, let out in three divisions. The first from Philadelphia to Karrisburg, the second to Cham- bersbiu'g, and the third to Pittsburgh; the whole distance to be run in about sixty hours, exclusive of the time that the mail was detained ai the towns of Harrisburg and Chambersburg. But in consequence of an imperfect connection of the lines at thcfo two places, there was about three days and ten hours spent on the way. In the early part of the year 1831 the wes- tern stage company, who at that time had the contract of the whole route "frotn Pliiladelphia to Pittsburgh, put on a second line of coaches, and car- ried in it the mail from city to city, which was opened on the way only at Chambersburg; and by carrying the heavy mail in the old line, the new one perfornied the whole route in about sixty hours from city to cily. This establishment of the second line of coaches, the separation of the iriail, so as to carry the principal mail in one coach and the way mail in another, as also the increased speed of the lime of the coaches carrying the principal mail, was the act of the stage company alone, and done for their own bene- fit. It was an arrangement made by men acute to discover their own in- terest, and prompt to seize on every occasion to advance it. It was proba- bly rendered necessar}' by the competition for passengers which existed be- tween them and the company established on the national road from Balti- more to Wheeling, who have a stage line parallel to theirs, and so nearly equal in its advantages that travellers would generally be determined in their clioice of routes by the expedition and accommodation afforded on the respective lines. The manner in which this line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh has been run since the 1st of April, 1831, is shown by the testi- mony of William Thompson, the agent for the stage company residing at Chambersburg. He says, (Doc. No. 78.) " Tiiere was but one daily mail from 1st of January to 1st of April, 1831 ; then there was an additional daily line called the Good Intent, which continues until the present time. From the 1st of April, 1831, the average was about 60 hours from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, for the fast line: the slow line most of the time takes three days and a half, carrying the way mail: there has been no permanent alteration in the expedition of the fast line since 1831, April 1. Sometimes it ran through in less time than others." Preparatory to the lettings in October, 1831, after the mail had been car- ried for about six months precisely in the manner that it was afterwards thought fit to carry it, and in which it is now carried, we find it advertised to run through on that route in about three days and nine houVs, instead of two days and about twelve hours, as it was tunning at the I'me the adver- [ 86 ] 48 tisement for the mail to go from Philadelphia to Pittsburg was but about one hour less than the time allowed in 1827. But the speed required by that •of 1S31 was by no means equal to that which was required in 1827, for it will be observed that'the mail was delayed at Harrisburg 6 hours, and at Chambersburg 11 hours, making a delay by the way of 17 hours; so that the mail was in fact ndverthed in 1831 to be carried more slowly on this route, if we deduct the time necessary for the change of mail at Harrisburg and Chambersburg, by at least 15 hours than it was required to be run by the contract of 1827. This is the more remarkable, when we recollect that from the 1st of April, 1831, the stage owners had voluntarily hasteneii ttje mail through in about 60 hours, at the same speed or about the same speed at which it ran by the contract of 1827; but omitting for the rapid line the stoppages on the road which had been required by that contract. Thus the experiment had been fairly tested. It was known that the mail could be carried through at the above named speed, and we may well suppose it was intended so to carry it, for before the contract of 1831 went into effect, it was so changed as to run precisely at the speed and in the manner in which it was run from the 1st of April, 1831, prior to the advertisement. Why then was this route not advertised at the speed and in the manner in v/hich it was intended it should be run? Was a different advertisement sent abroad to inform, or was it to mislead those who wished to be competitors for the contract, and thus to enable a favored individual to bid it off as adver- tised at a rate so low that he would avoid all competition, and afterwards to place it in his hands on an improved bid, at a rate far above what would have been practicable if the intended mode of transportation had been pointed out, and actual competition invited? It will be recollected that the bid to carry pursuant to the advertisement was at iiS7,000 a year daily, in four horse post coaches, from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, through in'three days and nine hours, changing at all the way offices. The improved bid, which became in effect the contract from the beginning, was to carry the mail twice a day from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, and once a day from Pittsburg by Wash- ington to Wheeling, at ^27,000 a year, which was estimated at ^25,000 a year to Pittsburg. The plan was to divide the mail; carry the way mail in one line without any exactly defined speed through in three and a half days; in the other to carry the mail from Philadelpiiia to Pittsburg, chang- ing only at one or two intermediate towns, and to stop at none but those at which changes were made, and thus by running night and day to make the distance in about 60 hours. It was certainly an advantage to the pub- lic that the mail should be thus expedited, and it was an advantage to the contractor that he should be permitted to divide the mail, and carry the way mail at a speed which might suit his convenience, and in a different eoach from that which carried the principal mail. That it was so is proved by the fact, that he had chosen of his own accord so to divide it before he was bound to do so by contract with the department. It is evident, too, that by thijf division of mail and this difference of speed, it enabled him to ac- commodate passengers in each line or coaches according to their wishes for leisure or expedition. The sum paid for transportation according to the improved bid, is therefore, in the opinion of your committee, much too large, and that it does very much " exceed the exact proportion of the original amount to the additional dvties required.'' Your committee examined two witnesses upon this subject, from whose testimony they have been able to arrive pretty nearly at the proportion which the cost and ex- pense of the respective luies bear to each other. This forms some data, 49 [ 86 ] though by no means exact, on which to found a calculation of what should have been {he increased allowance to the contractor for his second daily- mail in his rapid line. John W. Weaver was a member of "the Western Stage Company," and, of course, inteiested in this line. He appears to have possessed very full information on the subject, so far &s regarded the western part of the route; and as the part of his testimony strictly applicable to the question now un- der consideration is very concise and explicit, your committee here copy the words of the deposition. Question 5th. " VViiat was the comparative cost of original stock upon your fast and slow lines between Philadelphia and Pittsburg?" Answer. "The diflerence of the cost of stock would be, according to my calculation, as 10 to 7, consisting of the difference in the quality of the stock. This answer refers only to that part of the route from Cham- bersburg to Pittsburg, not having been interested in the other or eastern part of the route." Question Gth. " Is there any difference in the expenses of keeping and running the line.-*" Answer "None, I think." Question 7th. " What is the difference of wear and tear of stock on the two lines?" Answer. " I should think thnit the wear and tear of the " Good Intent" over the other line would be about one fourth more; that is to say, if it would cost i^SOO a team and coach in the Telegraph Line per year, it would cost i^lOOO in the Good Intent." And John H. Foster, a person who has been long in the employment of the stage company on the eastern part of this line, in speaking of the com- parative cost of running the two lines on that end of the route, says, (see Doc. No. 79,) "The fast line is severer on horses and coaches considerable; I would say one fourth more, perhaps not so much; the original cost of horses and coaches are about the same." Thus it appears that on the western and mountainous half of the route the cost of stock on the rapid line bore the same proportion to that on the slow line that 10 bears to 7; the wear and tear of stock as 10 to 8, and the current expenses of both were equ.il. On the eastern half of the route the cost of stock was the same on both lines, and the wear and tear of stock about the same as on the western part of the line. If, then, we take as the ground of our comparison that element in which there is ihe greaiesi ex- cess of expense on the fast line over the slow one, which were making the difference between them much greater than the evidence does in fact make it, their relative proportions will stand thus: Cost and expense of the slow line per annum, as fixed by the bid at the lettings in October, 1831 $7 000 Cost and expense of rapid line yearly, fixed by the proportion it bears to the slow line, it being in the ratio of 10 to 7 10 000 Which would give to the two daily lines with the increased speed, yearly ;gl7 000 Though the elements from which our estimate most be formed of the rela- tive value of these two lines, and of the proportion which the service ua- 7 [ 86 ] 50 der the improved bid bears to that under the bid pursuant to the advertise- ment, be not sufficiently exact to fix it \\ith accuracy, yet they are so far certain as to show conclusively that, the above estimate is too high, and would allow the contractor a greater increase of compensation than the Post- master General could, consislently with the provisions of law, have allowed him. But we have seen that instead of Si 7,000 a year for the two daily lines on this route, which we iiave already shown would have been an ex- cessive allowance, taking the bid pursuant to the advertisement as its basis, the contractor was allowed upon it at once from the begitming ^25,000 a year to Pittsburg;, or §27,000 a year to Wheeling, by Washington. In the allowance to Pittsburg there is, therefore, a clear excess of more than gSOOO a year, which is supported by no law, and sustained by no knov/n ■principle of justice. This contract, with the increased allowance of SlS,OGO a year attached to if, took effect on the 1st of January, 1632. And within that year, at a date not precisely ascertained, but about the iSth of July, the additional sum of ten thouscnid dollars a year was allowed to the contractors for transport- ing all the ne.W':p('.pers in " their most rapid line." This allowance was animadverted upon by your committee in their report of the 9th of June last. Since that time the transaction has been referred to in the address of the Postmaster Genera! to the American people. It is believed that every apology for it which exists has been brought within the notice of your committee; and they now propose to reconsider it fully, givinf due weight to all the statements v»'hich have been published concein- ing it, except so far as they are contradicted by-testimony. In the report of the Postmaster General of the 3d of March, 1834, the allowance is thus stated: *^'Reeside and Slaymaker are the contractors for carrying the mail from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, three hundred and two miles, ""wice a d-ty, and from Pittsburg, by Washington, Pennsylvania, to Wheel- ing, Virginia, fifty seven miles, daily, in four horse post coaches, from Ist of January, 1832, to 31st of December, 1835, at a compensation of ^27,000 per annum. •^^In consequence of the increased rapidity of this mail, the newspapers which were formerly sent by the east or other routes were now sent upon this; and the general cry of the public for the more rapid conveyance of newspapers required them to be sent in their rapid line, instead of the sbwer line, as was contemplated in their proposals, which so loaded it as almost to exclude passengers; they were therefore allowed, from the Ist of April, 1832, for transporting all the papers by their most rapid line, at the annual rate of glO,000." And the Postmaster General, in his address above referred to, makes the following statement of the transaction: '< Messrs. Reeside and Slaymaker entered into contract to transport the mail between Philadelphia and Pittsburg, daily, in four horse post coaches; to run two lines a day; one to go through in a few hours more than two days, the other in three and a half days. The object of the two lines was, tha,t the weight of the whole mail being too great to admit of its transporta- tion with the rapidity required by the shortest time, the principal letter mail for Lancaster, Harrisburg, Chambersburg, Bedford, Pittsburg, and all pieces west of Pittsburg, and the same returning, niight be carried through; 51 ^ I SS2 with the greatest possible rapidity, that mail beiiig not overloaded, nor re- quired to stop at all the way olhces to exeijanij;e mails; but thit the more tardy line mi^ht carry the iieavy newspaoer mads, and the leiler mails for the mternieciiate offices, commoniy called the way mail. In this way they began their operations on the 1st of January, 1832, the day when their con- tract commenced. It was but a short time before heavy complaints were made by editors and otiiers, ou account of tlie delay of newspapers. Wlieti information was received b}'' letter, or by newspapers put up in letters, as is customary with those who ha\e the privilege of Iranking, eailier than by the r'^gular newspaper mail, the coniractors were accused of detaining tli3 mail on the road, and the department was censured for sufiering tliem to do so. Messrs. Reeside and Slaymaker were amongst the best of coniraciors, and no jjersons could be more sensitive than they, when any comjjlaints Avere made touching their characters as mail contractors. To allay these complaints, they, agreeably to the wishes of the department, u;iJertuok, from the 1st of April, l&3i, to carry all ihe newspapers for Piitsburg, and places bey(»nd that point, in their more raj>!d line. After three months' trial, ihey came to sVashingtoa, and alleged that the loss which they had sustained by carrying the great newspaper mail in their more rapid line was so great it would prove iuinous to continue it, unless the}' should re- ceive something approximating to a renin neration for the same. They urged their right to relinquish their contract, if they were required to con- tinue tiie service, as it was involving an enormous expense to render it practicable, find demanding of them a service which their contract did not coniemj>late nor require. This conversation was verbal; but I told thetu to reduce their statement to writing, and I would take it into consideration. Upon this they presented me the following written statement:" He sets forth a letter written to him by James Reeside and Samuel R. Slaymaker, dated at Washington, July 12, 1832, which contains this clause: " To satisfy tlie public and sustain the credit of the department and our- selves, we made the experiment of trying to carry the newspapers with our most rapid line. We have partly succeeded, but with very great loss. For three days in the week, we are compelled to exclude all passengers, to the loss of not less than one hU'idred dollars a day." The Postmaster General then adds, " On the presentation of the above, I made the allowance. It was for a service which the original contract did not require them to perforin, and a service for which the public voice was clamorous." Your Committee will now proceed to examine how far the above state- ments coincide with the evidence, and first, that of the Po^^tmaster General, in which, speaking of this allowance of jS 10,000 a year, he says, '^ it was for a service lohich their original contract did not require the/a to per- Jhrm.^^ Is this the fact.' The contract, as executed and sealed by the parties, sheds no light what- ever on the subject. It ct^ptains no clause showing even the speed at which the mail is to be carried, nor what is to be carried by it. There is no schedule attached to it in the contract book; though one was furnished to your committee on their call, which corresponds very nearly wiih the bid of the contractors. It is to this schedule and the bid^ therefore, that we must, in the first place, refer for an explanation of the understanding of the parties at the time of entering into this oontract. [ S6 ] 5S It will be seen by the bid of Reeside and others, that they propose to carry the mail pursuant to the advertisement; that is, through from Phila- delphia to Pittsburgh in three days nine and a half hours, in four horse post coaches, at the annual compensation of S7,.000. See Doc. 80. Or to run two daily lines, carrying the mail twice daily from Philadel- phia to Pittsburgh. The first mail, from the 1st of April to the 1st of Decem- ber, through in two days and five hours, and the residue of the year in three days; and through to Wheeling, by Washington, Pennsylvania, from Phila- delphia, in all except the winter quarter, in three days, and in four days during the winter. To rati the second line of stages from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh through in three days and five hours, changing the mail at all the way officeSj and of course carrying ihe wcnj mail, for ^27,000 a year. There is nothing in either the proposals or in the contract which counte- rances the ideathot the contractors had a right to direct or rpgulatorates the testimony of Thompson, and establishes to a reasonable certainty the fact, thct the newspapers were carried during the first quarter of 1833 in the rapid line; and all that is said by the parties and the Post nijuter General about. ; he original understanding, that the newspa- pers wtre to, be carried in the slow line, and of i\\Q public clamor in conse- quence 01 iis being l-o carried; is irconsistent with the facts of the case, and must have its origin in error. There is therefore no ground whatever for saying that the allowance of $10,000 a year was for ** service which the ©rigintil contract did not require these contractors to perform," unless the alleged ecnverfations f,f the contractors with the Postmaster General and his suocrintendentof mail contracts changed or afl'ected their liability. No a: f^ument by this committee is necessary to satisfy the Senate that it were wholly inadmissible topersnit conversations, actual or alleged, to con- trol ihe solemn ccntracts entered into by the Postmaster General, and sealed' by the parties pursuant to law and usage. There can be no question of per- sonal faith, )\or should thei'e be. of personal favor upon the subject. The £W allows this officer (o enter into contracts; and law and usage prescribe ^e manner in which those contracts shall be entered into and executed. 53 C 86 ] And neither the Postmaster General or his assistant has any authority to yield by conversaiion, what is the right of the public by contract. But when were these conversations held, in which Messrs. Reeside and Slay- maker say that it was understood that the newspaper mail was to be carried in the slow line? Were they before or were they after the opening of the bids? If before, it establishes a charge which has ofteii been urged against the department, namely, that of advertising differetitly from the manner in which it was intended the mail should be carried — agreeiug with some favorite contractor that he should put in an improved Ind, which it was understood should be accepted, and the improvments ordered before the service commenced; thus putting it in his power to get the contract on his own terms, and without competition. The letter of Reeside and Slayrnaker on which this extra sum of SlO,000 a year was allowed, states that the n.aii u-as &o iieavy betvvee;i Philadelphia and Pitt.sburg as to" exchide passengers on the rapid line for three days of the week. The paper purports to liave been signed on the 12th da}?^ of July, A. D. 1S32, and the Postmaster General says it was presented to him, and the aHowance thereupon made. See Doc. No. 81. Your committee, with a view of ascertaining the acturil stale of things at the time of making this very large and extraordinary allowance, culled several witnesses before them, all of whom speak of very hoavy mails, S9 h«avy as to exclude passengers from the rapid line one or two days \\\ the week during some part of the year 1832, though they do not all agree as to the lime of the year when passengers were so excluded. Fortunately, a record was kept by the agent for the company at Chambersburgh on this route, showing the number of passengers that actually passed that place each" day ill ibis rapid line; and from tlds book, and the testirnon}'^ of William Thompson, t!ie agent in whose possession it is, your committee were able to get at so much of certainty as to avoid the danger of being misled by any very eross exaggeration. See D<)c. No. 7S. There certainly can be no doubt that the contractors were able to carry on this line, on each and every day, as many passengers us they did in fact carry; but it is by no means certain, on the otiier liand, tliat they were unable to carry any more-, for from the tcslimon}' of John ^V^ Wea- ver, one of the partners, we find that th 'y had not always a full freight" of passengers. On that subject hesaj's, '•^ Our travel fiom the easi gcn'^rolly commenced about the 1st of Febru- ary, and we ran full until ab'^'it the 1st of May, and often had to employ extras; then the travelling giaduaily fell offi* until about the 1st of October, durinij; which time one line and a half would carry the pa.Saengers. PVom 1st October to ist JJectmber we were full again; then w*^ ran very light till February; a line and a half would be more than su^Ticient to carry all the passengers during that season of the }'car. " William Tliompson, the agent of the company, brouefM hij books before the committee, and in answer to the^inquiry, " Are you able from your books to designate at what times it was you were not able to carry passengers?" says, *< In the year 1832 I find eighteen blank trips, m.ost of them f-om 1st October to 3 1 si December. In the same yt'ar ther*; were fifty-eight trips of not more than one or two passenger^.." Tliis he afterwards corrects, and says there were twenty blank trips instea'i of eighteen. I 86 ] 54 It appears by the examination of this witness and his books, that seven of the fweH/i/ blank irips which he speaks of, took phice in the month of i January, and six in the month of December; and those, it will be recol- I lectcd, ,'tre tht- months in which J. VV. Weaver says there were but few pas- sengers, leaving but sevc?i blank trips for the other ten jriofi/hs of tiiis year; that is, a stage without passengers tme trip m forty -three. The allegation of Reesidf and Slaymakcr, in their letter to the Postmaster General of the i2ih July, 1832, in these words, " For three days in the week we arecom- pelled to exclude all passevgers,^' is not at all supported by their own books, or the testimony of their own partners and aj^onts. On a re-exnminalion of Willi:im Thompson, and by exact reference to his books, we find that there was one blank trip in the month of April west- >vard, and none eastward. In the same month there were six trips with not more than two pa-^sunj^ers westward, and three with no more than that number eastward. In the month of May there were two blank trips west- ward, and one 'eastward: in the same month ten trijis in which there were not more than two passengers westward, and five with not more than two eastward. In the month of June there were thn e blank trips westward, and three eastward. In llie satne month there were ten trips of not more than two passengers westward, and nine of not more than two passengers eastward. The whole number of passengers westward, in those three months, was 33755 and the whole number eastward was 397i-, making a difference of sixty passengers in three months, equal to two passengers in three da3^s. It will he recollected that no comjilaint whatever is made of heavy mails from west to east. In that direction they were never so heavy as to exclude passengers; so that when the stages ran emjdy or light it was for want of passengers, not for want of room in the coach for their accommodation. If vve lake the number of passengers in this liVie from west to east as the criterion forjudging what it vv»,uld hi;ive been from east to \vest, if none had been exclut'ed by the heavy rnuls, it amounts to a loss by that reason of sixty passengers in these three months. The like loss may have occurred during the three months of Sepiembnr, October, and November, which are about' equal to those of April. Alay, and June for passengers. During the months in which fhe)e are but few passengers, as July, August, and September, De- {^ember and Januarv, there would be I'ttle or no loss, as there were not during those months, according to the testimony of Weaver, more than passengers pnongh on an average for one line and a half of coaches; and in the month of Janu.u-v, 1833, the witnesses concur in saying liiat the mail fell off again 1.0 about what it was in 1831. • The loss.., then, by the heavy mails during the time they continued, would be about one liundred and twenty passengers, if in reality they did not, when miable to lake passage in the quick line, go in the slower line, or some of the extras. But suppose the loss of one hundred and twenty passengers, at nineteen ddlars each, which is understood to be the fare from city to city, it would be ^52,280; the sum which, upon a fair estimate, is all that the de- partment ought to have paid, if, indeed, after paying .S25, 000 a year for c«r- ryirig the ni it between the t-wo cities, it had l)een really bound to pay the contractors in atldition thereto for whatever cost an(l trouble tliey may be put to in carrying it. The amount so given to Reeside and Slaymaker, for which they rendered no service, and of which they gave their partners no share, was Sl7;500. 55 [SI This detail, minute and even tedious as it may seem, was, nevertheless, ne- cessary to avoid the dang;er of error arising from the vague ianguage of some of the witnesses, and their want of a precise and distinct knowledge or reccJ lection of the facts. We believe there can be no error in the evidence ol Thompson, so far as it purports to be drawn from the books of the compai;;,- and that thus far it may be implicitly relied on. Your committee would recall the attention of the Senate for a moment to the statement of the Po:5tmaster General in his circular, where he professes to give the reasons for this extra allowance. It was not given for any hard- ships or difficulties encountered before the Isi of April, 1832; for he says that before that date the newspapers were not carried in the rapid line, but it was for those which occurred after thp 1st of April and prior to the 1st of July; or, in his own words, <_ .$25,(325 [ 86 ] • 60 And an express rnnil was ordered to be run on the same route at yearly compt'usation of - - - _ - 3,150 Making the grand total yearly ----- $28,775 It was impossible for the committee, at that time, to investigate all the circumstances connected with this route, and they have considered it proper to pursue their inquiries in relation to it. This became the more necessary, as the Postmaster General, in his address to the people of the United States, comments upon this part of the report, denying its correctness. It is due, therefore, to the exhibition oftri/fh,zn(\ a pioptr understanding of the con- duct of the departnieni, that the facts should he fully detailed. That the facts might he correctly understood, tlie committee called for the advertisements upon this route 951; the several proposals which were made, and the contract which was executed; and they annex copies of them to (his report. The advertisement is the guide, and the only guide by vvhicli bid- ders can make their offers for cirrying the mail, unless it happen unfortu- nately for the public interest that they have "-well ivis/iers'' in the office, and are permitted to know, not only the open and public wishes of the de- partment, but its secret purposes also. This advertisement is " 951. From New York, N. Y., by Jersei/ Ci/v, N. J., Newark, Eliza- feethtovvn, Railway, New Brunswick, Kingstonj Princeton, Trenton, JMor- risvilie. Pa., Tully T.nvn, Bristol, Andalu-.ia, Holmesburg, and Fraukfjrd, to Philadel|jhia, ninety miles and back every day in four horse post coaches; leave New York every day at 3 P. M., arrive at Philadelphia next day by 6 A. M.; leave Philadelphia every day at 3 P. M., and arrive at New York next day at 6 A. M." A plain bidder, unversed in the management of post office contracts, would naturally suppose that the whole mail was to be carried once a day, and once only each way, starling at 3 and arriving at 6 o'clock; but this view of the matter wouhl cert'ainly lead him to an offer which the dej)artment would not accept. Under this advertisement four bids or proposals were made, the copies of which are refr;rred to. Doremus and Thoinpson (see Doc. 92) offered to carry the mail, ''agreea- bly to the advertisement," for the yearly rom|ien.«ation of §19,500, and '-'fur- nish guard forit freeof expense to the Post Office Department." Ezra Piatt and Co. (see Doc. 93) ofltjred to carry it for S8,000, "according to the adver- tisement," or for 15,000 in ehv^n hours, or in safety carriac;es maoe iov the express purpose of conveying mails, in ten Ivmrs. fur jNS,000 dollars. The Union Line Stage Company (see Doc. 94) offered to carry it '' according to the advertisement," for ^13, 200, for the first of the four years; for (he remaining three years their offer was to carry the great mai! by the steamboats and the Camden and Amboy railroad, leaving each cily at 3 o'clock, and arriving at 12, making nine hours: the mail by land on the route, and within the houis stated in the auvuriisenient, dady, in two liorse jjoat coaches They lurtner offeied to carry a morning mail as it was at tiiat time carried, for the first year, and for the other three years by steamboats and railroad, leaving at 6 A. M. and arriving 3 P. M., being nine hour-^, for S 16,000, in compensa- tion for (he whole service. They offered also to include the then contractor, Mr. Reeside, in their contract. 61 [ 86 ] James Reeside offered to carry the mail, according to the advertisement, for $6,000, or to make the following improvements, "which," he adds, *'«re required by the present state of the country;'''' to carry it twice a day during the running of the steamboats, the principal mail to go from of- fice to office in thirteen hours, leaving at 7 P. M. and arriving next day at 8 A. M. , for $19,000, which was to include all the improvements to which he bound himself. The improvements he states in his bid to be 1. " Such increased expedition to the mail between New York and New Haven as to leave New York after the arrival of this mail, and arrive at New Haven in time to keep the connexion perfect, and without any inter- ruption or delay to Boston, and also the same expedition in returning- ■which improvements," he stated, " would require lour additional teams and increased expense of at least §4,000 per annum. This, by a corres- ponding improvement between Washington city and Philadelphia, which is perfectly feasible^ will expedite tlic mail one whole day between Washing- ton and Boston,»and prevent many failures by causing the mail to cross the Hudson at all times by daylight." 2. " The other mail to leave the cities in the steamboats at six A. M. and arrive at five P. M., being eleven hours." 3. *een able to explain it. It is the essential contract on the side of the department, both as to t-ervice and pay. It authorizes all the improvements, gives vali- dity and operation to tlie clause in the br3cket?s and raises the compt nsation of the contractor from S6,000 to $S0,500. It is difficult to give credit to the ^^pre.nimption^^ of the witness, as to the time and circumstances attending this endorsement, or that it was made at a very early day. I'he endorsement in its words refers to time past. The increa.sed service, &c., was directed, &;c.,from the beginning, a phraseology quite unnatural respecting a present or very recent transaction. Again: if it was made at the time of the contract, no good reason can be perceived why the contract should not have embraced it, and been made for the improvements as well as the bid of JS6,000; and if made " from the beginning," or shortly after [ 86 ] 64 it, the committee are nt a loss to perceive why Mr. Reeside's account was left in the condition in which they found it. It was called for in September last, and after examinjiiion, copies of it were ordered and furnished. Throughout the year 1832, up to the. \st of January^ 1833, no notice of this route or the improvements is to be found in it. They make their first appearance on the 1st of January, 1833: now if the improvements were ordered ^« at the beginning," if the .services and compensation upon this route had been fixed; why was it omitted? The $20,500 are all charged and allowed on the 1st of January, 1833; why v/ere not the charges and allowances made at the end of each quarter? It was so done in other con- tracts which Mr. Reesidehad, and there was no good reason for not doing it in this. He was in debt to the department at the end of the first quarter gl 1,079 21, at the end of the second quarter ^30,531 21, and at the end of the third !S!26,714 04. (See Reeside's accoimt, Doc. No. 1.) If there was a liqui- dated and settled claim, a specific agreement existing between him and the de- partment, for a fixed sum, as this endorsement asserts, it is strange that the cre- dit was not given, and these balances lessened thereby. Besides, the Postmaster General asserts in his address, (page 13,) that " two propositions were made; the smaller loas first accepted-, afterwards, for the better accommodation of the public ) the greater service ivas required, and of course the higher compensation given." If this be true, the endorsement was hot made before, or at the beginning, and the higher compensation oujjht not to have been credited to the coniractor from the beginning. The endorsement seems to be naturally connected with the time when the allowance for the extra service was made, at some period subsequent to the execution of the con- tract, and when it became necessary to give a sanction to payments previ- ously made to the contractor; and it is perhaps unfortunate, on account of the inferences which may be drawn, that the time of the actual credits to the contractor was immediately succeeding an important presidential elec- tion, in which he was not inactive, and also that there should have been allowed at the very same time, on this same route, several other items, some of which are not to be fdund in the accounts, either preceding or subsequent to that particular date, 1st January, 1833, and others are unsupported by any evidence of the existence of the services. Exclusive of the $20,500 before nKentioned, but including the express mail, they amount to about $9,95fi, Mud had the effect of reducing the balance of the advances made to the fontraclor from $26,714 04, as it appeared on the 1st of October preceding, down to the unimportant sum of $1,314 26. These items are not 'speeified in this place, as the attention of the Senate will be called to them in anoiker aspect. Tlie committee have endeavored, as far as practicable amidst the impedi- ments whlc'j they have had to enco mter, to ascertain the manner in which this contract has been executed, and ihe nature and amount of the sllow- ances v/hich have been made upon it, and they submit to the Senate the results of their inquiries upon several points. The advertisement was tocurry the mail from <' Nev/ York, N. Y., by- Jersey City, &e, to Phikdelphia." The bid was to carry the mail accord- ing to the advertisement for $6,000. In the improved bid it was '' distinctly understood that he v/as to deliver the mail at the post office in the city of JSevv York, and receive it at the post office in the city of New York, and 65 [ 86 ] convey it between that office and the river, and across the river, but that the department will defray the expense of barge and oarsmen in ferrying it across the river, &c. The contract was for carrying the mail "from New York, N. Y,, by Jersey City, &c. to Philadelphia, the department to pay the expense of carrying the mail across ihe Hudson river." There is a discrepancy between the bid and the contract; by the former, the department was to " defray the expense of barge and oarsmen;" by the latter, the department was to defray the expense of " carrying the mail across the river." But the discrepancy is not important, for by both, as well as by the advertisement, Reeside was to carry it from city to city, and of course from office to office. He was to deliver and receive it at the office in New York, and convey it between that office and the river, and across the river. Joseph Dod, (see Doc. 97,) in his deposition, states that he has carried the mail between the office in New York and Jersey City since 1817. *' From 1817 until Reeside became a contractor, he received from the department 500 dollars per year; that Reeside then allowed and paid him 600 dollars." So that, under his former contract to carry the mail from city to city, Reeside did carry it, or rather pay for carrying it across the river to and from the office. B}' express words he was bound to do so under the present contract. Yet Joseph Dod swears, that in 1832 he again became a contractor with the department to carry this mail from the office to Jersey City at the rate of 800 dollars, wliich he still receives. The committee called for a copy of Dod's contract and account, and they are appended to the report, and sustain his oath. (See Doc. $S.) It thus appears, that in direct violation of the contract with Reeside, the department has paid 800 dollars per year for performino- a part of the service which Reeside was bound to perform, even under the original bid; in other words, has given that sum of money to him annually, amounting now to more than 2,400 dollars. Another of the improvements on this route embraced in the bid and the contract was, guarding the mail. The bid engaged that "the mail shall always be guarded with suitable fire arm*, and during the night always at- tended with double guards, at my own expense^ a detence rendered neces- sary by tlie importance of the mail." By the contract he was to furnish the mail with a ^'double armed guard at his own expense.'^ Joseph Dod, who carries the mail from the office in New York, and delivers it to Reeside at Jersey City, and is familiar with the ar- rival and departure of all the mails between the two cities, swears, "Mr. Ree- side has two guards, one going and one coming, and has constantly had them since the contract. The one leaves here (New York) to day, the other leaves Philadelphia, one each way, and go through from city to city with the great southern mail, which leaves Market Feld Street at four, by the boat. By a guard I mean a person who watches the mail bags during their transportation, and sees to their removal from one conveyance to another. The guard goes regularly, or at least I start him regularly, I do not know what Reeside pays the guards. They are armed. I am not aware of their being suspended at any time. None of the other mails are guarded. The mail which goes by land through Newark to Philadelphia by night is not guarded." 9 [ 86 ] '66 It thus appears, 1st. That the mail carried by night, when there may be danger of robbery, and on the route mentioned a7id contracted for, it is not guarded at all. 2d. That this ^^ double armed guards a defence ren- dered necessary by the importance of the mail," has dwindled down to a person who watches the mail bags during their transportation in steamboats, and on the railroad, and sees to their removal from one place to another. As the committee cannot well perceive how a contractor can carrythe mail without having a driver or some person toperform this duty, to watch the bags and see to their removal, they cannot regard this improvement as a very impor- tant consideration in making the contract, nor as justifying any increase of compensation on this route. If it occasioned the allowance of any part of the sum of 20,500 dollars, the money was uselessly and improperly thrown away, and ought to be no longer paid. But the committee find that this item in the contract has not been without its use. Under the same date of the 1*/ of January, 1833, when the ba- lance against him was so greatly reduced, there is found in Mr. Reeside's account (see Doc. 1) the following allowance : " Passage of mail guards both ways between Philadelphia and New York city, from 1st January to 31st De- cember, 1832, (days 366) one passenger each way, every day, making 732 passages, at 3 dollars per day, being half price for each passenger, 2,196 dol- lars." Thus, in violation of the bids and promises by which the contract was obtained — in violation of the express terms of the contract itself, Mr. Reeside was, on the 1st of January, 1833, paid this large sum of money. The commit- tee need not comment upon such a fact; its impropriety is abundantly apparent. But the committee are of opinion that there has been even greater impro- priety upon this route. The alternative bid of the contractor, setting out his manifold improvements, seems to have been used only for the purpose of securing him the contract, and the bid and the contract itself seem to have been entirely forgotten in the enormous payments over and beyond it. Government Expresses between New York and Philadelphia. Two mails were to be carried: one leaving the cities in the morning, and the other in the afternoon; and for the morning mail during the winter 1,500 dollars were to be paid, in addition to the 19,000 dollars for the principal mail and the improvements. Mr. Reeside in his bid engages and binds him- self thus: " whenever Government expresses shall be required, I will con- vey them in the shortest time practicable without any expense to the depart- ment." And he adds, that he will " carry the mail with as much speed as man and hor.ses and macljinery vviil allow, whether on the railroad, when completed, or any part of it; whether by steamboat during the season, or in four horse pcsi coaches at all limes of the day, and at any season of the year; always using such expedition as the Postmaster General may prescribe, and with the same rapidity as any express can be conveyed." It was determined, it seems, that neither the steamboat line, railroad, nor safety carriages should get the contract from him. The contract binds him to run through in thir- teen hours, to run two mails a day, morning and afternoon, " always give such further increased expedition as may at any time be necessary to per- fect the connexion at each end of the route, and furnish Government ex- presses when required, for the additional sum of 13,000 dollars per year." If the mails weie faithfully carried under such a bid and contract, the committee cunnot perceive how a necessity could exist for another regular express mail, nor for any expresses, unless upon some sudden and pressing 3,000 00 7S7 SO 787 50 787 50 ^8,512 50 67 [ 86 ] emergency. If two mails were run with any thing like the promised ra- pidity, leaving both the cities every morning and afternoon, certainly all the purposes of correspondence, business, and news would be answered, and all the just claims upon the Government in relation to the mails satis- fied. The two mails were run morning and evening; at least they have been paid for at the rate of $20,500. But in addition to this, we find in Mr. Reeside's account, the following items: 1st January, 1833. Express mail, $787 50, per quarter. For express mail from l8t January, 1832 - - ^ $3,150 00 Extra expense incurred in keeping three extra.^teams between New York and Philadelphia, in consequence of the frequent detention at New York from one to two hours, for distribu- tion oi foreign mails, they frequently arriving just as the mail was departing, from 1st January toSlst December, 1632 1st April, 1833. An express mail .... 1st July, 1833. An express mail .... 1st October, 1833. An express mail .... Thus, for running an express mail for one year and nine months, and for keeping horses to meet Jrequent detentions of foreign letters, of from one to two hours, the contractor received $8,512 50 in addition to $35,875, which he received during the same period for carrying the two regular daily mails. A contractor, too, who was bound to give every increased expe- dition required, and to carry the mail with as much speed as man and horses, and machinery, would allow, whether on railroads or in steamboats, by day or night, summer or winter; and send expresses without expense to the Government. There is also the following item, under date of 1st January, 1833: " Send- ing southern mail four trips to New York, when the steamboat did not arrive to keep up the connexion, at 150 dollars per trip, 600 dollars." — See Doc. 1. But the matter does not rest here. After the account had been furnished to the committee, and it appeared by it that the department was, on the Ist April, 1834, in advance to Mr. Reeside $54,369 07, the officers of the de- partment requested its return, and then added to it, as of that date, severt^ items, amounting in all to . • . . ^27,849 76 Still leaving a balance against him of . . . jS26,519 31 Among these items, so added, is the following: 1st April, 1834. Running the daily express between Philadelphia and New York, 90 miles each way, through in six hours, by special orders from the Postmaster General, yrom SQth January to 8th. March, 1833, it being 3S trips; that is to say, that two seLs of horses run each way every day, making 152 trips, 90 miles each trip, at one dollar per mile for each set of horses, ® 13, 680. An express, by special order, for 38 successive days, at an expense of 360 dollars per day . Thus, in addition to the two daily mails, the contractor has received for express mail and expresses $22,792 50. The history of their express mail and expresses is worthy of record. The express mail is not within the con- t 86 ] 68 tract. The first notice taken of it is hy another red ink endorse^neni^ on another margin of the contract, in these words: <' For an express mail hy order of the Postmaster General, 3,150 dollars per yearf^ to which there is added in brackets, in red ink, " [dispensed with — see entry foot of contract.]" To this endorsement there is neither date nor explanation. When it was made, and when the order was given by the Postmaster Gene- ral, the committee cannot inform the Senate. But there is no difficulty upon the point of payment; the account of Reeside shows that it was paid "from the beginning," and up to the 1st of October, 1833, five months after it was dispensed with; and also that during those five months he was receiv- ing at the rate of 5,125 dollars per year for the substitute for it — for another arrangement of mails, which induced the Postmaster General to dispense with the express. This lapping of contracts, it will be perceived, has not been very uncommon with this contractor. That the Senate may understand the operation on this point, they insert here a copy ol " entry at foot of contract:" " 1833. 25th April. J, Reeside engages to run in twelve hours between Philadelphia and New York, agreeably to the printed schedule of this date, and to carry an additional vvay mail from Philadelphia to Trenton in time to lap on the steamboat mails, and back; and from New York to Brunswick with like connexion, and back daily; and to connect the way mails from the post office at Brunswick with the steamboat line, also to connect the mails at Philadelphia between steamboat and post office. The two horse stage line to be run during the season of steamboat navigation, all for the addi- tional sum of five thousand one hundred and tvventy-five dollars: service to commence on the 1st of May." November 19th, 1833. "Express mail dispensed with, by arrangement made 25ih April, 1833. Allowance of three thousand one hundred and fifty dollars to cease from day of 25th April, 1833." The account shows that Reeside was paid for this express down to the 1st October, 1833. The committee called on the officers of the department for a statement of the arrivals and the departures of the mails at New York and Philadelphia at different periods during this contract, and received a report from the assist- ant Postmaster General, S. R. Hobbie, dated 30th September, 1834, from which the following extracts are taken: — See Doc. 99, "In the winter of 1832 the express line, during the session of Congress and suspension of steamboat navigation — "Left Philadelphia at 9 A. M., then 10 A. M. "Arrived at New York by 9 P. M., then 10 P. M. " Left New York at 7 A. M., then 8 A. M. " Arrived at Philadelphia by 7 P. M., then 8 P. M. " This connected with an express line from Washington to Philadelphia, established for the purpose of getting congressional intelligence into Ntw York in time for the New York morning papers. It left Washington after the receipt into the post office of the Washington morning papers, say 2 A. M. of the day previous to its arrival at Philadelphia, and went by the way of Lancaster." In the summer of 1833 the running of the great mail line, and of the se- cond or city, is stated; but no notice is taken of the running of this express loe. The report then adds: 69 [ 86 ] ** In the winter of 1833 the running of the different lines appears to have been the same as in the winter of 183-2 " On the 1st of May, 1833, a differ- ent arrangement was made, and this line dispensed with. This is the whole account of this express mail, and the reasons for its establishment, afforded by the department; and the committee direct the attention of the Senate to the extraordinary facts, that this line run in the winters of 1832 and 1833, but did not run in the summers of those years; and yet the contractor is paid at the rate of 3,150 dollars per year, through both summers, and for the entire period from the 1^^ of January^ 1832, /o ihe \st of October, 1833, during much more than half of which time this jnail did not run at all. The committee, entirely dissatisfied with this account of this express xnail, sought for information from other sources, and called before them se- veral persons connected with the post offices in New York and Philadelphia. Joseph Dod gave an account of four mails, which could not apply to this, as represented by the Assistant Postmaster General, and added that he had known of none other, except the horse express, which will be here- after examined. — Sse Doc. 97. Joseph Benedict, a clerk in the post office at New York for seven years past, and who had charge of the distributing department, gave an account of the two mails morning and evening, and of the horse express, and added, that he knew of no other. — See Doc. 100. James Page, the postmaster at Philadelphia, stated the different mails, and that he knew of no express mail running on this route, lie was, however, appointed postmaster on the 11th of April, 1833. — See Doc. 102. Beekman Potter, who had been a clerk for eight years in the post office at Philadelphia, in answer to the question, '' Do you know of any express mail running from this to New York since 1st January, 1832?" described the horse express, and added, ^'I know of no other Government express, or express mail, except the above." — See Doc. 103. The committee leave this evidence to the consideration of the Senate, •with the single remark that it exhibits a most extraordinary state <^f things. A contractor, who is bound to furnish expresses free of exj>ense, and to carry the mails with the utmost possible rapidity, receiving in one year and nine months $5,512 50 for carrying an express mail not mentioned in his contract, authorized by an unexplained endorsement, without date, in red ink, on the margin of his contract, and which is stated by the Assistant Postmaster General to have run only during the winter, not one half of the time charged, and which these officers, connected with the distribution and carriage of the mails, know nothing about. The committee will not offer any comment upon the two items before mentioned for the extra teams, on account of detention for foreign letters, 3,000 dollars, and the four trips to send on the southern mail, 600 dollars. The evidence respecting them is appended, and when examined, will leave the im- pression that they are appropriately placed in company with the several items to which the attention of the Senate has been more particularly directed; but the item respecting the horse express deserves further exposition. — See Doc. 104. On the \st of October, 1834, the committee called on the Postmaster General for the reasons of the employment of this express; what was trans- mitted by it; copies of the instructions respecting it, and the vouchers on which the compensation was made. Oa the 30M December his answer was [ 86 ] 70 received: it is appended hereto. (See Doc. 105.) By reference to it, it will be seen that the reasons assigned are, that a private express had been established between New York and Philadelphia by one of the newspapers, on account of "the feelinsjs of deep interest in the minds of the citizens, of the politicians, and of the commercial community of the city of New York," respecting the relations of South Carolina to the other States, and the course pursuing; by the National Executive; by which express news from the south and from the seat of Government was anticipated one day in advance of those who depended upon the mail for intelligence; that it was likely to produce "an effect injuiious to the mercantile interests of that great commercial empo- rium;" that "there was reason to believe it would convey all kinds of mail- able matter, including letters and packets for the proprietors and their friends, which would very sensibly affect the revenues, as well as the character of the department;" and that "this arrangement was called for by the editors of the daily newspapers of the city of New York." The validity of these reasons are submitted to the consideration of the Senate. The orders for the express were issued from the department at Washington, on the 2Sth of Ja- nuary, 1833. (See 0. B. Brown's letter. Doc. 108.) Its arrival at New York is noticed in the letter of the postmaster as of the 31st of January. (See Doc. 112) — (See letter.) The charge in Reeside's account is of the 30th of Januaryy creating an apparent overcharge of one or two days. The call from the editors of newspapers in New York is dated 7th February, 1833, seven or eight days after the express commenced, and does not relate to the running of the first express between New York and Philadelphia, but to one started from Wash- ington city to Philadelphia subsequently'; and they express the opinion that it need not last more than a week or two, " to nip the plan in the bud, and effectually put a stop to such proceedings." — See Doc. 115. The orders given were to " outrun any and every express on that route, whatever expense it may involve." " Remember, this is an enterprise which calls upon all the energies of the ' celebrated Reeside,' and you must beat every express at least an hour, and as much more as you can. The credit of the department is involved, and we look to you to redeem it. No labor or expense to be spared in doing so. Please answer. Begin imme- diately; tke department will not let you lose by it." (See letter of 0. B. Brown, January 22, 1833, Doc. 106.) The answer of 25th January has a N. B. '* I will say to a certainty that I will go from this city to New York in six hours, or faster than any other one can do it." (See Doc. 107.) Upon this an- swer being received, orders were given to run it in six hours, leaving Phila- delphia at one o'clock, if the southern mail had arrived, and reaching New York by seven; the return to be in the same time. The committee do not think it necessary to state, in detail, how far the order and the promise were met in the execution. They refer to the depositions on this point, especially to that of Mr. Hale, (see Doc. 121,) with the accompanying papers. It seems to have been frequently out of time. That it was generally beaten by the pri- vate express of Mr. Hale, and that it failed in its object. The return express from New York to Philadelphia was also wholly unnecessary; no private ex- press ran that way , and nothing relating to the movements in South Carolina, or the measures of the General Government could come from that quarter, and demand special despatch. The increased cost for the return express, whatever it may have been, was wholly without the excuse, by no means satisfactory, which is made for it from Philadelphia to New York, 71 [ 86 ] The committee have not been able to perceive the propriety for its continu- ance for so great a length of time. Ii was, however, continued under the or- ders which weregwenfor its first establishment. Those orders were, " This arrangement is to be continued daily, till the steamboat mails shall become regular as during the summer establishment;" and it was thus continueer. The same sum is charged to the bank as so much deposited to the credit of the department, and the draft is at last taken up by a check, which is certi- fied to be ioY transjjortafion by the three o^\cevs, who, according to the improved system of checks on disbursements adopted by Mr. Barry, are required to certify every check which issues from the department. But by examining these debits and credits, and certificates for transportation, no accountant, however skilful, could ascertain that such expedients had been resorted to, or that money had been raised in that manner. These certi- ficates, upon whatever grounds they may be supported, are contrary to the plain fact of the cuse. There are many other matters within the scope of the present inquiry which have been pressed upon the attention of your committe. Some of these have been partly considered, others remain untouched; but your com- mittee hope to examine and present to the Senate those which they deem of the most importance within the present session. So numerous and so great are the abuses which have grown up in this department, that reform has become absolutely necessary; but the measures by which it is to be effected are by no means free from embarrassment. They are the more difficult, as many of the evils which require a remedy do not arise from defects in the existing law. but from an habitual disregard 89 [ 86 ] of plain legal provisions. They may, however, be principally traced to the absolute and unchecked power which a single individual holds over the re- sources and disbursements, and all the vast niach''inery of this department. The checks of various inferior officers upon each other are of no value, when all nre guided and controlled in their acts by one dominant will. Within the comparatively short period of fifty-five years that department has arisen, from a feeble beginning, until it has acquired a revenue equal to that of the Union itself at the time of its organization: and its extensive and diversified operations, its patronage, its resources, and its power, must, by the mere force of circumstances, go on increasing indefinitely with the increase of our country in population, business, anrl wealth. The an- nual reports by the Postmaster General are of little value, as a restraint upon the head of the department, or as a means of calling public atten- tion to his official conduct. These reports may be true, and yet the state of affairs which they indicate cannot be understood without that careful examination which few or none will feel willing to give them, amidst the other arduous duties of legislation; or those statements may be false and delusive, and yet few will be disposed to bestow on them the labor, bodily and mental, which would be necessary for their correction, and to encounter the bitterness of party rancor, and the reckless violence of party calumny, which those must encounter who venture to explore the secret mysteries of great patronage and high power, and to expose their enormities to the public gaze. Frem reflecting on these and other causes, leading to the same result, your committee incline to the opinion, that there will be few in- stances, in the future history of our country, of a full and searching investi- gation into the conduct and management of the Post Office Departmen-t. They deem it, therefore, their duty at this time, to propose such measures of legislation as will, in their opinion, the most effectually prevent the recur- rence in future of abuses similar to those which the present investigation has disclosed. This they conceive can be best effected by a change in the organization of the department, so as to place the collection and the dis- bursement of its funds in different hands, and under the control of officers entirely independent of each other. That department, as at present arranged, is a dangerous anomaly in our system; and by whomsoever its concerns are hereafter to be conducted, its organization ought to be changed so as to conform more nearly to that of the other great depart- ments of our government. The accountability of its officers ought also to be rendered more effective, and their discretion limited as far as is consistent with the efficient performance of the public service. To effect these several objects your committee report a bill. 13 [ 86 ] . 90 In Senate of the United States. January 27, 1835. Views of the minority of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads on the condition and proceedings of the General Post Office: submitted by Mr. Grundy. It has again become the duty of the undersigned to present their views of the several subjects which, under the resolution of the Senate of the last session, have been investigated by the Post Office Committee. In discharging this duty, a minute examination of all the matters embraced in the range of inquiries instituted by the committee will be unnecessary, as the whole of the evidence taken by them will be laid before the Senate, from which each Senator will be enabled to draw his own conclusions and form his own opi- nions. The first and leading subject to which the committee directed its atteu- tion was the financial condition of the department. At the last session o Congress a great difference of opinion existed between the majority and minority of the committee, in relation to this branch of the subject; the former supposing that on the 1st day of April last the deficit in its means to meet its engagements amounted to ^832,567, except old balances prior to the 1st of October, 1833; the latter, that it only amounted to the sum of i5292,l09 4S. These several opinions were founded on estimates furnished by the department. The committee, in September last, came to the deter- mination of ascertaining the true condition of the pecuniary concerns of the department on that day by actual calculation, and for that purpose called to their aid two skilful accountants, Mr. Pishey Thompson, of Washington city, and Mr. George S. Hough, of Alexandria. They have both been most assiduously engaged in that service from that time to the present, but have not as yet been able to present their report to the committee. The under- signed will therefore refrain, for the present, from saying any thing or ex- pressing any opinion as to the probable result of their labors. The com- mittee also called upon the department for a statement of its financial condi- tion, with which they have been furnished. From this statement it appears that a full list of balances has been made out from the books of the depart- ment, as the accounts stood on the 1st day of April, 1834, exclusive of the transactions under that date. The list of balances includes all balances due to the department on account of postages which accrued prior to the 1st of January, 1834; but it does not include any part of the postages which ac- crued during the quarter which ended the 31st of March, 1834, because those sums are not charged to the respective postmasters under a date prior to the 1st of April, 1834. It includes all balances due to contractors for services performed prior to January, 1S34, so far as the same had been entered to the credit of the contractors; but it does not include the sums due to contractors for any part of the services rendered during the quarter which ended on the 31st of March, 1834, because the allowances for those services were not en- tered to the credit of the contractors under a date prior to the 1st of April, 91 [86 ] 1834. It does not include any of the sums which had been carried to the account of bad debts, suspense, or profit and loss; because when accounts of individuals are closed by either of these items, they no longer exhibit the balances. But the list of balances includes all payments made to contractors prior to the 1st of April, 1834, whether for services rendered prior to the 1st of Januar}'-, or for services of the quarter current from the 1st of January to the 3lst of March, 1834. It includes all payments made by postmasters prior to the Ist of April, 1S34, whether for postages which accrued prior to the 1st of January, or for postages accruing during the quarter current from the 1st of January to the 31st of March, 1834. It includes all payments made for interest, incidental expenses, or for any other purposes prior to the 1st of January, 1834, so as to exhibit the exact statement of the balances of the accounts as they appeared in the books of the department to that dav. From this list of balances, it appears that the following sums were due to the department on the 1st of April, 1834, viz.; From former postmasters who had gone out of office before the 1st of January, 1833 . . . . . . Sl47,732 02 From postmasters still in office, or who had not gone out of office before the 1st January, 1833, for postages which had accrued prior to January 1, 1834 ....... S248,029 11 From former contractors, agents, and on miscellaneous accounts, whose contracts had expired, or whose accounts had ceased to be current before the ist of January, 1833 ..... §33,178 38 ^., Balances against contractors for payments made to them prior to April 1, ■'1834, for the current services of the quarter which ended on that day, and for former services which had not been placed to their credit, amounting to 1^384,897 38, making together, when added, the amount of balances due to the department, as appeared on the books on the 1st of April, 1834, the sum of S7 13,836 89. To this sum add the net amount of postage which accrued from the 1st of January to the 3lst of March, 1834, not included in the list of balances, $496,677 21; and the total amount of balances due to the department on the 1st day of April, 1834, was - §1,210,514 10 The same list of balances shows that the following sums were dae by the department on the 1st of April, 1834^ viz.: To former postmasters who had gone out of office prior to the 1st of Janu- ary, 1833, balances amounting to . . . $7,020 50 To former contractors, agents, and miscellaneous accounts, whose contracts had expired, or whose accounts had ceased to be current, from the 1st of January, 1833 . 3,470 5S To postmasters still in office, or who were in office on the 1st of January, 1833, principally for payments made on account of current postages during the quarter ending the 1st April, 1834 ..... 118,43950 To contractors whose contracts were still running, or had not expired prior to January 1, 1833, for services prior to 1st January, 1834 , - . . . 223,484 i>5 Making, together, the amount of balances due from the de- partment, as appears from the list of balances, on the 1st day of April, 1834 ..... $352,465 43 [86] 92 To this amount add the following sums, which are not in- cluded in the list of balances, viz. : Amount due for transportation on the 1st of April, 1834, which has not yet been credited to contractors . $49,487 80 The expense for transporting the mail from January 1st to April 1st, 1834, amounted to . . . 454,514 2'2 Balance due to banks on the 1st of April, 1834, above the amount of deposites to the credit of the department on that day, including all loans .... 451,599 43 Making the asgregate of all debts due from the department on tlie 1st of April, 1834, amount to . . . 1,308,066 93 From this sum deduct the amount of debt due to the de- partment on that day ..... 1,210,514 10 And the balance against the department on that day was . 97,552 8ft The Postmaster General reported as unavail- able in 1828 .... S2S4,289 In 1829 the further sum of . . 22,235 Also in 1829, counterfeit and notes of broken banks . . ... 4,306 310,830 Of what had been estimated unavailable, there had been charged to profit and loss, suspense and bad debts . . . 123,500 96 Leaving an account of balances, of what had been reported unavailable, . ..... 187,329 04 Which, added to the above, shows the whole debt of the department, on the 1st of April, 1834 beyond its avail- able means, to have been .... $284,881 92 This is S7,227 56 less than appeared from the estimates assumed by the minority ot the committee in the former report; and not so much as the esti- mated amount of the majority of the committee, by S5I7,562 OS, except old balances prior to the 1st of October, 1833. The whole amount of unavailable funds was estimated on the 1st of July, 1829, to be . . . $310,830 00 If from this sum we subtract the amount carried to ac- counts of profit and loss, suspense and bad debts . 123,500 9f It will leave, of the balances on the books arising from transactions prior to July Ist, 1829, an amount estimated unavailable of . , . . . . S^87,329 04 But the whole amount of balances on the books remaining due, arising from transactions prior to January 1st, 1833, which is three years and a half after, i€onlj . . '. . , .' Sl80,910 40 93 [ ?6 ] So that if every debt due prior to January 1st, 1S33, should be lost, stil the loss will not amount to as much as was estimated to have been lost three years and a half before that date, by . . . S6,41S 64 The interest paid prior to April 1st, 1S34, is included in the account of balances. From the 1st of April to the 1st of July, 1834, no interest is in- cluded, because it is stated that interest has been collected by the department at sundry times, and not brought into the accounts, more than sufficient to cover it: but if we add for the interest which accrued during that quarter, the sum of $6,000, the deficit will have been, on the 1st day of July, 1834, $264,211 36. This is a little less than the sum reported by the Postmaster General to the President in his report of November last, which difference is testified by the chief clerk to have arisen from the circumstance that the report was made to the President from the general statement, as it is made quarterly on the books of the department, and this is made from a list of balances drawn out in detail; and for many years before the present Post- master General came into office there appeared a small discrepancy betwpen the general statement and the lists of balances taken from time to time, which has never been reconciled. After receiving the financial report above referred to from the department, the committee instituted a strict inquiry into the correctness of the item of Sl23,500 95, which was reported to have been transferred to the accounts of bad debts, profit and loss, and suspense, and did not appear on the list of balances of accounts due to the department. From a statement (see Doc. 4) of the items which have been furnished to the committee, it appears that there has been charged to the account of bad debts the sum of §77,662 26; to the account of profit and loss 821,554 48; and to the account of suspense, the sum of $25,036 69, making an aggregate of $124,253 43, which is 6752 04 more than the sum reported in the financial report made to the committee; which difference is accounted for by the circumstance that the books have been posted up since the time when the statement ©f the item of §123,500 96 was made out. Various allegations have been made in relation to paper and twine fur- nished by contractors for the use of the department. The committee have deemed it to be their duty to investigate the subject; and in order to facili- tate their inquiries, and to obtain a speedy and correct knowledge and un- derstanding of the facts, they repaired to Providence, Rhode Island, and to Boston and Ijowell, Massachusetts, at which places it was believed that satisfactory testimony could be procured, showing whether any malprac-^ tices had obtained in relation to these articles. The inquiries of the com* mittee were extended retrospectively as far as the 2d of February, 1820, at which time a contract was made by Mr. Meigs, then Postmaster General, with Thomas Rowe, for the supply of the articles in question. By that con- tract the following prices were stipulated and allowed: For printing blank accounts for mails received, mails re- ceived for distribution, and mails sent , For ruling same with feint lines .... P'or printing post bills . . . . , For printing accounts current .... For paper, royal, for mails received and received for dis- tribution . . . . . . 9 00 do S4 00 p er ream 4 00 do 1 50 do 4 00 do [ 86 ] 94 For super-royal for mails sent . . . .§12 oop^rream For foolscap, No. 1, for accounts current , . 5 00 do For foolscap, No. 2, for post bills . . . 3 75 do For wrapping paper, super-royal . . . 7 00 do For twine to make up the packages, and the trouble of sending off the blanks, the sum of 200 dollars per annum was allowed; and there was al- lowed for wrapping paper and twine used in putting up the packages the sum of 50 dollars per quarter, making 200 dollars per annum. This last allow- ance continued to be made as long as Mr. Rowe continued to be contractor. On the 10th of June, 1826, he assigned his contract to Messrs. True and Greene, from which time, or shortly afterwards, the allowance was discon- tinued. On the 1st of March, 1828, a contract was made by Mr. McLean, the then Postmaster General, with Simeon Ide, of Windsor, Vermont, which super- seded that which had been made with Tliomas Rowe in 1820, and assigned, as before remarked, to Messrs. True and Greene in 1S26. The contract with Mr. Ide was at the following rates and prices: For post bills without signature . . . . §3 75 pr. ream For post bills with signature . . . . 4 00 do For accounts current . . . . . 4 25 do For accounts of mails received and sent for distribution, on paper 23 by I82 inches . . . . 8 50 do For accounts of mails received and mails sent, on paper 23 by ISi inches . . . . . 7 60 do All the accounts of mails to be ruled with feint lines, and all other blanks, when required, to be furnished on proportionable terms. Wrapping paper of super-royal size at four dollars per ream; twine at thirty-six cents per pound weight; and an extra allowance to be paid by the Postmaster General to Ide, at the rate of one hundred dollars per annum, for making up and packing the above mentioned blanks, &c. The whole to be done in a work- nianlike manner; and the paper and twine to be of the qualities specified in Ide's proposals. The prices for wrapping paper and twine, as specified in Mr. Ide's con- tract, are lower than those which had previously been, or those which were subsequently given by the department. Mr. Ide, however, failed in the faithful performance and fulfilment of his contract, more to the detrimentof the department than was likely to have been saved by the difference of prices. It appears from the testimony of Calvin Young, William Parker, and Nathaniel Melcher, that the wrapping paper furnished by Mr. Ide was of very inferior quality, and not as valuable by any means as that previously- furnished by Messrs. True and Greene, or by Charles Greene, the present contractor, by fifteen or twenty per cent. And further, that most of the twine furnished by Mr. Ide was unfit for post office use, and cost but little jnore than half the price of that which is furnished by the present contractor. (See Documents No. 39 to 52, inclusive.) The prices paid to the present contractor were fixed and stipulated by the department on the 21st of January, 1830, at the following rates: For paper for post bills . ' . . . $3 per ream For accomits of mails sent and received . . 7 do For accounts current .... 5 do For stoutest and strongest wrapping paper . . 5 do $1 50 do 4 00 do 2 50 do 3 00 do 95 [ 86 3 For printing post bills .... For printing accounts of mails sent and received For printing accounts current .... For ruling in feint blue lines .... From the foregoing statement of facts, it appears evident that the con- tract made by the present Postmaster General with Mr. Greene, was as fa- vorable to the department as could have been reasonably expected. Tha only further question presenting itself for the inquiry of the committee on this branch of the subject of their investigations is, whether the present contractor has performed his agreement, and fulfilled his contract with tide- lity. Upon this point, and especially in reference to the wrapping paper, of the quality of which some complaint has been made, the commiitee examined a great number of witnesses, and from the whole of their testi- mony, when taken together, it is made e\'ident that the present contractor has faithfully and punctually complied with the stipulations of his contract. The proof by which this is established and made manifest, is to be found in the depositions of And Emerson, who manufactured a large portion of the wrapping paper furnished by Mr. Greene; of William Parker, who supplied a part of it; of Charles Newell, who has acted since the 1st of Ja- nuary, 1834, as clerk for the contractor, in distributing the paper; and of S. P. Haywood and Nathaniel Melcher. These witnesses prove that the wrapping paper purchased and furnished by the present contractor has always been of good quality, and equal to any furnished by his predecessors, with the single exception of one parcel, a part of which had been distributed before any defect had been discovered in its quality or condition, and that as soon as it was ascertained to have been defective, the remainder of the parcel which had not been distributed, was returned and thrown upon the hands of the manufacturer. It also appears in the testimony, that thp defects in that parcel of paper was not obvious or discoverable from its appearance, and was discoverable only in its use. The vigilance evinced by the depart- ment in promptly inquiring into the subject, upon the first intimation that inferior paper had been sent to some of the post offices, reflects much credit upon its watchfulness and circumspection. Inasmuch as the public mind seemed to be impressed with an idea that the postmaster at Boston was the person really interested in the foregoing contract, and that Mr. Charles G. Greene was only the nominal contractor; the subject was made a matter of strict scrutiny on the part of the committee, which has resulted in clear and satisfactory proof that Nathaniel Greene, the postmaster at Boston, has had no interest whatever in the contract for paper and twine with the department since his appointment to that office. This is proved by the testimony of Benjamin True, Charles G. Greene, Thomas H, Grenville, and Nathaniel Greene. The onl v witness whose testimony intimates any fact implicating Nathaniel Greene as a partner in the contract is JohnB. Derby, who states some remarks of Charles G. Greene, made, as he says, a short time prior to the 1st of March, 1831, showing that Nathaniel Greene was at that time interested in it. Mr. Derby may have mistaken the remarks and words, as well as the subject matter and precise bearing of the language of Mr. C. G, Greene, which re- ferred to something of his former situation, when in the employment of True and Greene, by supposing them applicable to the timt of the conversa- tion, or he may have been mistaken in the time when the conversation took [86] 96 place. Either of these suppositions is more favorable (o Mr. Derby than to place his testimony in direct conflict with so many highly respectable witnesses, who have an intimate and personal knowledge of all the facta, and in the statement of which they all concur, and rendering the matter as clear as evidence can make it, that Nathaniel Greene has had no interest whatever, either in the contract with the department or in the newspaper edited by Charles G. Greene, since he accepted the appointment of postmas- ter at Boston. It is true that Nathaniel Greene had an interest in a paper mill for a short time, at which a portion of the paper procured by the contrac- tor at Boston was manufactured; but it is clearly proved, that during the continuance of his interest, (which ceased some time since,) more than ordinary care and pa,ins were bestowed in the manufacture and quality of the paper furnished; and that, with the exception of the parcel before mentioned, the paper was of better quality than the paper furnished from the same mill prior to that time. Mr. Emerson, the manufacturer, states that both Nathaniel Greene and Charles G. Greene were exact and particular as to the quality of the paper fwrnished to the Post Office Department. Calvin Young, who had a full opportunity of judging of the qualities of the articles furnished by the con- tractors, states that the articles furnished by True and Greene, and by Charles G. Greene, were superior to any articles of the same kind which had been previously furnished by former contractors; that articles of this superior quality continued to be furnished up to the time of taking his deposition, and that the difference in quality was so obvious as to amount to twenty per cent, in favor of the articles furnished by True and Greene, and by Charles G, Greene over those previously furnish by Mr. Ide. William Parker and John Edwards prove that all the twine furnished by the present contractor, Charles G. Greene, was of good qualit)', and greatly superior to that furnished by Mr. Ide; that it was well suited to post office OSes; that most of it was manufactured by John Edwards, in the neighbor- hood of Boston; that the price of the article has varied from thirty to forty cents per pound; and that the last sales by the manufacturer were at thirty- three and a third cents per pound. The same witnesses also prove that the paper and twine procured by Horatio Hill and Cyrus Barton, of Concord, New Hampshire, who are also contractors for furnishing the department with the same articles, upon the same terms upon which they were furnish- ed by Mr. Charles G. Greene, were of good quality, and well suited to the purposes for which they were intended. The prices now allowed by the department are, five dollars per ream for wrapping paper, and forty-five cents per pound for twine. The average price paid by the contractors for these articles is, three dollars and fifty cents per ream for wrapping paper, and thirty-three and a third cents per pound for twine. After making a reasonable allowance for profit, it would seem to us that each might be furnished at this time at a lower rale. The expense and trouble, however, are greater than such as usually attend most other branches of business involving the same amount of value. In the de- position of Nathaniel Greene is contained the following statement, in answer to an interrogatory upon the subject in question: *' The contractor has to keep a wareroom, and clerk to attend to the distribution. The printed blanks take a good deal of room. At other places than Boston he has to employ an agent to whom he allows, by special agreement, ten per cent. 97 [ 86 ] for his trouble. He has lo pay cost of freight, premium of insurance, and incidental expenses, such as drayage, wrappings, twine, and putting up." Wtman's Case. The committee have also investigated the conduct of the postmaster at Lowell, Massachusetts. It appeared to the committee in proof that he is not the proprietor of the newspaper called the " Lowell Mercury," pub- lished at that place; but that after he became postmaster he performed the duties and services of editor of the said paper without compensation, and permitted the publishers to take the wrappers which had been torn off packages received at his office to be used as wrappers for the newspaper. We know of no law or regulation of the Post Office Department which re- quires a postmaster to regard such w-rappers in any other light than as waste paper, when taken from pakages received at his office; and whether he burns them, sweeps them into the streets, or however else he may choose to dispose of them, is of no consequence to the public. The only point in which the postmaster seems to have erred was, in not taking sufficient care of the letters received at his office enveloped in the wrappers in question, by reason of which negligence, in a few instances, letters, and in one instance a ])ackage of letters, were left among the envelopes, and with ihem were taken to the printing office, but were, in every instance, as soon as the over- sight was discovered, returned safely to the post office. Herron's Case. In September last, shortly after the committee convened in this city, a resolution was adopted, calling on the Postmaster General for the inspec- tion of all the original letters and papers in his office, concerning the removal of a postmaster at Putnam, Ohio, and the appointment of another in his place. From this resolution the only one of us then present dis- sented. The Postmaster General declined a compliance with the resolution, and gave his reasons at length in a communication to the committee. A discussion of the question involved is deemed unnecessary at this time. The right of the Senate to inquire into tho causes which have induced the Executive Department of the Government to remove an individual from office is believed to have been fully decided by the Senate on the 21st of April; 1830, on which day, as appears from the journals, the Senate, by a vote of twenty-four lo twenty-one, postponed indefinitely resolutions pro- posing a call on the Executive for the reasons of removals from office. On the fifteenth of February, 1831, the following proceedings appear on the Senate's journal: "The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion sub- mitted on the 3d instant, as modified, declaring that the select committee appointed to inquire into the condition of the Post Office Department are not authorized to make inquir)' into the reasons which induced the Postmaster General to make any removals of his deputies." This resolution was adopted by a vote of twenty-four to twenty-one. The powers of that com- mittee appear to have been the same as those possessed by the present commit- tee; and until that decision of the Senate shall be changed by a vote of the same body, no reason can be perceived why the present com- mittee should deem themselves authorized to make the inquiry proposed in relation to the postmaster at Putnam, even if the Senate, under the consti- tution, possessed the power to institute such an inquiry. 13 t 86 ] m At Lowell, Massachusetts, where only two members of the committee attended, an interrogatory was proposed to a witness, tending to produce a similar investigation. This was objected to, and since that time no tes- timony touching removals from office has been introduced. 0. B. Brown's pecuniary Transactions with Edwin Porter. It appears from the testimony of Ed win Porter, (see Doc. 127,) that in Jan- nary, 1832, he proposed to Mr. 0. B. Brown to take an interest in the contract for carrying the mail between Mobile and New Orleans. Mr. Brown said he thought he would be interested in the contract, and did advance to Mr. Porter $3,500 in money, which he stated belonged to Doctor Jackson, his stepson; and that when this advance was made, the election was reserved to Mr. Brown to determine thereafter whether the money so advanced should secure an interest in the contract to that amount, or should be regard- ed as a loan to Porter on interest. In the summer of 1833 Mr. Brown stated ihat he should regard the transaction in no other light than as a loan on interest, from the time the money had been advanced; and Mr. Porter thereupon gave his note to Mr. Brown for the three thousand five hun- dred dollars, dated back to the time when the money was so advanced. It also appears by Mr. Porter's testimony, that in January, 1833, when he was about to purchase an interest, to the amount of 9,000 dollars, in the contract of R. C. Stockton, from Fredericksburg to the Natural bridge, Virginia, he obtained from Mr. Brown 4,500 dollars, which Brown stated at the time belonged to the estate of Doctor Jackson, for which he was to have an interest to that amount in that contract; that in the summer of 1833 Mr. Brown also declined taking any interest in this contract, and received of Mr. Porter (the witness) one thousand dollars for declining the interest in the line, and for one year's interest of the money advanced by him, and took Porter's note for 4,500 dollars, dated one year after the advance of the money, and to draw interest from its date. It appears from the testimony of Mr. Brown, (see Doc. 96,) in relation to these two transactions, that when he advanced to Mr. Porter the 3,500 dollars, Doctor Jackson, then living, had lately visited Mr. Brown, and had left in his hands between four and five thousand dollars, to be safely vested where it should draw interest; that he let Mr. Porter have the money, with a reserved right to regard it as an interest in the contract or as a loan on interest, with a view of that election being made by Doctor Jackson, for whose benefit alone the money was advanced to Mr. Porter, and on whose decision the matter would be determined. That Doctor Jackson soon thereafter died, without having had the opportunity to make the election; but left a dying request that Mr. Brown would act the part of a guardian for his children, which he (Mr. Brown) has ever since done in fact, though not in form, not having been legally appointed for that purpose. That when he made the other advance of $4,500 to Mr. Porter, he intended it on no other account than for the benefit of Doctor Jackson's heirs; and reserved for future consideration, whether it should be an investment in the contract from Fredericksburg to the Natural bridge or on interest, in either case for the sole benefit of the heirs of the deceased; that when he had ma- turely considered the subject, he came to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient for him, though for the benefit of the heirs, to hold any share in property employed in performing mail contracts; and therefore declined at a time when he believed these routes were profitable, yielding about fifty per cent, on the capital invested j that the thousand dollars which he received 99 C 86 ] from Mr. Portfer was not received as purchase money for an interest in the contract, but in consideration of the great benefit which he, Porter, had derived from the use of the money, and was a voluntary payment on his part; and that the one thousand dollars so received was applied by him, Brown, to the benefit of Doctor Jackson's heirs, and not ia any part to his ov/n benefit. We are not prepared to say that any actual loss has resulted to the depart- ment from these transactions. There was, during the time, no alteration made in either of the contracts, except that an additional allowance was made for increased expedition between Fredericksburg and Charlottes- ville; but that was made after Mr. Brown had left the office of mail con- tracts, having been transferred to the pay department of the General Post Ofiice; nor have we had any evidence that he had any agency in making the additional allowance, except certifying, on the application of the con- tractor, the reasons why the additional service was required. We consider all pecuniary interest in mail contracts, by persons engaged in the Gene- ral Post Office, to be improper; nor is it material to consider whether the prohibitions of the law of 1825 extend to persons employed in the General Post Office; the laws of propriety forbid such acts. The true principle is, that the officer who exercises powers under a public trust, or, as in these cases, the officer whose situation gives him an influence in the exercise of the powers devolving upon a high functionary, should not place himself in a situation which might create a bias on his mind prejudicial to the public interest. This may occur where a man's family connections are concerned, though he himself may have no personal interest whatever; and we view all such acts wholly inadmissible, and that their repetition cannot be too strictly guarded against. Mr. Brown himself appears to have come to the same conclusions, for he placed his unwillingnesss to hold an interest, even for the benefit of others, upon this ground. In the account of Mr. Reeside (seeDoc. 1) it was discovered that a credit was entered in his favor for 20,000 dollars, which the committee had ascertained was on account of his draft on the department, and accepted by it, and the money applied to its use; and no charge against Mr. Reeside for the acceptance or payment of the draft by the department appeared in the account. The committee called before them Mr. Brown, the treasurer of the department, and required him to explain this item of credit in Mr. Reeside's account. He stated that the money upon the draft of Mr. Reeside for 20,000 dollars was for the benefit of the department, and applied by it to its own use; that the draft was drawn by Mr. Reeside on the 29th of April, 1S34, at six months, and was accepted by the department, and the money raised on it; that this entitled Mr. Reeside to a credit to the amount; that until the draft was paid the charge was not made against the drawer, and that this was ac- cording to the regular mode of keeping the books; that the reason why Mr. Reeside did not appear to be charged in the account furnished to the com- mittee by the department was, that the account did not extend to a period of time late enough to include it; nor was the same yet entered upon the books of the department, because the bank book including that item had been sent to the bank at Philadelphia for settlement, and had not yet been return- ed. Upon this statement being made, Mr. Brown retired, and the com- mittee proceeded to the examination of another witness. After sometime, and before the committeee adjourned, Mr. Brown returned, and said he had made a mistake in his testimony which he wished to correct. He then stated that [ 88 ] 100 he had found the original draft for 20,000 dollars drawn by Reeside; that two drafts were drawn on the same day, and for the same amount each; one drawn by James Reeside, payable in three months, for 20,000 dollars, and endorsed by R. C. Stockton; the other drawn by R. C. Stockton and en- dorsed by James Reeside, at six months; and the first draft drawn by Mr. Reeside he produced to the committee, and stated that the clerk who had made the entry had by mistake charged Mr. Stockton instead of Mr. Reeside with the 20,000 dollars; that so soon as the error had been discovered, he (the witness) had caused the mistake to be corrected. Upon being interro- gated as to the time when the correction had been made, he answered that it was since he had made the former statement to the committee. The books were then produced to the committee, and the two book-keepers ex- amined upon the subject, vvho both testified that they had acted by Mr. Brown's directions in making the alterations. We were and still are of opinion, that although it is the duty of the offi- cers of the department to correct all errors which may be discovered in any branch of its business, yet that, while a subject is under the investigation of a committee of Congress, no change or alterations in the books should be made; and that explanations, pointing out the errors and how they should be rectified, should alone be relied on. We have no reason to believe, however, that the alteration made in this instance produced any incorrect result. The committee then examined the books, and found that the alteration had been made, as stated by the witnesses. Witness Brown then produced to the committee the original memorandum made by him on the 30th of April, 1834, which contains the following statement in relation to this trans- action: " Dr. Western Bank, 1834, April 30th. Cr. By amount of loan this day cancelled $50,000 00 By cost of exchange on 4,500 dollars, check on Pitts- burg at 5 per cent - - - - - 22 50 Dr. R. C. Stockton, for his draft of 2Sth April, at three months, for this sum - - $20,000 To James Reeside, for his draft of 2Sth April, at six months - . . - 20,000 $50,022 50 $40,000'' And stated that it was from that memorandum that the clerk made the original entries in the books of the department, and that the memorandum was erroneous. The production of this memorandum and the draft drawn by Mr. Reeside, with the explanations given, in our opinion show satisfac- torily that the error made in the statement of Mr. Reeside's account was unintentional. 0. B. Brown's Deposite in Bank of Maryland. From the proof (see Doc. 128) it appears that Mr. 0. B. Brown, on the 3d of May, 1833, deposited in the Bank of Maryland the sum of two thousand dol- lars of his own money, and received from the cashier of said bank a certificate for the same, bearing interest at the rate of five per cent, per annum; which 101 [ 86 ] certificate, with the interest thereon, amounting up to the time to $88 61, was, on the 9th day of September, 1834, credited on the books of said bank to the Post Office Department, in pursuance of a letter written by Mr. 0. B. Brown to the district attorney of Maryland, dated the 6th of Septem- ber, 1834. At the time of this transfer, debts on said bank were worth from thirty-six to thirty seven cents in the dollar; but the Post Office De- partment had previously borrowed a large sum of money from said bank, ■which had not been then paid. Improved Bids akd Extra Allowances. The committee has directed its attention to the subject of the unusual nam- ber and amount of extra allowances which have been made to contractors for carrying the mail within the last few years. On this subject the impres- sion has been made, to some extent, that these allowances have been made without equivalent services having been rendered on the part of con- tractors; or that the services rendered were not beneficial to the country. It is true that some of the services required of contractors may not have been as much demanded by the interest of the community as the officers of the department supposed; and, in other instances, the compensation may- have beea more than adequate to the actual services rendered. That some errors, in these respects, would occur in a business so extensive and com- plicated, conducted and adjusted by so great a number of agents, at so many different places, was reasonably to have been expected; and the most vigi- lant officer may sometimes yield too readily to the importunities and re- presentations of those applying for mail facilities and suggested improve- ments. The leading error in this matter may be readily traced to a distinct .cause. The department, in many cases, did not advertise for a sufficient amount of service; therefore, when the bids were accepted, an immediate increase of service, and a corresponding increase of compensation became absolutely necessary. Hence, the great difference which frequently appears between the accepted bids and executed contracts, and sometimes between the latter and the actual service and compensation, produced by the orders of the department, made for improvements after the execution of the con- .tracts. Thiols not stated with a view of justifying the practice which has prevailed at some of the lettings of mail contracts. Our own opinion is, that the object of the law directing the Postmaster General to advertise for proposals for mail transportation, was, that full and fair competition should thereby be produced between those who were desirous of embarking in that line of business, and it is believed, and was believed by Congress in enact- ing it, that the best way to effect that desirable object was to advertise for bids from all competitors, for the kind and amount of services required in each case by the interests of the public, so as to permit no bidder to calcu- late upon any increase of emolument beyond his bid. By this means each bidder would only expect thai he was to perform the services advertised, and his bid would be made accordingly. In this way the spirit of the law as well as its letter would be observed; and the competition contemplated by the law would extend to the whole service, and after-negotiations be- tween the department and contractors would seldom occur. A rigid ad- herence to this practice would at once put a stop to all those bids denomi- nated straw bids, and all those artful practices which have been resorted to after the biddings have terminated, by which the lowest bidders fail to take the contracts announced in their favor, and by which the department has [ 86 ] 102 been, from necessity, thrown back to the acceptance of a much higher bid, made by an individual who has himself contrived, perhaps, to produce the necessity. It may be objected to this mode of proceeding, that the transportation of the mail may fail into incompetent hands, and thereby much public injury be produced. In answer to this, it should be recollected that the Postmas- ter General is not bound to accept the lowest bid. If a sum wholly inade- quate to the service should be offered, he would readily know that the bid had been made by an unqualified person, or that it was not made in good faith, and he would of course disregard it. He could in most cases decide with reasonable certainty, and sufficient accuracy for the furtherance of the public service, what bid would be most beneficial to the department, taking into view the difference in the amounts of the several bids, the ability, cha- racter, and responsibility of the bidders, together with the various other circumstances which would be most likely to insure a punctual discharge of the duties of a contractor, and the fulfilment of the contract. We would not be understood as wishing or suggesting that it would be proper to deprive the Postmaster General of the power to change the service of con- tractors after the execution of the contract, and to enter into other stipu- lations and engagements. Our desire is to diminish the occasions for the exercise of such a power. There would in many instances be great inconvenience experienced by the public, if this discretionary power be taken away altogether. It would often be found that a change in the times of the arrivals and departures of mails would be indispensably necessary to make the proper connections between different routes; and no precaution that could be taken before contracts were made would be sufficient to pre- vent the necessity of change; and besides, in parts of the country where new settlements and villages are yearly growing up into commercial and ma- nufacturing importance, a power should continue to be vested in the depart- ment to increase mail facilities between the time of making and the ending of contracts, the duration of which is four years. It is further worthy of note, that the Postmaster General might err in judgment, or be deceived in his information, and thereby be induced to assign too much or too litttle mail accommodation to a particular line of communication. In such cases, it would seem to be highly proper that he should have power to correct such errors as may occur from these or any other cause. We can appre« hend no danger as likely to arise from permitting the head of the depart- ment to exercise such power, provided Congress shall make it his duty to report at each session the improvements and alterations made, the reasons for making them, and the several amounts paid for each respectively. It is due to the department that it should be stated that, at the two last lettings of contracts efforts were made, and with reasonable and expected success, to make all contracts for the whole service which it was supposed would become necessary, so as to obviate, as much as possibe, all necessity for future changes in the stipulations between the department and contractors. Robinson's Case. The contract of James F. Robinson for carrying the mail between Cin- cinnati, Ohio, and Georgetown, Kentucky, has been a subject of re-examina- tion by the committee. (See Docs. 12 to 29 inclusive.) The contract was originally made to run daily in four horse post coaches, at glOOO per annum. The original schedule was, to leave Cincinnati daily at 4 o'clock A. M., and 103 [86] arrive at Georgetown the same day by G o'clock, P. M. ; leave Georgetown daily at 5 o'clock A. M., and arrive at Cincinnati the same day b}"- 7 o'clock P. M. On the 29th of December, 1831, before the service commenced, the con- tractor was directed to perform the trip each way in twelve hours. Before the former reports of the committee, the Postmaster General had stated in his re- port to the Senate that, to connect other important routes, it became necessary thata great part of this service should be performed in the night instead of the day during one-half of the )-ear; and in the letter of Mr. Brown to James F. Robinson of the 6th of December, 1832, it is stated: ''To perfect the connections, it was found necessary to limit the time to twelve hours each way^ and during the best season of the year for passengers, to run from Cincinnati to Geor;^etown in the night instead of the day." From these circumstances, both the majority and minority of the committee were im- pressed with the belief that the performance, during half the year, v/as mostly in the night instead of the day; and such appears to have been the impression of the department. But from the testimony now before the com- mittee, it appears that but a very small portion of the service was performed in the night, perhaps not more than would have been required under the original schedule. The increase of the expedition, therefore, is the only ground on which the additional allowance could be justified. The distance is stated to be seventy-two miles, with the Ohio to be crossed. The original contract time was fourteen hours, five and one-seventh miles an hour, from which time must be gained for changing horses, and opening and closing the mails, and the refreshment of passengers on the road. They were required to run through in twelve hours instead of fourteen, increasing the expedition to an average of six miles an hour, out of which the same time must be gained for changing horses, and opening and closing mails, and refreshment of passengers. The claim of the contractor for increase of compensation appears to have been founded on the increase of expense to which it subjected him; and there is a stipulation in all mail contracts in these words: " U is also agreed that the Postmaster General may alter the times of arrival and departure fixed by said schedule, and alter the route, he making an adequate compen- sation for any extra expense which may be occasioned thereby; and the Post- master General reserves the right of annulling this contract, in case the contractor does not promptly adopt the alteration required." In virtue of the power reserved in this article, the Postmaster General directed the in- crease of expedition; and in virtue of its stipulation the contractor claimed a large increase of compensation. The Postmaster General referred it to expe- rienced persons, in whose judgment and character he had confidence, and thev estimated the increase of expense at 3,500 dollars. Their statement refers to no other expense than what was required for increase of expedition, and not for any supposed change from day to night service. The Postmaster Gene- ral did not finally agree to allow the whole amount which the referees awarded, though supported by other respectable names, but allowed an addi- tional compensation of 3,000 dollars. We are not inclined to set our judg- ment in opposition to that of more experienced persons, who had the fact!" before them on which their decision was made; we cannot, however, but believe that the extra compensation was too great, when compared with the original price and compensation. In the original contract the contractor 86 3 104 evidently depended mainly on passengers for his compensation. The in- creased expedition would not be likel}" to increase his number of passengers, and for the expense to which it subjected him he could look to the depart- ment alone. After it was ordered by the Postmaster General, the stipulation in the contract required him to defray that expense; and when he had agreed lo refer it to disinterested arbiters to decide, appointed by himself, we do not see how he could have well refused to make the allowance. The committee have taken depositions for the purpose of ascertaining whether the service had been performed which had been ordered by the Postmaster General, for the increase of expedition on this route, and among others, the depositions of the contractor, and of the postmasters at the endvS of the route. It appears from the testimony of John T. Johnson, postmas- ter at Georgetown, Kentucky, that the mail departed from that place at various hours, from 10 o'clock at night to 6 o'clock in the morning. Robert Read, the former postmaster at the same place, states that, according to his recollection, it left Georgetown at 5 o'clock A. M. William Burke, the postmaster at Cincinnati, Ohio, stites that the mail in question arrived upon an average at his office at from 5 to 6 o'clock P. M. It further ap- pears from the testimony of the same witness, that the mail from Cincinnati to Georgetown departed from his office a part of the time on the same evening of its arrival, and that at other times it left in the morning at from 4 to 5 o'clock. He states further, that in the winter the mail for that route was regularly made up by sunset, and during the remainder of the year from 7 to 8 o'clock P. M. The deposition of Alexander Connelly, the postmaster at Covington, opposite to Cincinnati, on the Ohio river, Kentucky, states, that the mail from Georgetown arrived at his office at from 5 to 8 o'clock P. M. From the deposition of John T. Johnson, above referred to, who speaks of the winter season, it appears that the arrival of the Cin- cinnati mail at his office is generally after 9 o'clock P. M. Read, the former postmaster, says that during the time he was postmaster, the arrival at Georgetown was earlier than the time mentioned by Mr. Johnson, being from 7 to 9 o'clock P. M.; and Mr, J. F. Robinson says Mr. Johnson's deposition as to the winter arrivals is correct, according to his recollection, and that its arrivals at other seasons have been at an earlier hour. From the foregoing testimony it may be fairly concluded that the trans- portation from Georgetown to Cincinnati was substantially effected accord- ing to the orders of the department; for, although the mail set out from Georgetown at an earlier hour than 6 o'clock A. M., it was the duty of the contractor or his agents to remain at the office in Georgetown until that time, unless the mail could be delivered at an earlier hour; and if other contrac- tors whose routes connected with this at Georgetown, by outrunning their time, brought the mail so as to enable the postmaster to deliver it to the contractor or his agents on this line at an earlier hour, the public have sus- tained no inconvenience. As to the mail from Cincinnati to Georgetown, it was not transported within the time ordered, nor did there exist any neces- sity that it should be. It appears from the testimony examined by the committee, that the vveighjt of the mail from Cincinnati to Georgetown was from seventy-five to one hundred pounds upon an average, and at times from three to lour hundred. In relation to the above route from Cincinnati to Georgetown, one mem- 105 [ 86 ] ber of the minority of the committee declined acting, and what is said re- specting it is the act of the chairman only. Reeside &Co. — Contracts prom Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. The mail routes between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Wheeling, Virginia, have been re- investigated by the committee. James Reeside, Sam.uel R. Slaymaker, and Jesse Tomlinson are the contractors on these routes. Tlieir contract i.s dated 15th of October, 1831, and it is for the contractors to carry the mail twice a day in four horse post coaches between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; one Kne to run through in fifty-three hours, and the other in eighty hours; and between Pittsburgh and Wheeling daily, to run through in fourteen hour.s. On the route between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh the first daily mail, vv^hich was to run with the greatest rapidity, was required to exchange mails only at each county town through which it passed. The second, or less rapid daily mail, was to cliange mails at every post oflice on the road. The con- tractors were also required to furnish armed guards for the mail whenever required by the department; and for the whole service they were to receive 827,000 a year; the service to commence on the 1st of January, 1832, and to continue four years. The object of the second line, betvveea Philadel- phia and Pittsburgh appear.s to have been to carry the way mail, by which means the more rapid line would not be delayed in its progress by stop- ping at all the offices on the road, nor by being burdened with the weiglu of the wliole mail running between those two cities. Nothing is said in the cont.f'act concerning the newspaper mails; but tiie contractor. Slay- maker, proves that it was their intention, and that such was the mutual un- derstanding of the parties, that the newspaper mails were to be carried by the second, or less rapid, line; and this allegation is admitted by ti>e depari- ment and proved by the then superintendent of moil contracts. From the 1st of April, 1833, ihey Vvore required by ihe Postmaster General to carry all the newspapers in their first, or more rapid line. Jt appears also from the testimony, that the weight of the mails had so in- crea.sed beyond their former magnitude, that one or two days in each week they exceeded a ton weight; and when required to be conveyefl in one J^f.ago, especially in the more rapid line, they excluded passengers to a consi- derable extent. In consideration of this increastd wcigiu, ;»nd for carrying the whole newspaper mail, the Postmasicr General allowed them, from tht: 1st of April, 1S32, an additional compensation at the rate of $10,000 pc-r annum, till the month of December, 1S33, when it was withdrawn. Whe- ther this service was worth that sum we are less competent than the de- partment to decide correctly. If the celerity which was given t«t this line, as has been alleged, caused newspapers and other mailable nuitter t'> come upon it which had before gone on oUier route-s, so as to give to it an ii»orea^;t; of weight beyond what had been ccntemijhited vshen they entered into the.' contract, it avo-.'-IiI ^scem reasonable that they sliould receive an adequate compensation for the same; and wlien net only this increased weight, but. also the whole newspaper nicil, which had been intended to be tninspdried in their slower line, was reqeii'-'d to be carried in liie niore lapid line, jt 3j)« pears to us perfectly equitabi^ that t]»e contractors should receive an incrra.se of pay. Tl)e true rule which should be observed between the deparimei)t and contractors upon .such subjects, it seems to us, should i)e this: that the increase of the mciil upon a line of transportation, produ'jcd from an} other 14 [ 86 ] 106 caulic than the act of the department Jtself. should be borne by the contrac- tor,, as a part of his original undertaking. But when the department by iid own act throws a burden upon the contractor which coukl not have been foreseen or anticipated by lam at the tiine of making the contract, then jus- tice requires that fair compensation should be made. The conveyance of from a ton to a 'ton and a half in weight in one stage coach, at the rate of a hundred and thirty miles a day, for more than three hundred miles, must of necessity subject contractors to great expense. This they appear to have done one or two days in each week for a considerable time. 'Jo have di- vided the mail between two coaches, and to have given the greater weight to ilie less rapid conveyance, as appears to have been the meaning and in- tention of their contract, W'ould have rendered the service ijiuch less expen- sive, and subjected them to less sacrifice by the exclusion of passengers. The contractors themselves estimated the increase of expense at a much higher rate than was allowed them; but the additional sum fixed for the ser- vice appears to have been what the Postmaster General, in the exercise of his judgment, thought equitable. We would have preferred that the written contract should have specified in what line of stages th.e newspapers were to be carried; but still, if an omission tsf that kind be made, the true intent and meaning of the parties should be carried into effect, which is all that has been done in this case. We doubt, however, very much the expediency of dividing a mail ready for delivery to the contractor, at the time of departure, in any case. It might be a better practice so to make the contracts as to require of the contractor to ^end on the whole mail s.t the ?ame time, even should more than one coach or stage be necessary for that purpose. By this means, those who rely on newspaper intelligence would be placed on the same footing with those who receive informal ion by letters from correspondents. l^he committee, from the circum^tance of a loan on interest having been jnade to Mr, Brown by iMr. Reeside and Mr. Slaymaker some six or eight moiitiis after this allowance was made, entered into a very close examination and inquiry of the application which they made of the money received ibr this allowance, and the manner in which they accounted for it to the stage compa- ny. While examining Mr. Slaymaker upon this subject in Chambersburgh, Pa.,o« the 18th of November last, this interrogatory was propounded to him: "In what manner did you settle with your other partners for the allowance; state the time, manner, and circumstances ?" To this interrogatory he re- fused to answer. But a lew days after, while the comimiitee was in session in this place, iMr. Slaymaker addressed a letter to the chairman of thecom- miitee, dated W'ashing'ori city, Dfcembcr the 4th, 183^1, inrormiiig him that he was then m ih.e city, and willing to meet the committee and answer the interrogation wliich he had before declined to anfwer. This circum- stance should, in our opinion, remove any unfavorable inference which might be drawn from his first refusal to answer. Mr. Slaymaker has, sjnce the committee received his note, been called before them, and by his testi- mony clearly exonerates all persons employed in the General Post Office iVom any participation ov benefit whatever, directly or indirectl}-, in the extra allox^ance in question. Wliethef the settlement with the stage company was equitable or not, we do n^t caftceive to be a legitimate object of inquiry with the committee; that belongs to another forum, if the purties are dissatisfied. We see nothing 107 [ 80 ] m the testimony showinc; that any individual employed in the department has derived any benefit Irom the extra-allowance made to the contractors. Reeside's Contract from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg. The committee have reinvestigated the subject of the route from Hagers- town to McConnellsburg, (McConnellstovvn, Pa.,) and we deem it no part of our duty to determine whether Mr, Reeside was mistaken in his bid, as put in, or not, as his intention to bid one amount or another could have no legitimate influence upon the decision of the Postmaster General. The opinion of the latter had to be formed upon the evidence before him. The following is a copy of a paper on file in the department, written by the then superintendent of mail contracts: "Mr. Reeside sa^s the bid was put in by mistake as will appear from the small sum. He intended to have inade it il?l,400, and to run daily, and so marked with his pencil; but the clerk who copied it for him mis- took his pencil mark, supposing the I was belonging to his dollar sign, and the on the right hand he overlooked, or considered it. merely a point. The Postmaster General gave him a verbal order to run daily, and reserved for consideration the correction of the error. He has run from the t)eginning of the year daily. Shall he be allowed to correct the error and receive Si, 400? His distance is increased ten miles. No other bid." Upon this statement the Postmaster General directed the supposed error to be corrected, and allowed Mr. Reeside the $1,400, to take effect from the beginning of the contract. Upon this route it appears, by the evidence of Josiah Horton, (see Doc. G3,) who seems to have had a full knowledge of the subject, that the mail was carried the first year daily in four horse pos^ coaches by the Pennsylvania company; then until the first of October, 1833, it was carried by Lindsay and McKinstry in the same way; from the 1st of October Slay maker and the witness run daily, on that line, but thinks the mail was not carried in the stage for some time previous to April, 1S34; but during the whole of 1833 the coaches run daily and carried the mail. In January, 1834, the coaches left Hagerstown, and the postmaster refused to give the mail at the time the coaches left; and from that time to the present the mail has been carried three times a week on horseback. It should be here remarked that the coaches run generally by Greeu Custle, which was ni)t on the mail route, and not by the Welsh Run post office, which had to be supplied from the Mercersburg office. It appears that the contractor, Mr. Reeside, was paid $350 per quaitcr for a portion of the year 1S34, thus receiving pay for transporting the mail in coaches, wh:n it vvas carried on horseback a con- siderable portion of the time. Reeside's Contract from Bedford to Washington, Pa. The route from Bedford to Washington, Pennsylvania, No. 1,198, was given by contract to James Ree;aliiniore daily at 1 A. M., and arrive at Chambersburg same day h}' 3 P. M. Leave Chambersburg dail}- at 3 A. JNL, and arrive at Balti- more same day by 5 P. M." This was an increase in the expedition of three hours each way; and if it would require but one additional team each way, it would, according to the estimate of expenses on other routes, have amounted to a greater sum. The object appears to have been to form such a connexion with the mail from Pliiladeiphia via Chambersburg to Pitts- burg, as to prevent any detention of the mail from Baltimore at Chambers- burg, and .so as to deliver the niJiil from Baltimore one day earlier at Pitts- burg than wliat its delivery would have been if it had run under the schedule as advertised. On the 12ih of September, 1S32, the schedule was again altered by orde; of ilic PosMnaster General, so as to leave Baltimore daily at 7 A^ M. aiid arrive at Chambersburg the same day by S P. M. Leave Chambersburg by S A. M., a:id arrive at Baltinriore by 4 P. M.; but if the maii from Pittsburg had not orrivud at Chambersburg by 3 A. M., then to dehiy the departure till after its arrival, though it might be till S or 9 A. M,, and to arrive at Baltimore in thirteen hours. This last alteration required an increased expedition of one hour one way, and two hours the other way, teyond the shortest time which had been before prescribed; but for this last increase of expedition, the contractor does not appear to have received any Liiiop&l comnenaation. The time which he was authorized to occupy io 109 [ 86 ] junning from Baltimore to Chambersburg, under the schedule which entitled him to the highest compensation, was fourteen hours, which would be from 7 A. M. to 9 P. M.; and from the testimony of John Sidcrs it appears that the mail sometimes arrived at Chambersburg as early as 6 or 7 P. M., but was frequently later, and frequently from 10 to 11 P. M. Itappears from the testimony of John Findlay, postmaster at Chambersburg, that the fast line from Philadelphia, when it first run, arrived at his ofiice at 10 P.M. It was then changed as to the time of its departure from Pliiisdelphia, and afterwards arrived at his ofBce from 4 to 8 A. M. So long as the Phi- ladelphia mail, by the arrangement ol the schedule on that line, arrived at Chambersburg at 10 P. M., it was proper to require the Baltimore mail to arrive at 9 P. M. , 80 as to prevent any delay on the main line. But when the change took place in the Philadelphia line, so that the mail from that place arrived at Chambersburg from 4 to S A. M., there was no occasion for the increased expedition provided for. It does not appear from the testi- mony that the transportation of the mail on the route from Baltimore to Chambersburg has been effected with any regularity. Bennktt'sCase. The committee have re-examined the case of route No. 114S, between Bellefonte and Meadville, Pennsylvania, and, so far as relates to the original bids and contract, we beg leave to refer to the report made by the minority of the committee to the Senate at the last session, the correctness of which we have found no reason to doubt; and in addition thereto, now state that the extra allowance first made on said route was made by the late Post- master Genera], at the rate of i?500 per annum, for an improvement on said route, which allowance, by his order, was for one year; that the present Postmaster General only renewed the order of his predecessor, making the same allowance for the same service. It also appears, from the testimony of Benjamin Bennett, fsee Doc. 30,) that after the last lettlngs, neither Piatt & Co., in whose favor the said route was declared by the Postmaster General, nor any other person, except himself and his brother, John Bennett, ever placed any stock on said route for (ransnorli.ng the mail; that he and his broiher took the contract, and were equally interested in it; that he knows of no connexion whatever between a newspaper establishment at Meadvilie and either the extra allowance or the contract. It further appears front the testimony, that John Bennett, in his lifetime, was part owner of a news- paper printing establishment at Meadvilie; and that the newspaper had been discontinued £ short time before he became interested in the piinting establishment, and that there was no change in the political character of the newspaper for some time before its discontinuance, and after it went into operation, when Mr. Bennett was interested. From an impartial view of all the testimony, v/e are of opinion that there is no foundation for the slightest imputation against the department in reference to the extra allowance,thecontract,or the newspaperestablishmentinquestior. Reeside's Contract from Cumberland to Blair's Gap. For the transportation of the mail on routes Nos. 1215 and 1230, from Cum- berland to Blair's Gap, a contract (see Doc. 71) was entered into on the 12th of March, 1832, for carrying the mail three times a week, in four horse post coaches; price per quarter iS 1, 125. On the 25th of February, 1833, the contrac- tor was directed to run daily, at an allowance /»rn?y//f/, amounting to g2,625 per quarter, from the day of , 1833, On the 1st of De- cember, 1S33, the last order was rescinded, and one month's extra pay al- [86 ] 110 lowed. In October, 1834, route No. 1215 was reduced to a horse mail of once a week; and No. 1230 tea horse mail twice a week; amount of de- duction S3, 995, from the 15th of October, 1S34. It appears from the testimony of John W. Weaver, (see Doc. 64,) that he carried this mail from the 25th of April, 1832, on horseback, three times a week from Cumberland (o Bedford, until some time in July of the same year; then it was carried in six passenger coaches, part of the way with four, and part with two horses, until the latter part of October, from which time he carried it three times a week on horseback until the first of April, 1833. From the testimony of William Lewis, (see Doc. 62,) it appears that from about the middle of May, 1833, it was carried in four and two horse coaches, and was a tri- weekly line. John Piper (see Doc. 66,) testifies that after Weaver ceased to carry it, Mr. Reeside, the contractor, took charge of the line himself, and the mail was, in 1833, carried three times a week, in four horse coaches, for about eight months, and until the road became bad. During the next four months, ihe mail was carried in two horse coaches, in barouches, and occasionally on horseback. Mr. Reeside had directed that it should be carried daily. The department appears to have paid to the contractor, regularly, ^1,125 per quarter, according to the original contract, to the close of the year 18J3; and also the sum of $2,434 52 for the extra service which was or- dered on the 25th of February, 1833. It appears from thp testimony, that the original contract was not complied with during the first year in the mode of transportation, the mail having been carried on horseback a large portion of that time. A» to the addi- tional service ordered in February, 1833, it does not appear that any part of it was performed, although it does not appear that the Postmaster Gene- ral had any information that the extra services ordered had not been ren- dered; and although the contractor may not have known that his agents or sub-contractors had failed to execute his order given to them, still justice requires that the whole amount allowed for the extra services not per- formed, as well as the month's pay for the discontinuance, should be re- funded to the department, out of the pay upon the current contracts of the contractor, Mr. Reeside, W^e are of opinion, that in all cases in which extra services upon existing contracts are ordered, the postmasters on the routes so improved should be furnished with an amended schedule by the department, so as to enable them to report to it any nonperformance of its orders; and that in such cases the orders of the department should not alone be relied on to prove that the services have been rendered. TiLLOw's Case. The mail route between Newark and Paterson, in New Jersey, has been a subject of investigation. (See Doc. 31 & 32.) This is a part of route No- 956 as it was advertised in 183 J . The whole route was from Newark by Belleville, Acquackanock, Paterson, Pompton, Newfoundland, Stockholm, and Hamburg, to Deckertown, fifty miles, to run twice a week in stages. The contract was made with J. J. Roy, Daniel Searle, Miller Horton, J. H. Avery, J. C. Horton, and Stockton and Stokes (though it appears to have been signed only by Daniel Searle, Miller Horton, and J. C. Horton) for this and three other routes, with alterations from the advertisements, that is to say, No. 953, from New York by Morristown, N. Jersey, to Milford, Pennsylvania, seventy-five miles, three times a week, in four horse coaches. No. 956 so' altered as to run from New York by Pater- son, Pompton, Newfoundland, Stockholm, Hamburg, and Deckertown, to Milford, Pa., three times a week in four horse post coaches; and from New- Ill [ se J ark by Belleville to Paterson, twice a week in two horse stages; and that part of the route as altered between New York and Patterson to run daily. No. 1035, from Milford, Pa., to Owego, N. York, one hundred miles, six times a week, in four horse post coaches; and No. 1110, from Northum- berland, Pa., by Wilkesbarre to Dundaff (where it intersects No. 1035) ninety-six miles daily, in four horse post coaches, for Si 3,975 a year. That part of No, 956 which lies between Newark and Paterson, fifteen miles, to be carried twice a week, would, at tlie rate allowed for the whole contract, amount to about 5S230 a year. Mr. Roy, who had the part of the contract which embraced that space, employed William Tillou, of Newiirk, to perform the service for §200 a year. The contract commenced on the 1st of .lanuary, 1832, to continue for the usual period of four years. In February, 1832, whilst Mr. Roy, by his sub contractor, Mr. Tillou, was performing the service under his contract, a petition was sent to the Post- master General setting forth the importance of a daily mail between tho^e two places, and proposmg that John Fine should be employed to cany it, who, the petitioners stated, would perform the service for $200 a year. The Postmaster General directed the mail to be transported on that part of the route from that time to the first of May following, three times a week, and from the 1st of May six times a week; and made a pro rata allowance for the same. The only question is, whether the Postmaster General should have super- seded the contract with Mr. Roy and given it to another who had not bid for it at its letting; or have contracted with thai other person to perform the additional service on the same route because he nuw proposed, after the contract was made, to perform it at a lower rate. The contract was in existence, and while it was faithfully performed on the part of the contrac- lor, we know of no principle by wl^ich he could be justly deprived of it. The same rule also governs the Postmaster General, we understand, in re- gard to increased number of trips on a route where a contract exists. It is not customary to make a contract with another person to carry a mail on a route which is already under contract, but to require the contractor to per- form such additional service as may be necessary, provided he will do so at a rate not exceeding a /?ro ra/a allowance for such service. This kind ot protection the Postmaster General appears to consider due to contractors, and that the anticipation of it induces them to take contracts much lower than they would do if they were liable to bp superseded by an opposition that might, at any time, run upon the route; or if such opposition was likely to be encouraged by the department, with contracts to carry the mail upon the same road. Reesidk's Contract from New York to Philadelphia. Route No. 951, from New York to Philadelphia, was let in the fall of 1831 to James Reeside, the then contractor on the route. By this contract Mr. Reeside was to transport the mail by Jersey c?ty, (New Jersey,) Newark, Elizabethtown, Rahway, New Brunswick, Kingston, Princeton, Trenton, Morrisville, (Pennsylvania,) Tullytown, Bristol, Andalusia, Holmesburg, and Frankford, to Philadelphia, in four horse post coaches, as advertised, lor the sum of i56,000 per annum; the expense of carrying the mail across the Hudson river to be defrayed by the department. It was also provided in the contract (see Doc. No. 95) that increased speed should be given to the mail, so that it should run through, from city to city, in thirteen hours; and a second daily mail should be run from city to city in steam boats and [ 86 ] 112 stages, if required by the Postmaster General, for which and for providing armed guards, when required, the contractor was to receive §13,000; and to keep up the second daily mail in the season of the year when steamboats did not run, the further compensation was provided of $1,500 per annum. During the sessions of Congress it had been deemed necessary by the de- partment to run an additional mail line from Baltimore to l-'hiladelphia, which was done by the way of Lancaster, to carry a portion of the mail matter too heavy for one line, and to give to Philadelphia the benefit of a second daily mail from the city of Washington. It was deemed expedient to extend the advantage of this arrangement to New York, particularly so, as it gave the morning papers published in that city Washington intelligence much in advance of the ordinary mail. A third mail was therefore or- dered to be run on route No. 951, in this winter and during the suspension of steamboats, in connexion with the line from Baltimore, by way of Lan- caster, called an Express Mail. Mr. Reeside was allowed for this the sum of ^3,150 per annum. It should be remarked, that the original contract was for S6,000 a year, and the mail was to run daily, and ail the offices on the route to be supplied by it. This service was evidently less than the interest of the community required, and is one of the cases embraced in the remarks heretofore made, in which the adverlisements inviting proposals did not call for sufficient service. In the proposal and contract the Postmaster General is authorized to order an increased expedition, so as to go from city to city in thirteen hours; and to put on a second daily mail between the two cities, to run in steam- boats and stages, and to have the mail protected by an armed guard, for the additional sum of $13,000; and for a further sum of Sl,500 to send the second daily mail, during the suspension of steamboat navigation, in four horse post coaches. This service was ordered by the Postmaster General from the commencement of the contract. We do not consider it too much for the route lying between the two great cities of New York and Philadel- phia. Less than this, between those important points, will not prevent a resort to the establishment of private mails. From the whole evidence, (see Doc. No. 92 to No. 98,) we are of opinion that the contractor has substantially executed the orders of the Postmaster General. It appears by a report from the department, that in March, 1833, the Postmaster General determined to expedite the mail between Washington and New York, and between that place and the eastern cities, with a view to put down private mails, and to do away the necessity of employing a pub- lic express for that purpose, and as had been done in the preceding winter. It was found necessary to run the mail from Philadelphia to NeAv York in twelve hours, in bad roads as well as go.od. For this purpose the contractor was engaged to perform the service within that time; but the execution was considered impracticable, if he were compelled to stop at the numerous post offices on the route, and therefore an additional line was established for the purpose of supplying them. This arrangement rendered unnecessary the express mail before spoken of. This additional mail cost the depart- ment ^5,125, which is Si, 975 more than the express mail, which was in consequence ordered to be discontinued. By this latter arrangement, the mail was despatched from Washington to New York in fifteen hours less time on the winter arrangement than before, and a day was gained in the expedition of the southern mail to Boston and Albany, and the numerous points beyond. This requirement of extraordinary speed on route No. 95U 113 [ S6 ] had the effect of inducing the contractor to arrange with the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company for the transportation of the city mails, and the great eastern and southern mails passins; through New Jersey; and thereby secured to the service of the mail all the expedition that could be given by the railroad, which had been completed and put in operation since the making of the mail contracts for that section of the United States- It is of the greatest importance that the movement of the mail should be as rapid as that of travellers, especially between large cities like Philadelphia and New York. It is apparent that much difficulty ma}' arise in effecting this, where a change in the mode of travel has taken place subsequently to the contracts being let for four years, as in the event of the construction of a railroad respecting which there are no general provisions of law, as in the case of steamboats. In this instance, the running of two lines of mails on the railroad was accomplished, and z daily line of stage mail continued to the towns situated between Philadelphia and New York, on the old route, at an additional cost of moderate amount, compared with the amount 'paid <3n the contract, or tlie rate of compensation asked by the railroad com- panies for transporting the mail, and not an unreasonable price, in our judgments, for the advantages secured by the improvement. It should be noticed, that four daily mails are named by witnesses as having been run by the contractor between New York and Philadelphia; only three were ordered and paid for by the department. The fourth was carried for the contractor's own convenience, and was made up of mail matter properly belonging to one of the others. It appears from the testimony, "(see Doc. No. 123, 121, 122, and 97,) that in in the beginning of the 3'ear 1S33, such was the excited and interesting state of public affairs, that the editor of the Journal of Commerce, a newspaper printed in the city of New York, felt justified at his own expense to esta- blish an express to run from Philadelphia to the city of New York, and by this means obtained the intelligence earlier than its arrival in the regular course of the mail. This express had been in operation for several days, and by reason of it the editor of that paper obtained information at an ear- lier period than the other editors in the city of New York. As was to be expected, this produced dissatisfaction, that a private individual could ob- tain intelligence for himself and patrons before the Government furnished it to the eitizens generally. In this state of things the Postmaster General •deemed it his duty to employ an express mail, which should convey intel- ligence as rapidly as it could be furnished by the individual alluded to. He accordingly engaged Mr. Reeside, an efficient contractor, to perform this special service, promising to give him a fair compensation for the same so long as it should be deemed necessary for the Government express to be run. Doubts have been expressed as to the propriety of this measure as adopted by the Postmaster General. Although we are inclined to the opinion, that celerity in the transportation of the mail has been too much regarded in some cases, yet, in this instance, the object of the Department was laudable and praiseworthy. It should not be permitted that an individual should establish a mode of communication and continue it, by which intelligence should be received and acted upon by him before the community at large can have the benefit of it through the medium of the Government mails. If such a measure on the part of an individual cannot be arrested by law, the Government should not hesitate to adopt means, although of an expen- sive character, to place the community generally in possession of the same 15 [ 86 ] 114 intelligence at as early a period as practicable. It should defeat the efforts of individuals to exercise functions and powers belonging exclusively to itself; especially where such efforts are attended with ihe effect of giving thenn advantages over the rest of the community. We therefore conclude that it was proper in tl)e Post Office Department to put this express mail into operation. And we have not heard of any attempt to set up a private express, either for purposes of speculation or any other, since the one made by the editors of the Journal of Commerce; and it is hoped that the mea- sures adopted by the Postmaster General in this instance will teach all our citizens the inutility of such attempts. ' The next inquiry which presents itself for consideration is, whether the Postmaster General has acted judiciously in effecting the object in question. He attempted to make a contract for a specific sum by his agent in New York. The sum demanded was more than the agent thought a fair equiva- lent for the service. He then directed Mr. Reeside to perform it, engaging that he should be fairly compensated for the service. The contractor (Ree- side) commenced the service, and continued it until it became known at the department that the editor of the Journal of Commerce had ceased to run his express. By contract, Mr. Reeside was to run the distance, nine- ty miles, in six hours each way. This, according to the testimony, would require that no horse should be run more than about five miles at one time. Two horses were necessary to carry the mail; of course it would require seventy-two horses for each day's service, exclusive of those which had to be kept on the line to supply the places of those that might be disabled by the service. The department had stipulated to pay a fair equivalent for the service, and the contractor (Mr. Reeside) brought forward the testimony of three witnesses, verified by their oaths, showing that they, the witnesses, had been for several years engaged in business of that kind; and that from their knowledge of the services performed as set forth in Mr. Reeside's account, they considered the charges to be entirely fair and reasonable, and no more than a just renumeration for his services and the necessary expenses attending them. We are ignorant of the characters of these witnesses, one of whom is well vouched for, and it is but fair to presume that the depart- ment was satisfied of the respectability of all before the account was allowed. The account charges one dollar for each horse for every mile run during the service, which several witnesses say is the common price for such ser- vice. If this price be allowed, Mr. Reeside has not received more than he was entitled to. It appears by the testimony of Mr. Schenk, (see Doc. No. 122) who as- sisted in running the express for the Journal of Commerce, that in some in- stances that express arrived earlier at New York than the Government ex- press, and that at other times the Government express arrived first. The editor of the Journal of Commerce states that the private express generally arrived first. This was owing, no doubt, to the fact, that so soon as the Go- vernment express commenced running from Philadelphia, from which place the private express had set out before that time, Mr. Hale, the editor, changed the place of .starting his express to Port Deposite, and afterwards to Washington City; and by receiving his mail matter at these places his express would outrun the mail coach, and pass Philadelphia before the Go- vernment express could receive the mail matter to be carried by it from the post office in that city. 115 [ S6 3 Some subjects examined by the committee may have escaped our notice. Nothing, however, deemed to be of importance has been intentionallv omitted. The deficiencies in the finances of the department have arisen mainly from a desire in the head of the department to extend the benefits of mail facilities and stage coacli accommodations to every portion of the com- munity; from the extension of the franking j^rivilege, and from the legisla- tion of Congress, in extending the transportation of the mail over unproduc- tive routes. The public, however, have been greatly benefited and accom- modated by the very measures which have produced the present embarrass- ed condition of the department. That eirors and irregularities have occur- red is most certain, and most of them have been produced by the represen- tations and pressing solicitations of the citizens of towns and neighborhoods through which the increased mail facilities have been extended. Their ap- plications have been sustained by members of Congress from almost every section of the country. The recent measures, however, adopted bv the de- partment, curtailing mail accommodations, seem to promise a restoration of its administration to the true principle upon which it should be conducted, which is, that its expenditures should not exceed its own revenues. If Congress would now appropriate a sufficient sum to pay the existing debts against the department, and by law make the provisions hereafter mentioned, most of which were suggested by us at the last session, no rea- sonable doubt could be entertained but that the operations of the departn)ent would hereafter be safe and economical, and most of the useful facilities which have been curtailed be restored, and the department enabled from its own resources to meet the expenditures which will probably be produced by the extension and increase of mail routes at the next session of Congress. Tile legal provisions we would recommend are: 1. An auditor and treasurer to be appointed by the President and Senate. 2. That reports be made to Congress annually of all tiie expenditures of the depariment, stated in detail, including incidental expenses; also, of all new contracts, and modifications of contracts, and their respective prices; also, a statement of the amount paid for the transportation ot the mail on each route, in the several States and Territories, as near as may be. 3. That any person employed in the General Post Office shall be pro- hibited from becoming a mail contractor, or interested i:: a mail contract, or an agent, with or without compensation, for a mail contractor. 4. That advertisements for proposals to carry the mail, issued previous to the periodical lettings, be made as nearly as may be according to the man- ner in which, in the judgment of the Postmaster General, the mail should be transported during the period of the contract. 5. That the sealed proposals received from bidders for mail contracts shall not be opened until after the time for receiving bids shall have expired. 6. That reports be made to Congress annually of all failures by contrac- tors on principal mail routes to deliver mails, and the action of the Postmas- ter General in regard thereto in each case. 7. That the deputy postmasters at the termination of each route be fur- nished with copies of the schedules containing the times of arrival and de- parture of all mails at his office; and if any alteration be made by the de- partment of the time of arrival or departure of any mail at any of said offices, the postmaster to be forthwith notified of the same. 8. That it shall be the duty of each deputy postmaster to immediately [ 86 ] 116 notify the department of every failure in any contractor to deliver the mail at the respective times specified in the schedules furnished. FELIX GRUNDY, JOHN M. ROBINSON. We append to this report all the vouchers and depositions procured and taken by the committee in relation to all the subjects investigated by them. FELIX GRUNDY, JOHN M. ROBINSOxN. ACC0MPANTIX3 THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ?08T OFFICE. lis Dr. 1832. Apri 1 3 4 13 IS 19 23 May 23 June 30 1832. July 1 DOCUMENT James RcesidCi Contractor, hi account Balance per ledger, to 1st April, 1832 Cash Bank U. S., Baltimore 1,175 61 Cash Bank of Melropolis 1,500 00 Cash Bank U. S., Natchez, Miss. Do Hartford, Con. Do Charleston, S. C. - Do Utica, N. Y. Do Hartford, Con. 2,000 00 Do New York city 3,000 00 Do Philadelphia Delays in arrival at New York, 13th and 14lh June, IS 32. |S2,G75 61 I 2,000 00 2,000 00 2,000 00 3.000 00 5,000 00 3,376 89 Balance raft on VV. Dunield Do N. Mendel], (late Do J. Barndollar Do Jno. H. Hoffins Do Jno. Statler Do Jno. McMiillan Do Jno. McFarland Do Judah Case Do S. Drum - Do W. Black Do George Lehmer Do S. H. Dailey $2,091 21 20,052 50 90 00 822,239 71 11.097 21 100 00 1 15 00 1 100 00 575 00 15 00 10 00 90 00 120 00 130 GO 60 00 55 00 60 00 $1,330 GO 119 [ S6] Nd. 1. with the Post Office JJepartment. Cr. Transporting the mail, Chambersburg to Pittsburgh, tlience to Wheeling, from 1st January, 1832, to date, at per qr. - Do Philadelphia to Easton, thence to Pleasant \iount, at per qr. Do Mount Pleasant to Stewartsville, at per qr. - Do Bedford to Wasliington , at per qr. Do Hagerslown to McConnellstown, daily in four horse stages, at j)er qr. Do Baltimore to Chambersburg, at |jer qr. - . _ - Do Piiiladelphia to Mauch ('iiunck, at per qr. - Do Pottsville to Northumberland, Pottsville to Muncey, thence to Co- lumbus, Danville to Milton, at per qr. - . . - Do one iialf route Philadelphia to Port Deposite, his half, at per qr. - Do Augusta to Milledgeville, at per qr. - - . - D. Dorrance's draft of 1st April, 1S32, in his favor . . . Win. Shannon's draft of 27th Decem- ber, 1S31, in his favor Balance - Transporting the mail, Chambersburg to Pittsburgh, thence to Wheeling, from l«t April, 1832, to date, at per qr. . - - . Do Philadelphia to Easton, thence to Pleasant Mount, at per qr. Do Mount Pleasant to Stewartsville, at per qr. - Do Bedford to Washington, at per qr. , to date - - ' Do Hagerstown to McConnellstown, daily in four horse coaches, at per qr. Do Baltimore to Chambersburg, at per qr. . . - - ^3,G25 00 975 00 GS 75 725 00 350 00 873 75 625 00 750 00 300 00 1,732 50 ' 707 50 350 00 11,097 21 25 22,239 71 $3,625 00 975 00 , 68 75 ,725 00 350 00 873 75 [ 86 ] 120 Dk James Reeside's account 1832. Aug. 4 Sep. 11 ii it 1832. Oct. 31 Nov. 3 <*' 13 (( (C « 19 Dec'r 4 Cash U. S. Bank, city New York J)o Bank of Augusta, Georgia Do U. S. Banh, Baltimore, Do do Savannah, Georgia Do do City New York Do do New Orleans - Balance Cash U. S. Bank, Rhode Island Do do City New York Do do do Do do Boston Do do Philadelphia - Do do Baltimore Do do City New York g7,000 00 2,000 00 2,000 00 2,000 00 3,129 00 2,000 00 2,000 00 577 83 3,000 00 6,000 00 3,000 00 ^00 00 3.000 00 13,129 oe $ 30,556 21 20,531 21 17,977 8S §38,509 04 121 [ S6 ] Conlinued. "is 32. July 1 1832. Oct. 1 (( 4S,921 94 $1,08 333 4,750 00 1,162 50 3,625 00 68 75 ,1,691 67 89 78 350 00 625 00 86 11 t 86 1 ,156 Dr. James Reeside's account — 1833. July 1 6 i( IS ii {( (( 23 li 11 Dr. 134 James Beeside's account — 1834. Aay 8 To Cash U. States' Bank, Hartford - g2,000 00 Do Do Savings' Bank, Louisville, Ky. 1,500 00 « a Do Do Union Bank, Nash- ville - 1,500 00 a a Do Do Commonwealth Bank, Boston 1,000 00 86,000 00 ^lay 13 Do Do Manhattan Bank, N. York 4,432 44 a 124,253 43 The amount which had been stated, as it was taken from a ge- neral exhibit, was - - _ - _ 123,500 96 In noting the different items, the books having since that time been posted up, they are found to exceed that sum by $152 47 I have the honor to be. Very respectfully. Your obedient servant, VV.T. BARRY. Hon. Felix Grundy, ' ' - Chah^man of the Com. on the Post Office and Fast Roads, [Doc. No. 6.] Post Office Department, December 24, 1834. The following statement of facts will exhibit the financial condition of the Post Office Department, from a list of balances taken from the books of ac- counts, and from the ascertained amount of revenues and expenses subse- quent to the dates of those balances. A list of balances is taken as they appeared on the books on the 1st of April, 1834, not including any part of the expenses for transporting the mail from January 1 to April 1, 1834, nor any part of the revenues arising from postages within that period. All receipts from postmasters and others are included in the list of balances, and all payments for incidental and other expenses to the 31st of March, 1834, inclusive. From this list of balances, it appears that there v/ere due to the department, on the 1st of April, 1834, as follow, viz: From old postmasters, who had gone out of office prior to the 1st Januar}'^, 1833, balances amounting to - - ^^147,732 02 From postmasters still in office, or who had not gone out of office prior to January 1, 1833, for postages which accrued prior to January 1, 1834, ... - 248,029 11 From old contractors, agents, and on miscellaneous accounts, wliose contracts had expired, or whose accounts had ceased to be current before the 1st January, 1833, - - 33,178 3S Balances against contractors, for payments made to them prior to the 1st April, 1834, for the current services of the quar- ter which ended that day, and for former services which had not yet been placed to their cr^it, ampunling to 284,897 38 Total amount of balances due the department prior to 1st April, 1834, ..---. g7l3,S36 89 M3 , l ^G ] From this list of balances there appears to have been due from llic de- partment, on the 1st April, 1S34, as follows, viz.: To old postmasters, who had gone out of office prior to the 1st January, 1833, balances amounting to S7,020 50 To old contractors, agents, and on miscellaneous accounts, prior to January 1, 1833, which ac- counts had ceased to be current - 3,470 53 To postmasters still in office, or who were so on the 1st January, 1833, principally for payments made on account of current postages during the quarter ending April 1, 1834, - 118,489 50 To contractors whose contracts were still running or had not expired prior to January 1, 1833, for services performed prior to January 1, 1834, 223,484 95 S352,4G5 48 Leaving the net amount of balances in favor of the department, agreeably to the list of balances above reforrpd to, April 1, 1834, - - - - - - 5361,371 41 The net proceeds of postages, from January 1 to April 1, 1834, not included in the above list of balances, was - 496,677 21 Making the amount of balances, on the 1st April, 1834, inclu- ding the net am.ount of balances exhibited in the list, S858,048 62 There was due, on the 1st April, 1834, for transportation, which had not yet been credited to contractors, - iS49,4S7 SO The expense for transportation, from January 1 to April 1, 1834, was ------ 454,514 22 There was also a balance due to banks on that day above the amount of deposites, - _ . . 451,599 48 Making the amount of debt on that day, - - §955,601 50 From this sum deduct the above amount of balances, applica- ' i)le to its liquidation, _ . _ . 858,048 62 And the balance against the department, on the 1st April, 1834, was -..--- §97,552,88 There had been reported, in 1828, as unavailable $284,289 00 In 1829, the farther sum of - - - 22,235 00 Also, in 1829, counterfeit money and notes of ijroken banks, . . _ . 4; 306 00 Making, together, the unavailable sum of - S310,830 00 Of this sum, which is unavailal)le, there has been charged over lo i)rolit and loss, suspense and bad debts, so as not to be embraced in the li.^t of balances, the sum of - - - J 23,500 96 Leaving, on the account of balances^ which has Geen re])orted unavailable, the sum of 187,329 04 Which added to the above deficit, and the whole debt of the department, on the 1st April, 1834, exceeded the whole , of its available funds to the amount of - - S2S4,881 92 [ 86 ] 144 Such was the real condition of the department on the 1st day of April, lSy4, admitting that the whole estimated as unavailable shall be lost, and that no other losses shall have been sustained. Thei'e is, however, no doubt that the amount already collected on what was estimated as unavailable, is more than equal to all other or subsequent losses, and that the condition of the department cannot be worse than this exhibit presents it. From April 1 to July 1, 1834, the net amount of postages was S490,158 84 The expense for transportation, during the same period, was .... S454,514 21 T^he incidental expenses of the department, for the same period, were - - 8,974 07 Making the whole expenses of the department, from April 1 to July 1, 1834. - - 463,488 28 Revenue for that quarter above the expense, - ^26,670 56 Which sum, deducted from the above deficit, shows that the debt of the department was, on the 1st July, 1834, above all its available means, _ . - , ^258,2 11 36 This statement, having been made from a full list of balances as they stand on the books, and from the ascertained amount of revenues and expendi- tures from the date of the balances to the 1st July, 1834, may be relied on as substantially correct, and as exhibiting the true condition of the depart- ment on the 1st July, 1834. The interest, which had been paid prior to the 1st April, 1834, is inclu- ded in the accounts from which the list of balances is drawn. From April 1 to July 1, 1834, the interest account is about S>6,000; which, if added to the above sum of $258,211 36, will show the amount of deficit to be, on the 1st July, 1834, §264,211 36. But as there has been collected by the department, at diiferent times, an amount of interest more than sufficient to ijover tlie S6,000 above named, which also is not embraced in the above statement, the actual deficit, on the 1st July, 1834, cannot exceed the above sum of $258,211 36. VV. T. BARRY. [Doc. No. 7.] SAMUEL A. COBURN. Lowell, October 27, 1S.34. Question 1. Do you know Mr. Wyman, former postmaster of this place? What was his character as postmaster? [To this interi'ogatory the chairman objected, but agreed that the answer to the question might be taken subject to the decision of Mr. Knight.] Answer 1. 1 know him very well; and I never heard his character im- peached, and never h^ard a complaint against him as postmaster. SAMUEL A. COBURN. 145 [ 86 ] [Doc. No. 8.} Boston, October 28, 1S34* Thomas liillings, having appean.'d and being duly sworn, gave the fol- lowing answers lo the respective interrojj;atories as hereinafter set fortli; Question 1. Are you acquainted with Eliphalet Casej postmaster at Loivell? Answer 1. I am. Que.-tion 2. Was he the editor of the newspaper called the Lowell Mer- cury previous to his being appointed postmaster? Answer 2. He was. Question .S. What do you know about l)is compensation as editor after he was made postmaster; and did he or did he riot proj)ose, if appointed postmaster, that he would act as editor of said j)aper for nothing? State all you know about the manner of his obtaining the office, and what lie did receive or not as editor. Answer .3. Before he was appointed postmaster he was editor of the newspaper, and received three hundred dollars a year for his services from me. Mr. Case had been to Washington some time before his ajDpointment as postmaster The last petition for his appointment was signed by part of the committee of Lowell, called the democratic committee for calling caucuses, &c. in town. I was present at the meeting; was one of the com- mittee: it was held in Mr. Case's room. I did not sign the petition. I saw a printed notice calling said meeting at Mr. Case's room, and therefore attended: it was a private room. Mr. Case was present, and it was stated by some one that there had been complaints made ngninst the present postmaster; that he would be undoubt- edly removed, and proposed that Mr. Case should be recommended as his ciuccessor, whicii was accordingly done, by the committee in part, and Mr. Case, was afterwards appointed postmaster. Before this meeting, Mr. Case had told me that if he was appointed post- master, as he expected, he would continue lo edit the paper as formerly^ without charging any thing; and I do not know that he has charged any thing. Witness has seen thn paper used for envelop arrivirg at the post office used for envelopes for s. id nev.spnper at the lime Mr. Case owned the newspaper and since. This was the common practice. I heard Mr. Case say they made very good wrappers. The newspaper was in the hands of Mr. Case, under a deed of trust from me, about four months before he was made postmaster. This was in De« cember, 18.32, and it continued in his hands under said deed for about a year. He had possession of it: he sold it to Huntress and Kiiowlton. Ke continued to be editor of said nc.vspaper during the time 1 owned it, and down until the present time, so far as I know. Question 4. Is there not a lawsuit depending between you and Mr, Case, on the subject of this deed of trust? Answer 4. There is. There was an arbitration. We agreed to leave the appraisal of the office to certain arbitrators. He held it as collateral security for $650; sold it for $1,200. I claimed the difference between •what he sold it for and the sum for which he was responsible. He refused to pay, and we left to the arbitrat^ls to say whether the estftblishmeat wa» 19 [ S6 3 146 worth more or less when it passed into his hands than what he sold it for. The arbitrators appraised it at more, and I sued him on the award. I understood from Mr. Case tliat lie had made aj^plication to be made postmaster: iic had not got the cflicc, bui did not douht he would get it. I do not know that it was understood by any of iiie committee except my- self tiiat he was to make no charge as editor if he was appoineed postmas- ter. I don't know'if he Iiad mentioned this to any other: he had spoken to me. THOMAS BILLINGS. [Doc. No. 9 ] October 2S, IS34. Asahel B. Wright, aged 15 years. Question 1. Are you employed in the office of the Lowell Mercury, and how long have you been? Answer 1. Yes; and have been for 18 months. Mr. E. Case is editor of the paper. I am an apprentice in that office. Question 2. Is it or not the practice to bring the wrappers and papers of the post ofiice received from other post offices as envelopes to the printing office, to be used in wrapping the newspapers? Answer 2. Yes; it is the constant practice. They are regularly all brought everv Thursday. I brought them about two-thirds of the time, and most generally handle them when they are there. The Mercury is put up in them. 1 have four times found among these papers letters directed to the office; once there '.vas a package of letters, how many I could not tell; as soon as discovered I returned them to the post office. The package I found was directed to Portland, Maine. ASAHEL B. WRIGHT. 147 [Doc. No. 10.] [86] ^Amount of contracts as reported by the Postmaster General, and dif- ference as extracted from the contracts as executed. Document No. 422; 23(1 Congress, 1st Session, 18th April, 18;1 Pag-e. Report. Contracts. 120 4 §39,702 00 121 - -. - - - 7,779 00 122 - - - . . 40,296 00 123 . - _ - . 16,320 00 124 - - - . - 7,514 GO 125 - . . - _ 11,491 00 126 - - . 25,891 00 127 - . . 16,583 00 128 . . - - » 11,185 00 129 _ - - . . 7,663 00 130 - - . 11,703 00 131 - - _ 9,849 50 132 . _ . 7,625 GO 133 . - . 9,634 00 134 - - - ^ 7,313 00 135 . . . 70,825 90 136 . - - - • 9,044 00 137 . . - 8,062 25 138 . ■ - 4,255 48 139 - ... . 4,848 00 140 - . . - . 45,435 00 141 . ... - 11,664 00 142 . ... . 11,500 50 143 * 8,635 00 $340,626 54 Actual contracts - - - $404,848 63 [ 8G 3 148^ Statement showing a difference between divers contracts as reported by the No. route. 951 960 990 3,031 1,118 1,133 1,125 1,231 1,383 1,3SG 1,409 1,412 1,501 and 16 others 1,508 1,534 1,538 Contractors. J. Reeside James Horton J. and W. Tonkin &Co. Reeside, Slay maker, and Tomlinson - C. L. Ward - 'Do James Smith - ~ James Reeside Williamson & Stockton J, McKenny, jr. Jonathan Phillips James Williams R. C. Stockton and W. Neil Geo. A. Dohrman Diver, Ely, and Gilbert William Wilson Route. New York 1o Philadelphia - Newton to Goshen - Philadelphia to Bridgetown Philadelphia to Pittsburgh - Stroudsburgh to Brooklyn • Russelvilleto Wyalusing Dunsbury to Smilhport Hagerstown to McConnells- burgh - - - Baltimore to Annapolis Baltimore to Uniontown Washington to Annapolis Georgetown, D. C, to Ridge Astabula to Wheeling, Va. New Lisbon to Ackron Canton to Norwalk Miles. 90 38 44 303 74 12 99 26 30 41 38 99 143 .80 There are large amounts of allowances running back to the beginning of 149 [ 80 ] P. M. General »^pril IS, 1S32, and the actual sums in those contracts. How transported. Tjips. Report. Contracts. Frnr horse post coach Daily — Iwi e a day - i5G,0')0 ^20,500 Stages Once a week 200 24S Do Six times 700 1,000 Four horse post coach Daily 7,000 *2 7,000 Horse Do Once a week Do \ 350 550 Do Do 394 4S0 Four horse post coach Thrice a week 40 tl,400 Stages Daily 950 955 Horse Twice a week 205 350 Four horse post coach Three and six a week 1,3.50 1..500 Do do One and two a week 1,050 2,000 • 37,000 56,360 Four horse post coach and steam Daily 2,750 5,700 Four horse post coach Part daily - 450 700 Horse Once a week 207 277 658,646 119,020 Increase - 58,646 860,374 contracts, such as R. C. Stockton — several routes 5514,950 Nominal. Allowed from beginning - • - 20,150 •Including No. 1,1?0, contract $1,250, $35,100 Actual sum. fBy second contract same date. [86] 150 [Doc. No. 11.] Exhibit of difference in amount of contracts in 1S27, as reported by Poslmaslcr General, and as shown by the contracts entered into by the bidders with the Department. 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 SI Page of liociiment. Report. Con'.racts. g34,745 00 g34,745 GO 18,018 SO 18,018 SO 11,179 00 11,204 00 28,221 00 27,827 00 4,750 00 4,750 00 8,861 00 8,861 00 13,489 36 13,489 36 11,563 50 11,563 .^0 8,603 00 8,423 00 23,625 00 23,575 00 43,425 00 41,229 00 4,738 00 4,733 00 7,068 00 7,068 00 8,013 00 7,877 -^0 6,327 50 6,273 .0 9,295 00 9,332 1,950 00 ^1,950 00 38,913 00 39,236 00 S282,785 00 |g2S0,155 00 [Doc. No. 12.] Route No. 1744, Georgetown to Cincinnati, 72 miles, three times a week in four horse post coaches. Accepted to John Thurston, daily in four horse post coaches, at 1,000 dollars, and subsequently transferred to James F. Robinson. Paris, October 22, 1831. Please issue the contract for carrying the mail from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Georgetown, Kentucky, to James F. Robinson of the latter place. Very respectfully, JOHN THURSTON. Hon. W. T. Barrt, Postmaster General, 151 [ 86 ] [Doc. No. 13.] Georgetown, Ky., December 2, 1831. Dear Sir: I propose increasing the speed of mail route from Cincinnati, Ohio, 10 this place, from the pre:-.ent contract, so as to meet the increased speed of the routes in Ohio and Kentucky connected with it, as already pro- posed to you by the contractors on said routes, for the annual compensation of dollars, in addition to the comjjcnsalion under my picsent contract. Should this j)roposilion be accepted by the department, my contract can be issued accordiiMrly. Your letter informing me of your assent to the transfer of Mr. Thurston's bid for this route to myself has been duly received. Your friend, J. F. ROBINSON. Hon. W. T. Baury, P'jsbnaster General. [Doc. No. 14.] Post Office Department, Office of Mail Contracts, November 16, I S3 1. Sir: Your letter of 2d instant is received. The Postmaster General con- sents that the contract for the route from Georgetown to Cincinnati shall be made in your name. The contract will be forwarded to you in a short time. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, A. NELSON, (For the Postmaster General.) James F. Robinson, Esq,, Georgetown, Ky, [Doc. No. 15.] The cost of establishing a daily line from Georgetown to Cincinnati. Fourteen teams of horses, at 90 dollars per horse - - S5 040 00 Six nine passenger coaches, 500 dollars each - .3 qoo 00 Fourteen sets of harness at 50 dollars per set - . 700 oo Amount of original capital - - §3,740 00 Annual expense o^ said line. Fourteen teams, horse keeping, driver hire, horse shoeing, wear and tear, 700 dollars each team - - . g9,800 00 Contingent expenses, including ten extra horses, pay of an agent, and ferriage - > - . . i^qoo 00 $10,800 00 [ 86 ] 152 The passaengers upon this line for the present year (which exceeds any previous one) will amount to - - $3,500 00 Suppose them to increase one half upon the establishment of a daily line ----.. 1,750 00 $'",250 00 [Doc. No. IC] Georgetown, Kr., December 4, 1S31. Dear Sir: 1 have seen a statement made by James F. Robinson, esq., of this place, in relation to the transportation of ihe mail between this place and Cincinnati, and beg leave to say a few words on that subject. The ori- ginal cost of horses aiui coaches will be S,740 dollars; the annual expense of the line 10,800 dollars. He proposes to increase the speed of transportation so as to connect this line wiih the improvement bids of the Ohio company from Columbus to Cincinnati, arid the Kentucky company from Maysville to Nashville. To make this connexion he must run through in fifteen hours; according to his present contract he is allowed twenty hours for the performance of the trip; this makes an increase of five hours. You must be sensible that this increase will subject liini to great in- convenience and much additional expense. The horses must be of the finest description, and indeed the whole property on the line will be much more costly. You are aware of the fact, that to increase the speed as proposed will wear out the property much sooner than if permitted to travel at a moderate rate. The horses will fail much sooner, and, in fact, every way the ex- pense of the contractor is increased. That it will be highly beneficial to the department, none can deny. It will be acknowledged as another evidence of the enterprise and ability of the head [of the] department, and of his persevering determination to do every thing within his reach to increase the intercourse between every quarter of the Union. I do think, taking every thing into consideration, an additional allowance of §2,500 per annum would not be more than a fair compensation for the increase of speed. The public benefit will be very great, and I am sure the department ought not to hesitate to make the improvement when it can be done at so small an expense. Under the hope that yuu will close with his proposition, and make the allowance, I remain, with sentiments of high regard, Your most obedient servant, R. I. WARD. Hon. W. T. Barry. Read this particularly, and decide the case. Your friend, R. M, JOHNSON, 153 [ 86 ] [Doc. No. 17.] Post Office Department, December 29, 1S31. Sir: The Postmaster General directs that you perform the trip between Georgetown and Cincinnati, each way, in twelve liours, instead of the time prescribed by the "advertisement." Very respectfully, • Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN. J AS. F. Robinson, Esq., Georgetown, Kentucky. [Doc. No. IS.] Georgetown, Kentucky, April 11, 1832. Dear Sir; 1 take the liberty of writing ^ou on the subject of Mr. Ro- binson's contract for transporting the maiTfrom this place to Cincinnati. \ I have seen a calculation made byMr. R., and enclosed to Colonel John« son, which I presume he has placed before you. I am firmly persuaded that the contract will be a losing one at a Jess al- lowance than four thousand dollars per annum. To run through, as pro- posed, in connection with the Ohio and Kentucky improved bids, requires four additional teams of horses, atanexpenseof^GOO each per annum,* making $2,400. From twelve to sixteen extra horses must be kept on the line to supply the places of horses that may be unable to perform the rapid travel- ling: these will average SlOO each, say $1,200. Three additional coaches at S500, making $1,500. Then the horses and stages have to be much superior to those formerly used, and will cost twenty-five per cent. more. The injury to horses and stages will be filty per cent, more than if run at a moderate gait. The actual additional expense cannot be less than six thousand dol- lars, and may reach eight thousand. Under these circumstancas, I cannot suppose you will hesitate to make the allowance equal to four thousand dol- lars per annum. During the past winter, the mail has performed every trip between this and Cincinnati daily, without a single failure, although the roads were far worse than ever known in the State. No other contractor in the State kept up to the time. I am pursuaded the department cannot desire any contractor to lose mo- ney, and all it ought to ask, is the performance of the contract at a reasona- ble price. That four thousand dollars for a daily line of seventy-five miles in twelve hours, in all kinds of weather, and under all circumstances, is a reasonable compensation, seems too clear to require argument or calculation to prove it. I do hope you will allow that sum. It is reasonable and fair, and ougb lobe given. Respectfully, your friend, ROBERT J. WARD. Hon. W. T. Barry. 20 [.86] 154 [Doc. No. 19.] Georgetown, Kjcntucky, June 14, 1S32. Sir: To have performed the present contract for transporting the mail from this place to Cincinnati, as bid off, \vould have required only tea learps and four coache?. To perform th^ same in twelve hours, as ordered b}' the department, (and as I have performed it from the commencement.) requires seventeen teams and eight coaches. Expense of seven, additional teams ))er annum, including ever;/ thing, (save original cost,) ^§600 each - - ^4,200 00 Annua! v.'ear and tear of four additional coaches - . - 600 00 • * $4,800 00 The above statement contains onl}- the property now upon my line, and in acLual service in carrying the mail. And an increase of horses, even be- yond the seventeen teams, i^is believed', will be nccesir-ary to keep the line in operation. ' This statement'is predicated on the actual additional expense by me incurred in performing the contract. Believing, as. I do, that the department, in ail cases, will give an adequate coinpensation for transporting the m.ail, I have, from the commencement of my contract, performed it in .the time directed, relying upon the department for such allowance as shall be thought just and right. It surely never ought to be the object of the Government, in any department, to require services of an individual with- out making a full and fair compensation for the same. Under these circum- stances, I feel authorized to ask for an allowance to cover the additional ex- pense to which 1 have been subjected. And I say, with the utmost candor, that my compensation ouglit to be increased to four thousand dollars at least, believing, most firmly, that this sum is a very /oz^-and moderate compensa- tion for the transportation of the mail in the lime and manner I am now doing it. I have the honor to be, verv respcctfullv, your most obedient servant, J. F. ROBINSON. Hon. W. T. BAaiiy. [annexed to the above.] The undersigned contractors, for carrying the mail in Kentucky, have examined the annexed letter of J. F. Robinson, contractor for transporting the mail from Georgetown to Cincinnati, and have no hesitation in saying that the state.ments therein contained are true. We have no doubt but that the property, as therein specified, is now in service upon the line of said contractor, and that the compensation asked is very reasonable for the ser- vices performed. E. P. JOHNSON. June 14, 1832. JOHN HUTCHINS. [Doc. No. 20.] Georgetown, June 18, 1832. Also, the undersigned, citizens of Georgetown, Kentucky, state that they are acquainted with the line of stages owned'and run by Jain^s F Robinson I 155 [ 86 ] from Cincinnati to this place; and that the property stated in the foregoing letter is employed in the service of the Post Office Department, and neces- sary to perform the work required, and that the additional compensatioa disked is reasonable. MILUS W. DICKEY, KOBERT M. EWING. Georgetown, June IS, 1832. Dear Sir: Enclosed you will find an application by myself to the de- partment for an increase of my allowance for transporting the mail from this place to Cincinnati to cover the additional expense by me incurred un- der the order for an increased speed. I have given you the statement of Mr. E. P. Johnson and John Hutchins, also of Major M. W. Dickey and Doctor R. M. Ewing, as to facts by me set forth, and the reasonableness of the amount asked. The first gentlemen were selected because they are known to the department as the two principal contractors in Kentucky; and the two second, because they reside in this place, are gentlemen of high standing, excellent judges of property, and well acquainted [with] my line, and each well known to the department. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. F. ROBINSON. Hon. W. T. Barry. [Doc. No. 21.] Post Office Department, December C, 1833. Sir: Your representations and claims for increased compensation for car- rying the mail on route No. 1,744, between Georgetown and Cincinnati, have been duly considered. The Postmaster General directs me to state, that he does not reject the claim, tliough he cannot grant it upon the ground of the calculation furnislied by Mr. Ward. No extra allowance is lawful unless it is based upon the original contract. Your contract is to transport the mail, daily, between those two points for one thousand dollars per annum, and to run through, each way, in 14 hours; 72 miles more or less. To perfect the connections, it was found ne- cessary to limit the time to 12 hours each way; and, during the best season of the year for* passengers, to run from Cincinnati to Georgetown in the night instead of the day. To average six miles to the hour, and to gain time out of that average for changing horses and mails on the way, instead of 5-i miles an hour, will unquestionably require a considerable increase of stock; but whether two, er four, or how many additional teams, can only bo known by the ex- periment. Nor have we tiio means of ascertaining v./hat is the annual ex- pense of a team, including driver, wear, decay, and contingencies; though it is probable in that place it would not exceed SOO dollars. These points, when ascertained, will constitute a fair subject for allowance. The Postmaster General therefore agrees, that if J. Hutchins and J. G. Chiles, esqrs., both experienced contractors in that region of country, will certify their opinion of the additional number of teams required on the £86] 156 whole route in consequence of the increased expedition, and the just esti- mate of annual expense for each team, he will, on receiving their certificate, decide equitably upon the amount of additional compensation to which you are entitled. If you prefer any other persons to the gentlemen above named, he will not object, provided they shall be approved by the postmas- ter at Cincinnati. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN. James F. Robinson, Esq., Georgetown, Kentucky. [Doc. No. 22.] The undersigned being called upon by James F. Robinson to estimate what would be the additional expense necessarily incurred by the contractor in carrying the mail daily, in four horse post coaches, from Georgetown, Kentucky, to Cincinnati, Ohio, in the period of twelve instead of fourteen hours, state, that to run the aforesaid route in fourteen hours requires the best speed; but to run the same in twelve hours, as now run by the present con- tractor, does require extraordinary speed; that, after changing horses, giving time for passengers to take some refreshments, delivering the mail at lifteen post offices, and crossing the Ohio river, to run the aforesaid route in the last named time, must require the actual running to be at least at the rate of eight miles per hour. To perform this service we are well assured will re- quire the finest kind of horses, short routes, and a large number of surplus horses. Upon llie whole, we are of opinion that any contractor must, by the increase of speed aforesaid, necessarily incur the additional expense of four teams and two coaches. The expense of four additional teams we estimate at eight hundred dol- lars each per annum. The expense of two additional coaches we estimate at three hundred dollars per annum. Given under our hands, this day of December, 1832. J. G. CHILES. JOHN HUTCHINS. [Doc. No. 23.] The undersigned, at the request of James F. Robinson, esquire, have examined the annexed statements of J. G. Chiles and John Hutchins, and concur with them in their statements and estimates. They are each resi- dents of Georgetown, and acquainted with the stage property of the present contractor on the route from this place to Cincinnati; and also the manner in which he has performed his contract during the last year, and unhesitat- ingly state that we believe the sum of four thousand dollars would be but a moderate and reasonable compensation per annum, for his services. MILUS W. DICKEY. ROBERT M. EWING. 157 [86] [Doc. No. 24.] Georgetown, Kr., J^amtary 4, 1833. . I have examined the statement of John G. Chiles and John Hutchins, hereto annexed, and concur with them in the statements and estimates by them made. I have been the keeper of the stage office in this place for several years for the present and former contractors, for the Cincinnati route, and also for the southern, eastern, and western stages, that run daily. From my knowledge of the Cincinnati line, and the manner in which it is conducted, I unhesitatingly state that four thousand dollars per annum is a very low and reasonable compensation for the transportation of the mail as performed by the present contractor. JOHN DUDLEY. [Doc. No. 25.] Post Office Department, January 30, 1833. Sir: After reading the enclosed letter to Mr. Robinson, will you be pleased to forward it to him? Very respectfully. Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN. Hon. R. M. Johnson, House of Representatives . Post Office Department, January 30, 1833. Sir: The certificate of Messrs. Hutchins and Chiles is received, show- ing the additional expenses to which you have been subjected by executing the order of the department, dated 29th December, 1831, requiring you to run through each way, between Georgetown and Cincinnati, in twelve hours. The Postmaster General has considei'ed the same, and agrees that your pay shall be four thousand dollars per annum in the ivhole, to take date from th'e 1st January, 1832. The entries are so made on your contract for that route. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN. True copies. Test: C. K. GARDNER, tdsst. Postmaster Gen. James F. Robinson, Esq., Contractor y Georgeioxvn, Ky. f 86 ] ^ 158 trfdditional documents connected with the foregoing correspondencp.. Post Office Department, * Southern Division, November 14, 1S33. Sir: The Postmaster General has decided to reduce the number of trips on route 1,744 (Georgetown to Cincinnati) to three per week. He there- fore directs, that from and after the 1st day of December next, you discon- tinue the daily mail, and, instead thereof, run but three times a week. For the service discontinued two thousand dollars per annum will be deducted from your pay, leaving you two thousand dollars a year for the three weekly trips. One month's extra pay will be allowed you on the amount deducted. Very respectfully. Your obedient servant, C. K. GARDNER, Jisst, Postm, GeneraL James F.Robinson, Esq., Georgeiowiij Ky. Georgetown, 215^* December, 1833. Dear Sir: 1 have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt of your two last letters, with all the enclosures safe. For your attention, be pleased to accept our thanks. It is to us a matter of some moment to be informed, at as early a period as practicable, if there is a reasonable probability of our line being again restored to a daily one; or may we calculate that it will re- main tri- weekly? If it remains tri- weekly, we will have a large surplus of horses, &c., to dispose of, which it will be to our interest to do as soon aspraa- ticable, and save the cost of keeping, &c. ; but should it be restored, we ivould not dispose of any thing, as we will not be able to replace it for the same for which we could sell. Hence, the earliest information which it may be in your power to give us on this subject, is desired. If we cannot be reinstated as a daily line, our only remaining remedy is to try and procure such aUoioance, as a tri-weekly one, as will save us from loss, &c. Your relations and friends are all well. No news worth your attention. Your friend, (Signed) J. F. ROBINSON. Col. R. M. Johnson. N. B. Enclosed is the receipt, signed as directed. Georgetown, Kr., Dec. 24, 1S33. Dear Sir: I have just had an interview with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Gaines; and, upon full conferente, we have concluded that we cannot can- duct a tri-weekly line for less than S3,000. We must lose money if we take less, and Major Barry must not permit us to do that. You must insist on i53,O0O; get it at all hazards; we cannot work for nothing. Write me on the subject. Your friend R. ;. WARD 159 . [ 86 ] Please peruse the letters of Messrs. Robinson and Ward as to the route from Cincinnati to Georgetown, and, I presume, whether it stands or is changed, they will expect a line, which I would be glad tofoirward tothem^ and oblige RICHARD M. JOHNSON. Post Office Department, Southerfi Division j January 9, 1S34. Sir: The Postmaster General instructs me to state, in answer to the com- munications of Messrs. Robinson and Ward, submitted by you to the de- partment, that its finances will not permit him to restore the daily mai^- between Georgetown and Cincinnati. In regard to the application for an increase of the conf^ensation for the tri-weekly mail to §3,000 per annum, I am directed to state that the pre- sent pay exceeds the amount of the original stipulation; and that he cannot,, under any reasonable or proper construction of the obligations imposed on him, increase the sum. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, C. K. GARDNER, ^j^asisi. Postm. GeneraL Hon. R. M. Johnson. True copies. Test, C.K.GARDNER, Assist. Postm. General. [Doe. No.. 26.] December 26, 1S34, P. S. Loughborough, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories: Question 1. Please examine these three original papers, and Inform us who wrote them, and whether they were written in conformity with duties required of them by the department. [Marked 0, L, and G.] Answer 1. One was written by myself; one by C. K. Gardner, assistant postmaster general, and the third by J. P. Oldham, postmaster of Louisville, Kentucky. The two first are written by individuals having authority to give such directions and instructions as are therein contained. The third did not, so far as I know, have any express authority to require, but I have no doubt the suggestions contained therein would be complied with or attended to. Question 2. Has tlie eastern mail, at any time since January 1, 1S32, lor the interior of Kentucky, been sent by Cincinnati and through Georgetown.^ Answer 2. On that subject I do not know what may occasionally liave been done. It is my impression that the eastern mail, for the interior of Kentucky, has usually entered the State by way of Maysville, and from thence goes on through the State. Another mail, which goes to anotlier [ 86 ] 160 ^ part of the State of Kentucky passes through Cincinnati to Louisvilie, usually, by steamboat. When the boats do not run, this mail is sent from Cincinnati to Georgetown, I believe. Question 3. What has been the hours of arrivals and departures of the Cincinnati mail to and from Georgetown, since January 1, 1832? Answer 3. I have passed on this line since that period, from Georgetown Cincinnati. As well^as I recollect, we started'at iwo or three o'clock in the norning, and arrived at Cincinnati about dusk the same day, making, as I lUppose, about fifteen or sixteen hours tlirough. I have travelled that route jio»e than once within this time, as agent of the department, and we gene- ."ally went through in about the same time. Question 4. Have you any reason to suppose that you were longer upon the way than is usual on that route? Answer 4. 1 have no information to make me think that I was unneces- sarily delayed. Question 5. Do 'f ou know any thing of a Mr. Thurston to whom the route from" Cincinnati to Georgetown was originally struck off? Answer 5. I had never heard of him before nor since as a contractor. I am doubtful if I was here at the lettings, and never knew a man by that name either here or in Kentucky. Question 6. Did you know any thing of the negotiation for an extra al- lowance on this route while that negotiation was going on? Answer 6. I was not, by any official duty in the office, called to know any thing of it. (0.) Post Office, Louisville, Ky., January 2%, 1832, Sir: To avoid any possible misunderstanding of my views as regards the distribution of the mails at your office, 1 will here state that I do not desire that you should open and distribute the mails of any bags other than those you have heretofore opened an' d'stributed; but if, among the mails vc J have been in the habit of distribulaig, you should find any packets addressed " Louisville, Ky-T o'' " Missouri State" you will please send such pack- ets by way of Cincinnati. Packets for ^^ Kentucky State,'' Tennessee, Illinois, &c., &c,, you wili send by Maysville as heretofore. To send more by Cincinnati would im- pose unreasonable burdens upon the contractor on that route at this season of the year. Very respectfully, JOHN P. OLDHAM. Postmaster, Zanesville, Ohio. (L.) ^pril 12, 1833. The postmaster at Zanesville, Ohio, will observe the following rules in regard to bags and packets of newspapers and pamphlets going west and southwest from his office. Bags labelled '* Maysville, Ky. ," « Kentucky State," " Tennessee State,'* will be forwarded to Maysville, Ky. Bags labelled "Illinois," "Missouri," "Arkansas Territory," "Mis- 161 [ 86 ] sissippi," <' Alabama/' ^' West Tennessee," when such come to hand, will be sent, via Columbus and Cincinnati, to Louisville, Ky. Packets of newspapers and pamphlets addressed to offices in Kentucky and Tennessee, except Louisville and Nashville, will be sent by way of Maysville, Ky. Packets addressed to Louisville, Ky., Nashville, Ten., to all the offices in the Territory of Arkansas, the States of Illinois and Missouri, will be sent by the way of Columbus and Cincinnati to Louisville, Ky. So also should be sent the packets addressed to offices -in Alabama, Mis- sissippi, and Louisiana, when such come to hand. P. S. LOUGHBOROUGH, General Ji^ent Post Office Department. (G.3 Post Office Department, Southern Division, January 14, 1834. Sir: During thesuspenslon of steamboat navigation on the Ohio river you will please send the mail for Louisville and beyond by the way of MayS' ville. Respectfully, Your obedient servant, C. K. GARDNER, Assistant Postmaster General, Samuel J. Cox, Esq., P. M. Zanesvilki Ohio. [Doc. No. 27.] Depositions of witnesses, taken at Cincinnati, in the State of Ohio, before Micajah T. Williams and Jacob Burnet, commissioners named by the com- mittee appointed by the Senate of the United States to investigate the concerns of the Post Office Department, in pursuance of the commission and instructions hereto annexed. » William Burke, postmaster at Cincinnati, a witness produced and sworn on the eighth day of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, the truth, to say "touching the times of the arrivals and departures of the mail, be- tween Cincinnati, Ohio, and Georgetown, Kentucky, since the first day of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, and the average times of arrivals and departures, in each month, since that time;" and touching the following inquiries, viz.. ''Whether the mail east of Pittsburgh or Wheeling, or any part of Kentucky, was sent by that route, and what was the average weight of the mail? whether Ward is, or has been interested with J. F- Robinson in the transportation of the mail on said route, and, if so, at what time did his interest commence or cease?" — did depose and say, that, from the first day of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, the mail com- menced running three times per week from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Georgetown, Kentucky, conveying the mail from the eastern cities for the south anid 31 [ 86 1 162 southwest, including the mails to Lexington, Louisville, &c. This arrange- ment continued until the 17th day of January, ariving at this office from 4 to 5 o'clock P. M., and departing the same evening about sunset. The average weight of the mail was from eighty to one hundred pounds. On the 18th day of January, 1832, the mail commenced ninning daily from Cincinnati to Georgetown, Kentucky^ ariving and departing as above stated through the winter. In the spring of 1832, when the stage com- menced running, and ever since, the mail arrived at this office (Cincinnati) at the average time of 5 to 6 o'clock P. M., and it left this office a part of the time on the same evening, and at other times it left in the morning from 4 to 5 o'clock A. M. The average time for each month I cannot state. The mail for that route was regularly made up in the winter at sunset, and in the remainder of the year at from 7 to S o'clock P. M. On the 18th January, 1832, the boat mail commenced running between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Louisville, Kentucky, daily; arriving at Cincinnati from 8 to 9 o'clock A. M., and departing for Louisville from 9 to 10 o'clock A. M. From and after the commencement of this arrangement all letters and newspapers from the east by the way of Columbus, and directed to Louisville, Kentucky, and south and west of that point, were sent daily hy the mail-boat. Packages designed for that part of Kentuck)', between Georgetown, Kentucky, and Cincinnati, and for all that part of Keniucky Jving south and east of Lexington, as far as Cumberland Gap, Tennessee, were sent by the mail to Georgetown, Kentucky. I have no knowledge of any connection between R. J. Ward and the contractors for carrying the mail from Cincinnati to Georgetown, Kentucky. For a number of days, probably ten to twelve, during the winter of 1832, the ice in the river prevented the running of the mail-boats. During this time the great eastern mail between Cincinnati and Louisville was carried by the way of Georgetown, Kentucky, going and returning. WILLIAM BURKE, [Doc. No. 2S.] Alexander Connelly, postmaster at Covington, Kentucky, a witness pro- duced, sworn, and examined, the truth to say, touching the matters herein- before stated, did depose and say, that, during the winter arrangement, when the mail was carried on horseback, (from the first of January, 1832,) it arrived from Cincinnati at his office in Covington, sometimes in the night, and sometimes about daylight in the morning, and left his office for Georgetown, Kentucky, at from four to six o'clock, A. M. And during the winter arrangement, the mail from Georgetown arrived at his office in the evening, sometimes at five o'clock, and at other times in the night. And the deponent further saith, that during the smmmer arrangement, ■when the mail was carried in the stage, it arrived from Cincinnati at his office between four and six o'clock A. M.; and departed for Georgetown generally in a few minutes after. And the deponent saith further, that, during the summer arrangement, when the mail was carried in the stage, it arrived from Georgetown at his office, in the evening, at from five to eight o'clock. Deponent saith further, that the stages that carried the mail bore the names of Robinson. Ward and Gaines, and their handbiits were signeo oy tne same. Ohver Games, 163 [ S6 ] one of that firm, told the deponent that Rohuison, Ward, and himself, were interested in the contract. ALEX. CONNELLY. We certify that William Burke and Alexander Connelly, the above named -witnesses, were sworn in our presence by persons authorized by law to administer oaths, and that their testimony was reduced to writing by one of us, and subscribed, as above, in our presence. M.^T. wTlUAMS, I Commissioners. Cincinnati y December' 9, 1834. [Doc. No. 29.] Interrogatories propounded to J. T. Johnson, present postmaster in George- town, Kentucky, this 2d day of January, 1835. 1st. Can you state the hours of the arrivals and departures of the mail from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Georgetown, Kentucky, at and from the post office in Georgetown, since the 1st of January, 1832? If so, state particularly. In answer to the above, I have to state, that the present means in my power will not enable me to give a very definite answer; but, from the gen- eral information which our returns afibrd, aided by memory, my best im- pression is, that the mail, in the general, arrived at Georgetown from Cin- cinnati after 9 o'clock at night, and departed at various hours, from 10 o'clock at night to 6 o'clock in the morning. 2d. What is the average weight of the mails transported on said route? I am not enabled to state, with any certainty, the weight of the mails transported on said route. I have, however, reflected upon the subject, and taken some means, by having the mail weighed, in order to form some judgment. My present judgment is, that the mails from Cincinnati to this place have and do average from 70 to 125 pounds. The return mail would fall far short of this; perhaps more than one half. 3d. At what time did R. J. Ward become a partner in the contract for carrying the mail on that route? and when did that first become known to the department? From what I have understood from some or all the parties, (Messrs. J. F. Robinson, 0. W. Gaines, and R. J. Ward,) I suppose R.J. Ward was equally concerned or interested in the contract, from its commencement. Whether he was known as such at the department, I cannot sa}'-, but pre- sume he was not. I cannot say whether this fact ever was made known to the Post Ofiice Department at Washington City. If I have ever known any fact that would shed any additional light on this subject, it has escaped my recollection. J. T. JOHNSON, Poslmaster. The same interrogatories being propounded to James F. Robinson upon the 3d of January, 1834,' in answer to the first, he says: That the time of the arrival and departure of the mail to and from the place, during (lie period named in the interrogatory, has varied, depending much upon (he season of the year ;the state o tnc roaas: tne laci.ity wan wnich it might be able I se ;i 164 to cross the Ohio river in the night; and the arrival and departure of the mails connected with this route at each end. That he thinks the general time of its arrival and departure, at this season of the year, is correctly detailed b^ J. T. Johnson in his aforesaid statement, yet, in the summer and fall seasons of the year, its arrival, he thinks, has been much earlier, but its de- parture about the same period. - That the execution and superintendence of the contract for .this route is entrusted exclusively to 0. W. Gaines, and hence, although this respondent is ihe contractor, he knows but little more in relation to the inquiries of the inierrogatory than other citizens upon the route. In answer to the second interrogatory, he says, that he does not believe that his information and observation have been such upon that subject as to enable him to give a correct answer, or, indeed, such as to enable him to come to any conclusion satisfactory to himself. That their size and weight vary much at different times. He is well satisfied that at times he has seen mails upon said route which would weigh from three to five hun- dred pounds; yet such can by no means be said to be average mails. In answer to the third interrogatory, this respondent says: That himself, Oliver W. Gaines, and Robert J. Ward, have been equally interested in the present contract for carrying the mail upon said route, from the commence- ment thereof, and are still so interested; but when the asserted fact, or the fact that Mr. Ward was interested in said contract, became known to the de- partment, he cannot say: indeed, from his own knowledge, he could not state that the department is now informed of Mr. W.'s interest asserted, al- though he has no doubt of the fact. All correspondence upon the business of this route, or in relation to said contract with the department, has been carried on by this respondent individually with the department. J. F. ROBINSON. And the same interrogatories being propounded to Robert Read on the 3d of January, 1835, in answer to the first interrogatory, says, that, during the time embraced in the foregoing inquiries, he was postmaster four months and seven days; that he can state, from recollection only, that the arrivals of the Cincinnati mail at his office during that period, varied from seven to nine o'clock, P. M., and lelt at five o'clock, A. M. daily. In reply to the second interrogation, he says, that he can state nothing with precision; but at times, when the packet conveyance for the southern mail was interrupted by reason of ice or otherwise, the whole of the mail for Louisville was sent b}^ this route, which made our mail very bulk^-, vveighing, as he supposes, not less than from three to four hundred pounds, but that the ordinary weight of the mail i^ight be stated at from seventy- five to one hundred pounds. Touching the connexion of Mr. R. J. Ward with the firm of con- tractors, this respondent knows nothing, except from rumor, and the fore- 2;oinff statement of Mr. James F. Robinson. RO T.RT READ. By virtue of the annexed commission, I caused Robert Read, late post- master, and John T. Johnson, present postmaster at Georgetown, Ken- tucky, and James F. Robinson, to come before me, in the county court clerk's office for the county of Scott, and State of Kentucky — JohnT. Johu^ 165 [ 86 ] son on the 2d instant, and James F. Robinson and Robert Read upon the Sd of the present instant, and at the times and place aforesaid, did examine them, and each of them, upon their oaths, upon the interrogatories annexed to said commission; which said examination is contained in the several re- sponses and statements of said witnesses, signed by each of them with his own hand: all of which is hereby certified. Given from under mj' hand and seal, this 3d day of January, 1835, at Georgetown, in the State of Kentucky. BENJAMIN B. FORD, [seal.J [Doc. No. 30. ] October 2, 1$34. Benjamin Bennett, of Pennsylvania, being first duly sworn, made the fol- lowing answers to the respective interrogatories: Question. Were you the brother and partner of the late John Bennett in the contract for the transportation of the mail between Bellefonteand Mead- ville, Pennsylvania? Answer. Yes, I am his brother and a partner. Question. When did John Bennett die? Answer. In August, 1832. Question. What Postmaster General made the first extra allowance to you OR the route from Bellefonte to Meadville, what allowance was made^ and under what contract? Answer. Mr. McLean was the first who made it. Our extra allowance began on the 1st January, 1829, and was five hundred dollars. The con- tract commenced in January, 1828. Question. Did Mr. McLean order the extra service, and also fix the ex- tra allowance? Answer. Mr. McLean ordered the extra service after application to him by my brother and myself, and other petitioners. He also fixed the allow- ance of five hundred dollars, to continue for one year Question. When did the present Postmaster General make an extra allow- ance on said route, and what did he allow, and for what service? Answer. The present Postmaster General did not make any other extra allowance, but continued the same which we had before for two years, and the service was the same^ ending in 1832. Question. Were you and your brother interested in the last contract made for the transportation of the mail on said route? Answer. Yes, equally. Question. Under that contract, what length of time did you run through in two days, and what length of time in two days and a half? Answer. We commenced running through in two days, in fact, before we got the contract. Our previous contract was for two horse coaches, and on the first of January, 1S32, there was fine sleighing, and we were able, with the same force, to run through in two days. I am not able to tell how long we run in two days. Some time in the latter part of February there was a freshet, and took ofi' some bridges — French Creek bridge and Sugar Creek bridge. I think this continued about a month; and then we began to run through in two days, and have kept it up ever since. Question. At the last httings to whose bid was the route assigned? [ 86 ] 166 Answer. It was to PJatt & Co. in the first instance it was struck off. Question. Did they ever put their stock on the line? Answer. No; I never saw any. Question. Did any other person ever put on any stock oh that road after the expiration of Ihe contract of your brother and yourself, except yourselves? Answer. There was no other ever put stock on that road. Question. Was your brother John at any time the editor of a newspaper? Answer. Never, in my knowledge. Question. Do you know any thing of his being an owner, in whole or in part, of a newspaper press in Meadville? If so, state all the facts within your knowledge. Answer. Well, I don't know of his being an owner in whole or in part, as to myself. Question. Have you any knowledge that the establishment of a newspa- per at Meadville, Pa., had any connexion whatever with your contract or extra allowance? Answer. Not any that I know of. Question. Have you any of the letters of Mr. McLean on the extra al- lowance made by him? Ansvy'er. No; my brother was the oldest, did all the business with the departrnent, and had all the papers. Question. Was not the first extra allowance made by Mr, McLean ex- pressly made for the purpose of putting additional stock on the road; and with the understanding or intimation that no more was to be allowed thaa for the one year? Answer. As my brother was going home, he called at my house. We live one hundred and fifty miles from each other. He told me that he had got an extra allowance of $500 a year for additional speed. I think I asked him what additional speed. He said, if I am not mistaken, from three days and a half to two days and seven hours, I rather complained that the pay was^not enough for the extra stock we would have to put on to do the ex- tra work. He observed that he thought it could be done with putting on two horses apiece more on the line. My brother did not tell me that the extra allowance was to be limited to a year, and I never understood so until I came this time to Washington. Question. Was it not more expensive to begin to run through in two days and seven hours, than to continue when you have commenced? Answer. I don't know there would be any difference except the first cost -of four horses, and they would have to be kept up afterwards. Question. Did your or your brother obtain the first extra allowance from Major Barry? Answer. Witness does not know that his brother ever applied, nor that either did; but it vvas just continued on. Question. Was it you or your brother who came down to get the last contract? Answer. We were both down. Question. Did your brother ever tell you of his contributing to the pur- chase of a newspaper press? ;. Answer. He never did. Question. How do you know that the contract you now have was let to Piatt & Co. ? Answer. We were here at the time, and heard it struck off to jPlatt&Co. 167 [ 86 J Question. When and how did you first know that Piatt &: Co. had not got the contract? Answer. I did not know in Cact who had got the contract until in January, 1S32, I canfp jlown to see whether we were going to have it at our bid. I* rather complained to Mr. Brown that we had not got knowledge, of it sooner. He to'ld me that Mr. Piatt & Co. had withdrawn their bid. The^ then went into an examination of the bid of Moore, Sibo, & Co., and said that our bid, with the improvement, would be considerably the lowest, and. gave us the contract, and I returned home. Question. Did you receive for the first quarter of 1S32, cluring part of which you ran with two horses, and part in two days and seven hours, at the rate of 3,500 dollars per annum? Answer. Yes, I think we did. We run now in certain places, whea we have good sleighing, with two horses. Question. What were the ])oiitics of your brother in your belief within the last three, four, or five years of his life? Answer. He was a uniform administration man. He was a middling strong man considered in his neighborhood in politics; but not a noisy one. Witness states he was not the original partner of his brother. It was Hayes, and he bought out Hayes. He and liis brother divided the labor and pay equally. BEN J. BENNETT. [Doc. No. 31.] Paterson Post Office, Decembei' 29, 1834. Sir: Below you have answers to the interrogatories propounded in your letter of the 15th instant. Yours respectfully, M. E. DE WITT. Hon. Felix Grundy, Chairman. Post Office CommiUee. Interrogatory first. What is the course of the mails between Newark and Paterson, and the lengtii of time that letters are in passing between the two places, either directly, or by a circuitous route by New York or other places? Answer. Between this place and Newark are two mail communications; one by way of New York, and the other direct to Newark. By the New York route a letter will reach Newark in seven hours. A letter from New- ark will not arrive here until the second day at ten o'clock, A. M. By the direct route a letter will pass between the two places in three hours. Interrogatory second. What is the average number of letters and papers which are daily and weekly carried directly between the two places by the mail carried by William Tillow, the contractor, and what times would the same papers and letters reach the two places if this mail was not carried? Answer. The average number of letters passing between the two oflices is about thirty-six weekly, of daily newspapers six, of weekly papers it jnay be twenty. [ 86 ] 168 The same papers and letters would reach Newark the same day they are mailed, at about five o'clock in the afternoon. Papers and letters would not reach this office until the next day after they are mailed. Very respectfully, MOSES. E. DE WITT, Postmaster, Paterson, N. J. December 29, 1834. State of New Jersey, Essex County, ss. Before me, Peter Sythoff, one of the justices of the peace in and for said county, personally appeared Moses E. De Witt, whose name is written un- der the questions and answers thereto on the other side; wiio, being duly sworn agreeable to law, upon his oath, saith that he has made the same ac- y<«ording to the best of his knowledge, belief, and experience as postmaster. MOSES E. DE WITT. Sworn before me at Paterson, in said county, this twenty-ninth day of December. A. D. 1834. P. SYTHOFF, Justice of the Peace. [Doc.N.oS2.] December 27, 1834, William Tillow, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respec- tive interrogatories: Question 1. Are you contractor on the route from Paterson to Newark, in New Jersey? and at what time did you commence to carry the mail? Answer 1. This was originally part of Mr. Roy's contract, and he gave it to me. The contract was to have been made out to me; but it never was sent to me to be signed. Question 2. Who first proposed to you to take part of that contract? Answer 2. Mr. Roy, I heard, had it; and I wanted to get it, and went down to see him. Question 4. WHiat extra allowances have you got on this route? Answer 4. I had S200, by the original contract, to carry it twice a week. The people petitioned for it daily. The Postmaster General ordered it so, and I got in proportion, being $600. I never saw the petitions. Question 5. When, and how, were you required to carry it daily? Answer 5. I carried it twice a week till the last of February or March. I then carried it three times a week till 1st May, and then daily. This was in 1832. Question 6. What was the average weight of the mail? .Answer 6. Perhaps it might weigh fifteen pounds — sometimes more, sometimes less. The distance is 15 miles. Question 7. Did any person in the department suggest to you, by Jetter or otherv/iae, the propriety of taking this route before you went to see Mr. Roy about it? Answer 7. I cannot say that they did. Question 8. Can you say that they did not? Answer 8. I was told that Mr. Roy had this contract, and I went to see- 169 [ 86 ] him, and got it, I was told by a person in the department to go to Roy. It was Mr. Brown who told me to apply to Roy. Question 9. What connexion is Air. Brown to you."* Answer 9. He is my brother-in-law; my wife is his sister. Question 10. Did Mr. Brown, at Ihe time he suggested to you that you might get this contract, also suggest that extra allowances might be got on it? Answer 10. No, he did not;" I did not know, when 1 first got it, that it was going to be increased. It was a small concern; my health was poor, and 1 desired to get it. I drive myself. Question 11. Did you apply for the extra allowance? Answer 11. No, I did not. Question 12. How were you first infornied that the extra allowance was made? Answer 12. When I took it every day, I did not know what I was to get; the first I knew of what would be paid me was when 1 got my pay. The order to run every day came to me in a letter from the Postmaster General. I cannot say. but I guess the mail weighs fifteen pounds. Question 13, What stock have you on the road? Answer 13. One coach, and one pair of horses. I paid $300 for the coach, and tii(! horses cost some more and some less: the ones I now have are worth $200. Question 14. How was the mail carried to Paterson before you took the contract? Answer 14. There was no mail carried there; it only went to Belleville. From Newark to Belleville it had been carried on horseback. I carried it in a stage from the beginning; a few times, when the roads were very bad, I took it on horseback. There is a daily m:»il from Novv York to Paterson, which arrives about the same time I do. It probably leaves New York about 7 or 8 A. M. The mail from Newark to New York leaves at 4 or 5 in the morning, or used to do, at the time my contract began. WILLIAM TIL LOW. [Doc. No. 33. ] New York, November 6, 1834. Barnabas Bates, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the re- spective interrogatories: Question 1. Did you act as special agent for the Post Office De])artment during the year 1S32? Answer 1. I did, from 1st July to the end of the year and afterwards. Question 2. From whom did you receive your compensation? Answer 2. Partly from the Post Olfico Department, and [lartly from Mr. Gouverneur. Question 3. Under v/hat arrangement, and why were you paid any por- tion of your compensation by the postmnster at New YorK, and in what way are such items svdtled belwcen the department and the postmaster at New York? Answer 3, The arran«;ement was made in order to meet iwy convenience; my family was in New York, and I was allowed to drnw on the depart- ment, and Mr. Gouveneur^vas to pay me as I wanted it. bometimes I simpler fi'i [ 86 J 170 gave Mr. Gouverneur a receipt for the sums paid mc as agent of ihe depart- ment, and sometimes 1 drew directly on the department; Mr. Gouverneur was absent, and I got tiie money from a friend on my own draft, always keeping within the amount due me as near as I could calculate. The practice has been, and still continues, that, when services such as mine are rendered to the Post Office Department, they are charged either in the incidental or contingent expenses, of this office, and settled with the department. There are three kinds of charges made by the office at this place: 1st. Contingent expenses, which are provided for by law, such as wax, twine, paper, and such like articles. 2d. Incidental expenses which relate to the particular office, such as rent, fuel, clerk hire, &c. 3d. What are considered cash payments; such as payments made for wrapping paper, twine, and blanks for other offices, repairing portmanteaus, and sometimes we gel new ones, but rarely of late. I consider the payments made to me as coming under the last head, although I do not know under what particular head or class Mr, Gouverneur settled them with the depart- ment. Question 4. Do you believe that your expenes amounted to ^2 50 per day, exclusive of steamboat and stage fare? Answer 4. 1 do; and that they exceeded that sum. Question 5. Were you actually engaged as special agent for the Post Office Department the whole number of days charged in your account of 30th April, 1833? Answer 5. I was. Question 6. What disposition is made in this post office of the wrappers or envelopes received from other offices? Ansvver 6. The porter, who has charge of the office, sweeps them up, puts them in a bag or bags, stows them away, and afterwards sold them: it liad always been considered his perquisite. Its amount I do not know. Latterly, I have directed the good papers which could be used again to be preserved for use. Question 7. Is this office supplied with wrapping paper, blanks, twine, &c., by an}' contractor with the department? Answer 7. No. We purchase those articles where we can get them cheapest and best. Question 8. What has been the average price given by you for good wrapping paper since you have been in the office? Answer 8. I have bought some for $2 25, some for $2 50, some for 3 dollars; and the highest was 3 dollars 75 cents. The average would be 3 dollars. It has been bought in the office some time ago at 4 dollars 50 cents to 5 dollars of a similar kind which we now use at 3 dollars 50 cents. The samples now shown to me I would estimate as follows: of the size of No. 10 as the standard. No. 1 is very poor — would not be used in our office, and could be got for two dollars, 1 think, in our market. No. 2 i would estimate at two dollars and twenty-five cents. No- 3 at two dollars and fifty cents. No. 4 the same. No. 5 at two dollars and seventy-five cents. No. 6 at three dollars and fifty cents. No. 7 at two dollars and twenty-five ce-^ts. 171 I 86] ^0. 8 St two dollars and fifty cents. No. 9 at two dollars and fifty cents. No. 10 I would give three dollars seventy-five cents for. No. Ill would not buy for our office. I suppose it could be bought for two dollars and twenty-five cents. No. 13 would be worth two dollars and fifty cents. No. 14, the size it is, would be worth three dollars and twenty-five cents; if a little wider, three dollars and fifty cents. No. 15 is worth three dollars and fifty cents. No. 16 is worth four dollars. Question 9. What has been the diminution in price of wrapping paper within the last three or four years at its current wholesale market orice? Answer 9. About twenty per cent. Question 10. What portion of your pay as special agent did you receive at this place? Answer 10. I should think about half. Question 11. What do you embrace in the items of expenses.^ Answer 11. All that I eat and drink myself, and what 1 treat my friends to; paying servants for porterage, &c. I kept a regular account of these ex- penses at the commencement, for several months: I found they came to so much per month, and then I took a certain sum with me, and when I return- ed I took an account of what remained, and charged the rest for exnenses. I kept a regular distinct account of steamboat and stage fa/e. Sometimes I paid, and sometimes I did not, but went free. I cannot recollect where 1 did not pay. Question 12. Do you know the number of private boxes in this office, and what is charged for their use by the postmaster? Answer 12. About fourteen hundred at four dollars, per annum. Thi.s practice, as I understand, has prevailed for many years, pi-obably for forty 3'ears. The present postmaster has not changed the price. This is a per- quisite of the postmaster, and for ">7hich he does not account to the depart- ment, and is matter of agreement between him and those who hire the boxes. Question 13. Do you recollect the circumstances attending the runnin'»- of the express mail by saddle horses for thirty-eight clays during the winter of 1832-3; the price paid therefor, tiie hours of departure and arrival, and what papers, letters, and packages were carried in that mail? Answer 13. I have very little knowledge of that mail, and am unable to answer distinctly any one question about it. I know the fact merely, that a private express was set up by the editors of the Journal of Commerce, and perhaps others, between Philadelphia and New York, and afterwards be- tween Washington and New York; that, in consequence of the clamor raised about the mail, tlie department felt itself called upon to establish an express mail to carry letters and the daily exchange papers for the printers of news- papers. I was in the office at Philadelphia as agent at the time it was run- ning, and saw the letters and papers from Washington put into the mail to go to New York. Whether it included the Baltimore letters and papers I do not know. I understood it included all the letters and all the daily news- papers of Washington to editors in Philadelphia and New York, f am not certain as to Philadelphia; 1 only saw the letters and papers for New York. I know nothing of the price paid, the arrival or departure, nor the /uimher of days it ran; nor of any written order or authority from the department :n regard to it in any respect. [86] 172 Question 14. Do you know of any contract, agreement, or arrangement made by or on behalf of the Post Ofiice Department, with any bank, or cor- poration, or individual, for the loan of money, or lor permission to overdraw, to meet calls on, or expenses of, or for the use of the department? If so, state it. Answer 14. The department, as I understand it, were permitted to draw on the Manhattan Bank, in case they should need it at any time, a sum not ex- ceeding tivo hundred thousand dollars, to be paid to the Manhattan Company whenever it should be desired, and the resources of the department would enable them to do it; allowing the bank for the sums actually drawn at the rale of six per centum interest. The Commonwealth Bank in Boston had a similar arrangement for fifty thousand dollars. The Commercial Bank at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for five thousand on the same terms. Question 15. When and by whom Were those arangements made? Answer 15. They were made by me as agent of the department. I am unable distinctly to say when. It was some time in the summer and fall of 1S33. With the Manhattan Bank it was made in July or August. With the others in September or October. Question 16. What authority had you for making those arrangements? Answer IG. The authority of the Postmaster General; partly verbally ami I'artiV in writing. I received a letter from him, and when I was at Wai-hine;ton he requested me to ascertain if such an arrangement could be made. The verbal communication was received when I was in Washington; it V.MS subsequently renewed in this city by 0. B. Brown, the treasurer of the department. 13efore I went to the north I received a written communi- cation and authority from the Postmaster General. When I made the arrangement with the Manhattan Bank I did not show them any authority. They took my word for it. I conversed with them about it, and then I suppose a correspondence took place between them and the department. 1 showed my authority to the others. Question 17. Have you that letter of authority? If you have, produce it. Answer 17. 1 am not certain that I have it; if I have I will produce it. Question IS. Have you at any time seen, or do you know of any other au- thority for making these arrangements or sanctioning them? Answer IS. I have not, nor do I know of any. Question 19. Do you know any thing of a loan by, or overdraft of ten thousand dollars, or other sum on the Commonwealth Bank at Boston, or either of the others, which forms no part of the sums previously stated? Answer 19. 1 know of no si:ch loan or overdraft on any of those banks. B. BATES. November 8, 1834. Bak:? AI3AS Bates. Question 21. Were there any drafts drawn by James Rccside, upon the Post Office Department, and accepted by the department, delivered to you to be negotio'.ed for the benefit of the General Post Office? and if so, state what drafts, when drawn, what time they had to run, the amount of each, and when ai-.U where negotiated. 173 f 86 ] Answer 21. There were several drafts so drawn and accepted put int^ m}' hands. Question 22. At what times were those drafts put into your iiands? Answer 22. I do not recollect. Question 23. Can* you recollect any one of those drafts; the time, or about the time when it was put into your hand?? Answer 23. I cannot. Question 24. Can you tell within a year what time any one of those drafts were put into your hands? Answer 24. Yes; in the years 1833 and '34 all were put into my liaads which I received. Question 23. By whom were they sent or delivered to you? Answer 25. By Obadiah B. Brown and James Reeside? Question 26. Did you raise money On those drafts, and apply it to the use of the department? Answer 26. Yes. Question 27. How did you raise the money? Answer 27. I think one of them 1 put into the Manhattan Bank, and it was discounted. When discounted, I paid the money over to the use of the department, agreeably to my instructions. Question 2S. How did you receive your instructions from tlie depart- ment? Answer 2S. I received them by letter, and I believe Mr. Brown was here one time, and gave me verbal instructions. Question 29. Can you designate the time when he gave you these verbal instructions? Answer 29. lam unable to state the time or times he was heie. He was here two or three times. Question 3G. Did he at any of the times he was here bring and hand over to you any drafts drawn by Reeside on the department? Answer 30. I am not able to say whetiier he did or not. I cannot sav that he did, or whether lie had sent them by letter; and then, when here, gave me the instructions. Question 31. Do you or do you not believe that he did hand you some of those drafts when he was liere? Answer 31. I do not belive he did. Question 32. Do you then believe that all the drafts so received by you were sent from the department by letter? Answer 32. I do not; some were delivered to me by Mr. Reeside him- self, and those which were not negotiated I returnetl to him. Question 33. Of those which were handed you by Mr. Reeside, did you take any iriemorandum? Answer 33. I have no memorandum which I can find at present. I may have it, but I cannot find it. Question 34. Did you advise the department, by letter, of those drafts re- ceived from Mr. Reeside? Answer 34. I presume I did, but I am not able to say positively; I am accustomed to advise the department of all my transactions. Question 35. Can you designate or describe any drafts which you re- ceived from the hands of Mr. Reeside, and negotiated for the use of the department, or can you give the time nearly? Answer 35. I cannot; but I think it may have been the beginning of this year, or latter end of the last. [ 86 ] 174 Question 36. What amount did you receive from him about that time? Answer 36. I cannot exactly tell: it may have exceeded $10,000, but was less than $20,000. Question 37. Where, and with whom did you negotiate the paper which you received from the dcpai tment, or from Reeside himself, with the name of Reeside upon it? Answer 37. I have already stated that one draft was negotiated in the Manhattan Bank. I sent to Boston to Mr. Greene, the postmaster there — I do not recollect if it was one or two drafts — and he got the money on them there. I do not recollect of any more. It was a small amount com- p&ratively, which was negotioted, say about $10,000, as well as I recollect. Question 38. Was there a check drawn by any one in your favor about 30th June, 1834, upon the Manhattan Bank for ^10,000, received by you, and applied by you for the use of the department, or handed over by you to any person for its use.-* Answer 38. I have acted as agent to the department, and as such have received from them, from time to time, several checks upon different banks, and have applied them to the uses of the department according to my in- structions received at the time of sending the drafts, or before. 1 do not recollect this dsaft of $10,000 particularly: I may have received it, ornot. Question 39. Have you received during the course of this summer, from the department, any draft drawn by James Reeside in your favor on the Manhattan Bank, which you handed over to Mr. Governeur to be applied tor, the benefit of the department? Answer 39. Not according to the best of my recollection. Question 40. Did you receive checks within the summer of 1834, drawn by the department in your favor, one on the Bank of Ithica for 1,200 dol- lars, one on Western Bank of Philadelphia for 1,000 dollars, one on the Bank of Concord, N. H., for 1,500 dollars, one on Boston, Mass., for 1,300 dol- lars, which you handed over to Mr. Governeur for the use of the depart- ment? And if so, how was Mr. Reeside connected with the transactions? Answer 40. I received checks upon different banks; whether on the banks named I am not able precisely to say; but I delivered no such checks to Mr. Governeur, to the best of my recollection; nor was Mr. Reeside con- nected with those checks, according to my information. Question 41. Had not Mr. Reeside, in some way or other, directly or in- directly, some interest or connexion with those checks or some of them, so that they ought to appear in his account either as a debit or credit? State from your own knowledge, or from what you have heard. Answer 41. I have no knowledge of any such interest or connexion. Question 42. Did you ever apply any of the money or assets received from the department, or for its use, in any other manner than by depositing it in the Manhattan Bank as heretofore stated? If you have, state it. Answer 42. I deposited all sums which I so received in the Manhattan Bank, except the sums which I paid to Mr. Governeur. B. BATES. [ Doc. No. 34. ] Boston, October 22, 1834. Nathaniel Greene, postmaster, having appeared before the committee, and being first duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective in- terrogatories as hereinafter set forth: 175 [ 86 ] Question 1. Were you at one period a contractor for furnishing paper, twine, and executing printing for the Post Office Department? Question 2. Who was your immediate predecessor in that business, and who were interested in it? Question 3. Upon what terms did he or they furnish paper and twine? If you have any written evidence on that subject, please to produce it. Question 4. Can you furnish a copy of your contract with the Post Office Department for the supply of the above named articles? Question 5. Have you any interest whatever in the existing contract with said department for the foregoing articles? Question 6. Had you, or have you now, any interest in a paper factory from which the contract with the department is or has been filled? Question 7. Have you any knowledge of any deficiency in quality of either paper or twine furnished for the department to be used or distributed at the Boston post office? Question 8. What price has been given by the difierent contractors for paper and twine? Question 9. What risk, labor, and expense is the contractor put to in com- plying with his contract, after he has received the wrapping paper and twine from the manufacturers? Question 10. What profits did you make in a year upon your contract with the department? Question 11. Have you any pecuniary interest in or connexion with the newspaper called the Boston Morning Post, or Statesman, or any other newspaper; and if not, at what time did you part with your interest? Question 12. Does it frequently happen that in a large lot of paper, ma- nufactured at the same mill and at the same time, some quires or reams of wrapping paper will be of bad quality and the greater part of good quality? ■If so, state the causes which produce it. Question 13. Do you know if the Postmaster General was ever notified that there were any complaints that the wrapping paper distributed through the Boston post office was defective; or had he at any time a knowledge that you, while a contractor, had any interest in a paper mill from which the material was furnished? Answer to the first interrogatory. Yes, as a member of the firm of True and Greene. Answer to the 2d. Thomas Rov/e was my immediate predecessor, and sole contractor, so far as I know. There was another contract signed Thomas Rowe and Company, under which I did not act, being informed by the department, by letter 23d November, 1826, that it had expired, which is annexed, marked A. Answer to the 3d. I have the contract (marked B) which he, Thos. Rowe, assigned to True and Greene, dated 2d February, 1820, signed by R. J. Meigs, then Postmaster General: For printing mails received, (blanks) received for distribution, and mailis sent, Jmir dollars per ream. For ruling the same with feint lines, four dollars per ream. Post bills, with and without si^-nature, one dollar and a half per ream. Accounts current, four dollars per ream. :'. The paper for printing the above blanks to be paid for at the following |)rices: Eoyalf for mails received, and received for distribution, nine dollars per ream. [ 86 ] 176 Super royal for mails sent, twelve dollars per ream. Cap No. 1, for accounts current, five dollars per ream. Cap No. 2, for post bill?, two dollars and three quarters per ream. -T Wrapping paper, super royal, seven dollars per ream. For time and trouble by contractor in making up the blanks into pack- .iges for the several offices as called for, contractor allowed two hundred dol- lars per year. During the time for which Mr. Rowe continued contractor, he charged, as near as I can recollect, fifty dollars per quarter, for the wrapping pa- per and twine used in making up the packages; which charge I continued (o make for a quarter or two, until ordered by the department to discontinue it. The charge of seven dollars for wrapping paper, «uper royal, as above, was changed on the 6th day of December, 1S21, to six dollars. This was be- fore the assign ment to True and Greene, v/hich took place on the 10th day of June, 1826. A further contract, dated 4th November, 1S20, to begin 1st January, 1821, by the department, with Thomas Rowe & Co., was also handed over, and is hereunto annexed, marked C, which as heretofore stated had expired. Accom- panying the above contract, marked A, Mr. Rowe handed over the follow- ing memorandum, marked D. A third contract, marked E, was also handed over, which is hereunto an- nexed, together with letters relating thereto, marked F, G, H. The other letters, marked I, K, L, I\l, N, will show the history of the transactions between the General Post Office Department and the contractors at Boston up to the present time. Answer to the 4th. Tliis is fully set forth in answer to the third interro- gatory. Answer to the 5th. I have none whatever. I was appointed postmaster of Boston in March or April, 1S29, to take effect on the 1st of July; on the 5th day of May of the same year I retired from the firm of True and Greene, and public notice was given in the newspapers on that day. I transferred my interest to Charles G. Greene. A ropy of the notice is as follows: Notice. — Nathaniel Greene has this day retired from, and Charles G. Greene has acceded to the firm of True and Greene. The Boston States- man will henceforth be published by Charles G. Greene, at the office of True and Greene, Merchant's Hall, Boston. [Signed] BENJ. TRUE, NATH'L. GREENE, CHARLES G. GREENE. May 5, 1S29. Answer to the 6th. I purchased an interest in a paper mill at PepperelJ, a little more than a year ago. I purchased of a Mr. Bullard, who was of the firm of Bullard and Emmerson, of that place. That mill was one of a number from which True and Greene had theretofore purchased paper. I sold out about the first of the present month, having held the interest something more than a year. During the time I was owner in part, the mill was not in operation more than about four months. There were some sales of paper made to True and Greene, or Charles G. Greene, during the time the mill was in operation, principally during the last summer. On being further interrogated on the same subject, deponent further saiih: That 177 [ 86 ] no change of prices took place from what was paid to that and other mills before and at the time when deponent was interested in said paper mill. The samples were continued the same, and the quality which was furnish- ed to the contractor was better on an average than any previously fur- nished to my knowledge, from that or any other mill, to the same contractor. Deponent divested himself of his interest at a loss of 3,000 dollars, and never did receive one cent by way of profit in any way or shape from the said concern. Answer to the 7th interrogatory. I never heard a complaint of the twine from the first day of the contract up till the present time. There was a complaint I heard within the last few months, about the quality of the wrapping paper distributed from Boston. This was from three or four places all about the same time. They were made to the department, and from thence were sent on here to be examined into. An examination was made at the wareroom of the contractor, C. G. Greene; and it was found that there was a lot of paper deficient in sizing, which Was immediately picked out, and returned to the manufacturer by the con- tractor. It had been received by the contractor from looking well, and he did not know of its deficiency until the complaints were made. The manu- facturers were Emmerson and Company. A part of the lot which was deficient had been distributed, and the remainder of the lot was returned to the manufacturer. Answer to the Slh interrogatory. The twine bills to the manufacturers varied from thirty to thirty-two cents per pound, and the wrapping paper generally cost three dollars and a half; sometimes four dollars were paid for s.Tiall portions, which were specially ordered, of a.g.*rater weight. Answer to the 9th interrogatory. The contractor has to keep a ware- room and clerk to attend to tlie distribution. The printed blanks take a good deal of room. At other places than Boston he has to employ agents, to whom he allows, by special arrangement, ten per cent, for his trouble. He has to pay cost of freight, premium of insurance, and incidental expenses, such as drayage, wrapping, and twine for the bundles: the expenses of wraj)ping, twine and putting up, having been formerly charged to the de- partment, are not now allowed — all now being done for the specific sum named in the contract. The labor bestowed cannot well be expressed, as it depends entirely on the amount and extent of the orders from the respective post offices, which are coming in every day. Answer to the lOth interrogatory. I should think that, after paying all ex- penses of the whole contract taken together, the profit might be fifteen pr. ct. The twine, in proportion to its amount, is the most profitable; the wrap- ping paper next, and the printed blanks are the least profitable. Answer to the 11th interrogatory. I never had an interest in the Morn- ing Post, nor have I ever had any interest in the Statesman since May, 1829, nor in any other newspaper now nor since then. Answer to the 12th interrogatory. All paper is liable to be injured in the process of drying, especially by the frost, in sizing, and divers other causes, as are well known to all manufacturers of paper: the defect arising from free^^ing out the sizing cannot well be ascertained until tested by its use. Answer to the 13th interrogatory. I know of nothing else in answer to the first part of the interrogatory than what has been stated in answer to 4he 7th interrogatory. 23 [ S6 ] 178 In answer to the second part, I do not know that he had, nor have I any reason to believe that he had any knowledge of my being concerned in any paper mill. Question 14 (by Mr. Knight). At what time was it that the mill in which you were interested furnished the contractor in Boston with the good paper previously mentioned.-* Answer 14. Between 1st May and last of July, 1834, at different times, about 300 reams were furnished during that time; it was of the same size as the sample. Question 15. Did you discover in your office any of the paper com- plained of by the department? Answer 15. No. I heard no complaint. Question 16. Is not the price of printing generally much reduced from what it was in 1820? Answer 16. It is generally reduced; competition and greater facilities in printing have reduced the prices. I do not know as to the price of ruling. Question 17. Had you a wareroom in this city when you were con- tractors? Answer 17. We paid for an occasional privilege of deposite for our paper here. Question 18. What was the amount paid for that privilege? Answer IS. It was rather an interchange of convenience, by the labor of a clerk, which balanced the account. When I entered into the firm my brother was not a partner of Emmerson & Co., of which my brother hired an additional room, and agreed to let one of his clerks keep the accounts; and I was to pay the additional cost or hire of the room. 1 cannot now state what I paid. Question 19 (by Mr. Southard). How long have you had the papers which you produced here yesterday in your possession? Answer 19. My attention was called to the subject by the report of the Post Office Committee of the Senate last session, and I wished to recall the subject to my mind. I searched for the papers; some of them I had myself, and some I got my brother's clerk to look up. The early papers were in my own possession; those of later date were on my brother's files. Question 20. Have you had, or, as far as you know, have True and Greene had any other contract or agreement with the department than those handed in yesterday? Answer 20. No: I have no knowledge of any. Question 21. Has there been, in any instance, any change in the terms on which the materials were to be furnished, not mentioned in those papers furnished by you yesterday? Answer 21. Not within my recollection. Question 22. When and by whom were you requested to bring those papers before the committee? Answer 22. I am not aware that any one did so request me. I under- stood that the matter was to be overhauled. I had a conversation with my brother, and we supposed they would be Wanted, and it would be better for me to bring them, so that the fullest explanation should be given to the com- mittee. The propriety of bringing them was suggested by Mr. Grundy. Question 23. Are not much larger quantities of those materials required from the contractor now than at the date of the contract of 1S20? 11 }j L ^" J Answer 23. The demand increases from year to year. Question 24. Taking into consideration the quantities to be furnished at different times, and the facilities of manufacturing and of procuring them, may not the materials be furnished at a cheaper rate than formerly? Answer 24. I think, when we commenced the contract, twine was fur- nished by the manufacturer at 32 cents per pound; and latterly, it fell to 30 cents. Mr. Rowe was in the habit generally of paying four dollars for his wrapping paper to the manufacturer. The manufacturers furnish a better paper now for three dollars and fifty cents. Question 25. Has there been any other contract with any other indivi- dual for supplying the eas rn States and New York, or either, and with whom? Answer 25. There was a contract for four years with Simeon Ide of Vermont, which expired on or near 1st January, 1830, I think. I do not recollect the terms of the contract. Question 26. What portion of the United States have True and Greene supplied as contractors? Answer 26. At different times they have supplied different portions. The first contract assigned by Rowe to True and Greene was for New England and the western part of New York, including Albany. When Mr. Ide got the contract for New England, Mr. McLean continued to True and Greene the western part of New York; and added to it the eastern part of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. In some instances postmasters, seeing the material furnished by True and Greene, have written on to the department, and got permission to send to True and Greene. These were a few cases. The next change or thing that occurred was a letter from Mr. Barry, heretofore inserted, and marked M- On expiration of Mr. Ide's contract for New England, True and Greene were ordered to furnish Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, in addition to their former order. These are essentially the changes. Question 27. Who received the balance of the contract of Mr. Ide? Answer 27. Hill and Barton of Concord; and, I presume, at the same time that True and Greene received theirs. Question 28. Were there any advertisements of the contracts at the time these were given? Answer 28. No, not to my knowledge. Question 29. By what contract was the contractor allowed jSSOO per year extra, for distributing, as previously mentioned? Answer 29. It is to be found in the contract of Mr. Rowe, dated 2d February, 1820. Question 30. Are packages made up for all and every office furnished by the contractor, or are there only some particular offices furnished by pack- ages? Answer 30. The packages are furnished to each separate office, eitlier by the contractor or his agent, whom he pays for doing it. Small packages are sent by mail, free of postage. Large packages are forwarded at the ex- pense of the contractor. Question 31. Was the office at Providence furnished with the same ma- terials as the other offices? Answer 31. I am not aware of any difference. I know nothing about what particular thing was furnished to any particular office, as distinguished from anv other office. [86] ISO Question 32. Have you certified the accounts of True and Greene, and for how long? Answer 32. I have certified them from April, 1830, until about nine months ago — when directions were given to me by the department to cer- tify only as to quality. The contractor being required to furnish transcripts from his daily entries, accompanied by the original orders from the post- masters as vouchers; and the clerk who filed the orders was obliged to ac- company the whole with his affidavit, verifying the account. Question 33. While you certified formerly as to the whole, did you re- gularly examine all the articles both as to quality and quantity? Answer 33. I visited the wareroom generally every day or two where the articles* were putting up, and exercised a general supervision of the whole. From time to time, I compared them with the samples; but I had become so familiar with the qualities of the samples, that I could tell without the sample. Question 34. Upon what evidence did you certify that the articles were furnished? Answer 34. Upon the evidence of this daily supervision, and my know- ledge of, and confidence in the clerks employed. Question 35. How often do contractors furnish these materials to the re- spective offices which are to be supplied? Answer 35. To small offices they send a year's supply: to large offices they send as often as suits the convenience or wants of the postmaster — never exceeding a year's supply at one time. The general understanding is to send a year's supply, but to larger offices they sometimes send a quarter's supply, or six months, consulting the convenience of the postmaster as to ., quantity. '' Question 36. By what contract or authority was the charge of seven dollars for super-royal wrapping paper reduced to six dollars, as mentioned in your answer to the second interrogatory? Answer 36. It appears by an endorsement on the contract of Mr. Rowe previous to the assignment to True and Greene. Question 37. Are True and Greene still the contractors? Answer 37. True and Greene have dissolved partnership^sometime since. C. G. Greene continues the business as successor to True and Greene. Question SS. Are the papers which you have produced all that you know of, going to show the history of the contracts and supplies between True and Greene, C. G. Greene, and the department? Answer 38. They are all that I deemed of sufficient importance when I made the selection. Question 3&. In relation to these contracts and their execution, have you copies of the letters of True and Greene to the department? Answer 39. No. I have not, that I know of. Question 40. Will you inform the committee on what terms you parted with your interest in the newspaper called the Statesman, and printed in Boston? Answer 40. I told my brother, C. G. Greene, that he might take my place in the firm. The firm was at that time in debt more than the esta- blishment was worth. I proposed to him to go in immediately and take my place in all respects; and that at a subsequent and more convenient time we would amicably arrange what portion of the old debts it would be proper and right for him to assume as a consideration for my interest. He did soj ^ \.^ 181 [ 86 and my interest censed at that time in all the subsequent proceedings of the firm. At a subsequent period that business was settled, and the new firm assumed rising eight thousand dollars of the old debt, I assumed the ba- lance, and have paid a part of it. I released the old firm from responsi- bility of that part which I was to pay, and became individually responsible for if. Question 41. Is there no event in which you will have a rif^ht to claim from your brother, or the firm, the portion of the debt which you paid and assumed for the old debts? Answer 41. No. There is no promise, or expectation, nor agreement, written o rverbal, expressed or implied, by which I am to be refunded any portion of that money so paid and assumed Qusetion 42. Did your parting with your interest in the Statesman con- vey to C. G. Greene your interest in the contract with the department? Answer 42. Yes. Question 43. Was Ihe contract with the department a part of the pro- perty of the firm, which owned the Statesman? Answer 43. The contract was between True and Greene and the de- partment; no other was interested in it. My interest in it passed with the assignment to True and Greene. Question 44. Can you state precisely the time when complaints were made about the wrapping paper, and by whom? Answer 44. 1 cannot precisely; but it was a few months ago. I cannot say by whom. Question 45. Was it before or after the good paper was furnished from the paper mill of which you have spoken? Answer 45. I should think it vvus about the time it was furnished, but before it was distributed. Question 46. Had you certified to the account which contained the paper complained of? Answer 46. 1 do not know what account contained the paper complained of; but having certified all the accounts, must have certified that which was complained of. Question 47. Who was the contractor who furnished that paper? Answer 47. I presume it must have been C. G. Greene. Question 48. Did you receive instructions to inquire into the deficiency of the paper complained of, and by whom was the investigation made? Answer 48. When I received the letter from the department I proceeded to my brother's office and informed him of the fact. We found a lot of pa- per defective in sizing, which I directed him not to use any more. The paper «as returned, so much as remained, to the men who made it, to wit, And Emmerson and Nathaniel Greene. Question 49. How do you know that this paper had been received by the contractor from looking well, and that he did not know of its deficiency until complaints were made? Answer 19. Because I siw the i);ipcr among other lots when it was brought in from tlie mill. Its appearonce was equally fair with any other paper, the defect of sizing not being apparent, hut to be detected by use. Question 50. How did you know that the samples sent by the department of the paper complained of was part of ihc lot received IVom Emmerson and Co. ? X 86 ] 182 Answer 50. By taking the sample returned as complained of, examining the parcels of paper on hand, and comparing it with them. Question 51. What share did you purchase in the mill? Answer 51. One half Question 52. From what other mills did True and Greene procure paper? Answer 52. I only know by going in and out of their store. They were in the habit of buying from William Parker and Co., Nash, Haywood, and Co., and of Jonas Kendall. The wrapping paper, latterly, principally from Kendall. Question 53. Had True and Greene any interest in that mill ? Answer 53. No; they never had. Qustion 54. Can you state the date of your purchase of the interest in the mill ? Answer 54, It was the 30th day of June, 1833. Question 55. Can you slate the account of paper furnished by the mill, while you were part owner, to C. G. Greene, contractor? Answer 55. The whole amount of wrapping paper furnished was 441 reams. The other paper he does not recollect, but it was small. Question 56. Had any complaint been made of the paper before you were a partner in the mill ? Answer 56. The complaint of which I have spoken is the only one which I recollect. Question 57. Was the price which you mention in your answer to the eighth interrogatory the wholesale price generally for such quality of paper? Answer 57. It was the wholesale price, and could not be got for that, without it was made on large contract. Question 5S. If the paper usually furnished was as good as the samples furnished by the department, by what authority were the small parcels, specially ordered, of greater weight, and for what purpose ? Answer 58. The postmasters expressed their desire to have paper of that quality for putting up large parcels. They were furnished accordingly by the contractors, without increase of charge to the department. Question 59. Are not all the expenses mentioned in your answer to the 9th interrogatory embraced by the contract, and taken into consideration by the contractor when he makes his contract, and are they not the same as every other dealer has to bear when he buys and sells such paper? Answer 59. It is taken into consideration when he makes his contract; as to the last part of the inquiry, I cannot tell whether they are the same or not. Question 60. In what places has the contractor an agent to receive and dispose of his paper? Answer 60. At Philadelphia and Albany. Question 61. How do you know that the contractor has an arrangement with his agents by which he pays them ten per cent.? Answer 61. I made the arrangement myself when I was contractor, by per- mission of iVIr. McLean, then Postmaster General ;the arrangement continued while I was contractor, and have reason to believe it continues until this time. Question 62. Does the contractor pay this allowance out of his own pocket, or is he allowed it at the department? Answer 62. The contractor, so far as I know, is allowed nothing but what is expressed on the face of his contract; he pays this allowance out of his own pocket. Question 63. Can you show the letter )'0u received from the department 183 [ 8S ] Answer 63. I have it not. I do not think I preserved it. Question 64. Is the sample of wrapping paper now presented the same as furnished by the department to True and Greene, on the 22d January, 1830, and numbered (Nine) by Which contracts were to be made? Answer 64. Yes; and the sample numbered (Ten) constitutes three hundred out of the four hundred and forty one reams as heretofore stated to have been furnished by the mill of Emmerson & Co., and which is now in course of distribution to the various offices. NATH. GREENE. Oclober 25, 1834. Mr. Greene having again been called, gave the following answers: Question 65. How are the failures by contractors in delivering the mails according to the contracts noted by you or at your office, and the department notified thereof, so as to enable them to enforce the penalties. Answer 65. We keep a book in which are inserted the hour and minute of the arrival and departure of the great eastern and southern mails; a tran- script from that book is made every Saturday, and forwarded to the depart- ment. The other and minor mails have so generally arrived regularly within their time, that the same proceeding v/ith regard to them lias not been deemed necessary. Whenever a failure takes place of sufficient importance to require notice, it is reported to the department. Question 6G. How and to what extent are you compensated for the duties of your office as postmaster? Answer 66. I am allowed by law a commission which is limited to $3,000 per annum, and 1 cannot receive more. The per centage allowed is specified in the law. I deduct the expenses of the office, such as clerk hire, fuel, &c., before I pay over the balance of commissions. These items are all specified in m)'' account sent annually to the department. Certain contingent expenses of the office, such as sealing wax, advertising letters, &c., are paid out of the gross amount of postages received, and the returns of these accounts are made quarterly. The items of rent, clerk hire, &c. are taken out of the commissions allowed by law. A portion of the letters received are, when requested, delivered by a penny post; the postmaster at this place receives nothing from this service by the penny post; his com- pensation as penny post is fixed by law. Question 67. How many private letter boxes are there in your office, and what compensation do you receive for them? Answer 67. I keep accounts with about 1,200 persons, whose letters are put into separate boxes. I give them a credit on their postage, myself ad- vancing the money to the department, and charging them each tvvo dollars a year for that accommodation. We send our bills round quarterly, but they are not alwa3^s punctually paid. The deposites are made weekly, more or less. The practice of having private boxes has existed to knowledge of witness for fourteen years, and, as he has understood, for many years before, and the compensation the same as charged by him. There is one other source oi profit, that is, on letters deposited in the office for persons whose letters are taken out or delivered from the same office, one cent is allowed by law for each letter. I cannot tell what it amounts to per annum; it is not a large sum. NATH. GREENE. [86 ] s 184 [Doc. No. 35.] October 25, 1834. CHARLES G. GREENE. Quesiion 1. When did you become a partner of the firm of True and Greene? Answer 1. In May, 1S29. Question 2, What interest did you take in the firm? Answers. The interest formerly of my brother, Nathaniel Greene. Quesiion 3. Did he retain any interest, direction, or control in the firm? Answer 3. None at all. Quesiion 4. Were you compensated after you entered the firm by an an- nual salary, or by the profits of the concern, for your services? Answer 4. By what arose from the concern, and not by an annual salary. Question 5. Was the contract with the Post Office Department a part of the whole concern of the firm, and transferred as part of it with the trans- ferred interest of Nathaniel Greene? Answer 5. It was; and there was no separate agreement respecting that contract. Question 6. How long have you been sole contractor with the depart- ment? Answer 6. From February last. At that time Mr. True withdrew from the firm, and left that busijiess in my hands, and I have attended to it with- out any new contract. I sent a certificate from Mr. True to the department, showing that he had withdrawn, and I had all that business in my hands. CHARLES G. GREENE. [Doc. No. 36.] October 25, 1S34 JOHN B. DERBY. Question 1. Do you know of the existence of the firm of True and Greene in Boston? Answer 1. Yes, I do. The members of the firm, as I supposed, were Ben- jamin True and Nathaniel Greene. I was informed by Charles G. Greene, some short time prior to 1st March, 1S31, that he had no interest in the firm of True and Greene, but that he received one thousand dollars a year for his services as editor of the Statesman. I do not remember to have had any con- versation with Nathaniel Greene for about two years, the intercourse with the Statesman party having ceased, I having proposed to insert an article re- viewing the correspondence of the President and Mr. Calhoun, in defence of the President, which was refused, and was afterwards inserted in the Globe at Washington. Question 2. Have you had any conversation with Nathaniel Greene on the subject of any interest in the concerns of True and Greene since IS2S? Answer 2. I liave no recollection of any. The firm of True and Greene was Benjamin True and Nathaniel Greene, and I never knew or heard of any change. Xt the lime when C. G. Greene informed me he had no in- terest in the firm, he informed me that his brother Nat was the person inte- rested in and composing part of the firm of True and Greene. 185 [86.1 Question 3. Have not you and both the Mr. Greenes been at variance for some time past? Answer 3. There has been a political but never a personal difference. We all belonged to the Jackson party. There arose a difference between as, they took one side, and I took the other; and the section of the party to which I was attached set up a new paper, called the Globe. ' " • JOtlN B. DERBY. [Doc. No. S^r.] Boston, October 25^ 1834. And Emmerson having appeared before the committee, and being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories as fol- low, to wit: Question 1. How long have you been owner or interested in a paper- mill at Peppcrell, in Massachusetts? Answer 1. It is a little over three years since Mr. Bullard and I pur- chased it. ?• • Question 2. Have you been-in the habit of supplying contractors with the Post Office Department at Boston with wrapping paper? Answer 2. I have. , Question 3. At what prices have you furnished the contractors with ihe paper, and at whaf place have you delivered it? Answer 3. The wrapping paper at three dollars and a half per ream, de- livered at C. G. Greene's place, 21 Water Street, Boston. Question 4. When did Nathaniel Greene become interested inthat mill, and when did he part with his interest, and on what terms? Answer 4. On 6th July, 1833, he became interested one half; he parted with his interest on the 1st day of this month. He sold to Mr. Parker, of Lowell; he had paid on his purchase ^3,000, and sold out losing that amount. Question 5. What were the prices at which you sold the wrapping paper during the time Nathaniel Greene Avas interested in said mill? Answer 5. Three dollars and one half per ream. Question 6. Was the qualitj^- of the wrapping paper furnished to the con- tractor as good or better, while he was interested, as tlie paper whrcii had been furnished to the contractor or contractors befoje that lime, from that mill? Answer 6. It was better. Question 7. Has any wrapping, paper furnished from your mill at any- time been returned or refused by the contractor? If so, state when^, and the reason why. Ans\ver 7. Yes, it has. There was one lot in the fall, late, of 1833, or forepart of the winter, that considerable fault was fotind with, and about seventy reams were returned, being the whole lot; I think but a i^w reams could have been used, two or three. There were one or two other lots objected to. Mr. C. G. Greene used a few reams of them ; but not used for the post office, as I believe. 24 [ S6 3 186 Lowell, October 21, 1S34. JVIr. Emnierson continued: I Ii£ve not been able to find a snmple of the paper furnished by us while Nathaniel Greene was a pertner. Here is a sample, marked siateeji^ which has been furnished recently to C. G. Greene, and 1 consider it belter than (hat furnished, eay two year.s ago, and was made in consequence of com- plaints having been matic. The quality of the pa]3er geneially furnished while Nathaniel Greene was a partner v.'as quite as good, so far as they were accepted by the contractor. Nathaniel Greene and C. G. Greene were at all times rigid and exact in the quality of the paper feccepted for the supply for the Post Office Depart- ment. We furnished, as appears by our journal, to the contractor from our mill 52a reams; 84 out of this^were rejected and returned to us by the con- tractor. This was between July, 1833, and October, 1834. Neither of the iMesfrs. Greene have now any interest in the mill. AND EMERSON. [Doe, 3S — See ^jjpendix.'\ [Doc. No. 39.] Providence, October 17, 1834. K. L MalItU, of Providence, in the county of Providence and^State of Hhode Island, on oath, certifies and sa)'s that he is now the postmaster at Providence, and has been ever since the first day of August, 1831. Question. If you can, you will furnish the committee with samples of the different supplies of wrapping paper used by you since in office, and state when and by whom they were respectively furnished. Answer. I think I can. I find some of my books and accounts covered wi(h paper No. 1, and as I used the ofiice wrapping paper for covers and en- velopes to iny duplicates of accounts, I am very sure this kind of paper \Yas used when 1 came into office. The mail clerk complained that it was not jiood, and that it was furnished by Messrs. Parker & Co., contractors, at Boston. When the supply was exhausted, 1 wrote Messrs. Parker & Co. for more, and sent a sample of the kind I wished. They sent me some which did not suit me; it is marked No. 2, if my memory serves me, and I find it sround some of my duplicates. Not being satisfied with Messrs. Parker & Co.'s paper, I wrote them I would return it, and 1 applied at the New York office and obtained seven reams from there marked No. 3. About the time this arrived I received from Messrs. Parker & Co. a suppl}^ which was good enough, and these two supplies I think carried me up to the new contractors, Messrs. True & Greene, of Boston. Messrs. Parker & Co. wrote me not to send back 'the first paper they sent me, as they could probably save the ex- pense of re-transportation by supplying the smaller offices. This was in the latter part of 1831. I think the first I received from True & Greene is marked No. 5. I am of this opinion because I find it endorsed in the hand- writing of my bookkeeper around my duplicates, bearing date September, 1833, at which time I believe True & Greene were contractors. The last 187 [86] received from True & Greene is inarL'cd No. 6; this arrived about a month ago; it is broader than the other, but not quite so long, and is of good qua- lity. It is possible a supply may have arrived between No. 5 and No. 6. if it is so, 1 have no sample of it. Question. Is the paper now exhibited to you, and marked No. 7, the same paper used by you in your office at any lirne wiihin the past year? Answer. As 1 do not make up the mails myself I cannot say. The color of the paper resembles what we have used for the year past, and what we are now using. The quality is not so good as that marked No. 5 and 6. Question. Are No. 7 and No. 8, now exhibited to you, the same paper? Answer. I am of opinion the quality is the same, but No. 7 appears to have been cut or trimmed, so as to be a little smaller than No. 8 cr No. 5 and 6. Question. Have you any other reason that the paper marked No. 5 was received from True and Greene than the one you have slated? Answer. I have no other data to guide me. Question. Have you any other reason for supposing that No. 2 and 4 were received from Parker and Co. than that which you have stated? Answer. None, except that 1 find No. 2 is very thin, and it appears by my letter book at that time that I was dissatisfied with what Parker and Co. had sent me. It appears also by the letter book that they also sent me some which did suit me, and is that, I think, which is marked No. 4. Question. Is j'our office a depositing and distributing office? Answer. I dcposite the proceeds of my office monthly, to the credit of the department, in the Arcade Hank. It is a distributing office. Question. How long since you made your deposiles in the Arcade Bank, and in what bank did you make them previously? Answer. I think not quite a year since the change. They were pre- viously made in the branch of the United States Bank in this city. Question. How often are the contingent and incidental expenses of your office stated and rendered to the department, and what items do those accounts contain? Answer. I make a quarterly return to the department, the contingent account of which last quarter embraced but two items, one to the mail car- rier between my office and the steamboats, the other for advertising letters. I also make an annual statement on the 30th September, of each year, the incidental charges of .which are rent, fuel, lights, clerk hire, stationery, printing, &.c. 1 keep duplicates, and the originals were sent to the depart- ment. .E. J. MALLETT. Sworn and subscribed before the Post Office Committee, at Providence, 17th October, 1831. FELIX GRUNDY, Chairman. [Doc. No. 40.] Robert H. Barton, of Providence, Rhode Island, a witness sworn and ex- amined before the Committee on Post Office, &c., deposeth and saith: lam the mail clerk in the post office in this place, and have been so since the 8th July last past, and had been a clerk in said office for one year previous to that time. The samples of paper No. 7 and No. 6 being shown to hinj, [ 8G ] 188 he says: No. 7 is the kind of paper used in tiie office wher» I commenced tO' mail letters, and we continued to use it until we received No. 6, which was about one month since. Similar paper to No. 7, if not the same, was used before I became mail clerk, as I believe. I believe it to be so because I often saw and handled the paper, but as the mail clerk only uses the paper, and I was pftt mail clerk previous to July, 1834, I cannot be positive on this point, any further than my belief, arising from seeing and handling it as be- fore stated. ROBERT H. BARTON. Sworn and subscribed before the committee at Providence, on 17th Oc- tober, 1834. FELIX GRUNDY, Chairman. [Doc. No. 41.] Martin Robinson, of Providence, in the county of Providence and State of Rhode Island, on oath testifies and says: That he is a dealer in paper and stationery in the city of Providence, Rhode Island, and has been so for ten years past; has dealt largely, and been agent of D. and J. Ames for this State since 1826. Being interrogated, he answers and says: Has examined the samples of paper furnished to the committee from No. 1 to No. 8 inclusive; a fair price upon the usual credit of six months, at the place Of delivery, at the expense of the makers, would be as follows: No. 1, estimated as of the size of No. 5, a whole sheet to measure about 20i by 26 inches, is worth, at a wholesale price, three dollars per ream. No. 2, estimated in same v\^ay, three dollars tnd fifty cents. No. 3, estimated in same way, four dollars tnd fifty cents. No. 4, three dollars and seventy-five Cents. * No. 5, four dollars. ^ No. 6, four dollars and fifty cents. No. 7, three doUiars. No. S, three dollars and fifty cents. These estimates are founded upon the delivery being made at New York>. Providence, or Boston. M. ROBINSON. Sworn and subscribed before the committee At Providence, Rhode Island,,, on the 17th October, 1834. FELIX GRUNDY, Chairman, [Doc. No. 42] John E. Brown, of Providence, Rhode Island, a witness produced, sworn and examined before the Committee on the Post Office, &c., on his oath says, viz. : I am, and for about five , years last past have been a considerable dealer in paper, stationery, &c. And the witness having inspected the samples of paper from No. 1 to No. 8 inclusive, the following question was proposed to him: Question. What would be a fair wholesale price for paper, by the reani;, 189 C 86 ] according; to thq samples, the paper to be delivered in Boston, Providence^ or New York? Answer. No. 1, two dollars and seventy-five cents; No. 2, three dollars^ No. 3, four dollars; No. 4, three dollars and twenty five cents; No. 5, three dollars and fifty cents; No. 6, four dollars; No. 7, three dollars and twenty-five cents; No. 8, three dollars and fifty cents. JOHN E. BROWN. Sworn and subscribed before the committee, at Providence, 17th Octo- ber, 1834. FELIX GRUNDY, Chairman. [Doc. No. 43.] Thomas J. Branch, 'of Providence, Rhode Island, a witness produced, sworn, and examined before the confmittee, &c., on his oath says: I am a dealer in paper, stationery, and books, and have been such for ■eight years last past. , The samples of paper, from No. 1 to No. 8 inclusive, having been in- spected by nlm. the following question was proposed to him, to wit: Question. What would be a fair wholesale price for paper, by the ream, according to the samples;, the paper to be delivered in Boston, Providence, or New York? Answer. No. 1, two dollars; No. 2, two dollars and fifty cents; No 3, three dollars; No. 4, two dollars and seventy-five cents: No. 5, three dol- lars; No. 6, three dollars; No. 7, two" dollars and fifty cents; No. 6, two dollars and fifty cents. THOS. JEFFERSON BRANCH. Sworn and subscribed before the committee, at Providence, 17th Octo- ber, 1834. • FELIX GRUNDY, Chairman. [Doc. No. 44.] Boston, Oc/. 24, 1834. William Parker having appeared before (he committee, and being first duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories, as hereinafter set forth. Question I. Have you been in the practice of furnishing wrapping paper and twine to the difi'erent contractors with the post office department at Boston; and if so, to what contractors, and at what times? Answer 1. I have furnished twine and wrapping paper to them. The first was to Thomas Rovve, to True and Greene, Simeon Ide, True and Greene again, and since to Charles G. Greene. Question 2. What was the quality and difference in quality of the t'.v:ne furnished to the different contractors? Answer 2. Mr. Rowe and True and Greene furnished good twine, manufactured by Mr. Edwards. Mr. Ide furnished Russia twine at first; it did not answer; then hemp tow twine, of a quality not so good as True and Greene's, costing about half the price of Mr. Edwards' twine; it wa^ I S6 J 190 tomplained of, and several times was returned. I then, by direction of Mr: Ide, purchased of a better quality, and got it afterwards from Mr Edwards. I had to get this good twine for the offices at Boston, Portland, Providence, and other places where they complained; but the general sup- ply was of this inferior kind. The inferior cost about 18 to 20 cents per pound; Edwards' twine cost about Sli cents per pound. I did not get the twine for True and Greene, or C. G. Greene, and therefore cannot speak o£ its quality. Question 3. What was the quality and the difierenco in quality of the wrapping paper furnished to the different contractors? Answer 3. There was good paper furnished by me to Mr. Rowe, cost- ing Kowe four dollars per ream. When'Rowe went away I furnished True and Greene; they were pretty particular, and I furnished them with good paper, and I think the price then was four dollars. I furnished Ide also, according to sample furnished me by him, at three dol- lars and a half; it was not as good as that furnished to Rowe and True and Greene. During this time I had to get better paper for Boston and other places, the same as the twine. After the expiration of Ide's contract, I furnished True and Greene agaia occasionally with paper of a better quality they refusing to take what was left of the supply for Ide, requiring from me a better quality. I furnished also some to C. Gr. Greene of the same quality as that furnish- ed to True and Greene. The price for these better lots was three dollars and a half, except the last sold, to C. G. Greene, within this month I think, which I sold to him at three dollars; being very desirous to get rid of it I sold it at a loss, as it cost me three dollars twenty-five cents. All the paper except this last cost True and Greene and C. G. Greene three dollars and fifty cents. , Question 4. Is the Russian twine, or that manufactured in the neighbor- hood of Boston, best adapted to the use of the post office? Answer 4. The twine manufactured here is i?est, because it is stronger and more pliable. The Russian is not suitable to be used in the post office. Question 5. Is not paper reduced in price, now, compared with its cost some years ago? Answer 5. Yes, I should think nearly twenty-five per cent. The paper here produced and marked No. thirteen, is a sample of the- paper generally furnished by Mr. Ide to the post office through me. I have examined the samples exhibited to me from one to eight. Nos. 3, 5, and 6, 1 would consider worth, at a Aiir average wholesale price, three dollars and a half per ream; No. seven., three dollars, because it is smaller and lighter. WILLIAM PARKER. [Doc. No. 45.] October 25, 1S54. ilOSES GRANT. Question I. How lon^; have you been an extensive dealer in paper? Answer 1. Over twenty years. I iiavc been one of the largest dealers in this place. I have never been in any shjpe connected with furnishing sup- plies to the Post Office Department. Question 2. Be pleased lo'ex-mine the samples shown you numbered from 191 [ 86 3 one to fourteen, of wrapping paper, and state what is the fair wholesale rr.ar- ket price of such samples, and for what it could be furnished on a large con- tract. No. 1, if of the size of No. S, which is a half sheet, would^ be worth $1 25 to $1 50 per ream; if of the size of No. 6, worth 25 cents more. No. 2, of same sizes, might be worth 50 cents more than No. 1. No. 3, of its apparent size, would be worth S2 50 per ream. No. 4, of the size of No. 3, about the «ame as No. 3. No. 5, not much difference from Nos. 3 and 4. No. G would be worth 3 dollars per ream No. 7, of same size as No. 6, worth S2 25 per ream; if of its present size, 25 cents less. No. S, worth two, dollars and fift}- cents. 'No. 9, about two dollars and fifty cents. No. 10, two dollars and seventy-five cents. No. 11, two dollars and fifty cents. No. 13, two dollars and fifty cents. , No. 14, two dollars and seventy-five cents. No. 15, two dollars and seventy-five cents or three dollars. These estimates are at the present lowest wholesale prices delivereiii in this city; deliverable in Providence or New York, tb.e expense would not be greater than six cents the ream. In this kind of wrapping paper there is a difiference between the prices now and five years ago of twenty-five to thir- ty-three and one third per cent, less; and between this lime and ten years ago, paper which could be bought now for three dollars would have cost rather over four dollars then. MOSES GRANT. [Doc. No. 46.] Boston, October 24, 1S34. CALVIN YOUNG. Question 1. What opportunities have you had of knowing the different kinds and qualities of wrapping paper and twii*e furnished by the different contractors at Boston to the Post Office Department? Answer 1. I have used them constantly for ten years past in the post office at Boston. Question 2. State the different kinds of paper and twine furnished at different times, and by whom since you have been employed in the post office. Answer. 2. When I was first employed in the post office, Mr. Rowe furnished paper and twine. The quality was good. Al'tcr him, True and Greene furnished; the quality they furnished was equal to Mr. Rowe's. The next was Mr. Ide, of Vermont. The articles which he furnished were not equal to those furnislied by True and Greene or Rowe, nor were they equal lo the samples furnished him. Then came True and Greene again. The articles furnished by them then were superior to any we had previously received. ' C. G. Greene was the next. The articles furnished by him were enual to those of True and Greene, and continue to be so furnished up toihia present time. [ S6 ] 192 Question 3. Was the difference between the paper furnished by True and Greene and Charles G. Greene and that furnished by Ide- very plain and manifest? Answer 3. Very much so. I think the difference in value would be twenty per cent. CALVIN YOUNG. , [Doc. No. 47.] BosTONj October f 24, 1834. Sanmuel P. Haywood having appeared before the committee, and being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories. Question 1. Kav^ you furnished wrapping paper to any of the contract- ors with the Post Office Department? Answer I. 1 have; to True and Greene and Horatio Hill & Co., of Concord. Question 2. Of what quality was the paper furnished by you to them, and at what prices, and when? Answer 2. We have been in the habit of selling to True and Greene^ from 1S30, at different times up till about a year ago, I think. We sold to Horatio Hil! & Co. several times within a year a::d a ha!f^ the last lot is not all delivered yet. To True and Greene we sold usually at four dollars the ream; the last lot; as appears from our books, was at three dollars and fifty cents. I think we never charged Hill and Barton more than three dollars and fifty '" .its, and the last sold to them was at three dollars and twelve and a half c:.' lis, a sample of which is here produced, marked number fourteen, and is rather of an inferior quality to any sold by us to contractors; the difference in quality i.s net so great as in price. P&per which sold three or four 5'eaKS ago at four dollars would now pro- bably not bring more than three dollars and fifty cents. The first sale to Horatio Hill & Co. was dated 25th March, 1833, forty-fo'ir. reams at g3 50 - - - ^154 00 3d May, 1834, four reams at ^3 - - - - 12 00 S61h June, 1834, one hundred and fifty-five reams at ^3 125 - 484 37 We have sold none to True and Greene since October, 1833, and none at' any time to C. G. "Greene. S. P. HAYWOOD. [ Doc. No. 48. ] Boston, October 24, 1834. Charles S. Newell having appeared and being duly sworn, gave the foU lowing answers to the respective interrogatories, as hereinafter set forth, ^0 wit: Question 1. Are you the clerk employed by the contractor at Boston to put up the paper arid twine provided for the Post Office Department; and if so, how long have you acted as such? 193 [ 86 ] Answer 1. I am clerk of C. G. Greene, now Beals and Greene, and have been so since January last. Question 2. Have the wrapping paper and twine furnished by the con- tractor for the use of the Post OIFice Department been equal to the samples furnished by the department? Answer 2. The wrapping paper, all except about eighty -four reams, fur- nished by Emmerson and Greene was equal to the samples; that was defi- cient in sizing. It was in some instances better, and never worse, except as stated. The ivvine has always been good, and no complaint made about it. Part of the eighty-four reams was used before the defect was ascertained, the rest was returned to the contractor. Question 3. Would you know the paper which has been distributed if shown to you? , Answer 3. I do not know that I would. I do not think I could tell in all •cases. ' • Witness having been shown the samples numbered from one to eight, selected No. six as that which had been furnished while he has been clerk. There was a parcel of it on hand when he went into the employment of C. G. Greene. I cannot ^ay at what time I sent paper of that quality to Providence, but may have been as early as May last. No. seven being shown to witness, he states he has no knowledge of such paper. CHAS. S. NEWELL. Witness having relurned before the committee, produced the following statemeat of paper furnished to the Post Office at Providence, to wit: 29th January, 1834, six reams; 14th June, 1S34, five reams; 30th August, 1834, six reams: and it was of the same quality as sample No. « x. I do not think it was of the same size. This opinion I have formed fro.n the a^pear- _ance of the paper. CHAS. S. NEWELL. 1^— [Doc. No. 49. ] ' October 25, 1834. BENJAMr.V TRUE. Question 1. Are you of the firm of True and Greene who were contrac- tors to furnish the Post Office Department with blanks, paper, and twine? Answer 1. Yes, I was. Question 2. How long were >*- J a partner? Answer 2. Nearly ten years. Question 3, When did you cease to be a member of the firm? Answer 3. On the 1st of February last. Question 4. When did Nathaniel Greene cease to be a partner? Answer 4. I cannot state precisely; it was advertised, and was at the time he took the post office. Question 5. Did Nathaniel Greene then cease to have any interest in tho ■eoncern and the contract with the department? Answer 5. Yes. 25 [ 86 ] 194 Question 6. Has he not, to your knowledge, since that time' had any interest in it? Answer 6. No; no other than a friend. Question 7. Had he any interest in the success or failure of the concern, or money depending on it? Answer 7. No. Question S. Was the newspaper ^called the Statesman or Post a part of the property of the concern? Answer S. The Statesman was, while Mr. Nathaniel Greene was with iTie. The Post, I think, was established after C. G. Greene came into the firm. Question 9. What interest had Charles G. Greene in the firm when he came into the firm, and while in it? Answer 9. He took his brother's interest in the concern, which was one- lialf. Question 10. Did Charles G. Greene come into the firm as a substitute for his brother with regard to the debts, &c., or did he purchase his brother's interest in it; and did he pay a consideration therefor, and what? Ans>ver 10. He took his brother's place. The office was in debt. I never saw any contract between Nathaniel Greene and C. G. Greene, any other than his coming into the concern and taking debts and credits as they belonged to his brother. I know of no other consideration than his paying debts. The office was in debt, and he agreed to pay a certain proportion of it; and Nathaniel Greene took a part of the debts to pay. Question 11. Was this contract with the Government, and the office of the Statesman, and the other business, considered as forming, altogether, one concern? Answer 11. Yes. BENJA. TRUR [ Doc. No. 50. ] » Boston, October 25, 1834. THOMAS H. GRENVILLE. Question 1. Hav.e you been connected in any way with the post office, or in the employment of True and Greene? Answer 1. Yes. I have been in the employment of True and Greene a considerable part of the time from 1S21 or 1822 until 1830, in their printing office. 1 was a clerk in the post office in Boston since Nathaniel Greene was postmaster, for about a year. I resigned my situation in con- sequence of ill heahh. Question 2. Who composed the firm of True and Greene? Answer 2. Benjamin True and Nathaniel Greene, until Nathaniel Greene became postmaster. I then understood that Charles G. Greene became the partner. There vvas a notice in the newspapers, from which I supposed that Nathaniel was out and C. G. Greene in the firm. Question 3. Did you understand, or do you know from either of the parties, that 0. G, Greene was a partner receiving the profits, or that he was allowed a salary for his services? Answer 3. 1 have no recollection of any such fact. THOMAS H. GRENVnXEl. 195 [86] [Doc. No. 51. ] Boston, October 24, 1834. John Edwards appeared before the committee; and being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories as hereinafter set forth: Question 1. Have you been a manufacturer of twine in the neighbor- hood of Boston for some years, and in the habit of supplying contractors with the Post Office Department with tliot article? If so, state the names of the contractors furnished by you, the quality of the twine furnished, and the prices. Answer 1, I have been'a manufacturer of twine in Cambridgeport for about twenty years. The first contractor I furnished was Mr. Rowe. He had [two qualities; the first was .it thirty cents per pound, of common quality. That did not answer; it was too stiff. I then made him another quality at forty cents per pound, which answered well. The next furnished was True and Greene, of same quality as the last furnished to Rowe. Before Rowe ceased to purchase of me, the price had been reduced to thirty-four cents for the best quality. I then let True and Greene have that same quality at the same price for a while. It was then lowered in price to thirty cents, and of the same quality, and continued at that price for a while. I found I could not make it for that, and I raised it to thirty-three and a third cents, and have continued that price down to the present time. I furnished it to True and Greene, and also to C. G. Greene, down to this time. I have also furnished to Hill and Barton, of Concord, this qualit}'^ at the same price, and also Mr. Ide in part of same quality. Hill and Barton have had about S500 worth in all. True and Greene, and C. G. Greene, about $1,200 worth a year while they have been contractors, ' The twine furnished by me since the first rise in price is good, and well suited for post office purposes. The periods of the change in prices are as follow: At 34 cents per pound from August 26, 1S26, to February 27, 1S30. At 30 cents per pound from February 27, 1S30, to December 31, 1S31. At 33| cents per pound from December 31, 1S31, to the proscnt time. JOHN EDWARDS. [ Doc. No. 52. j October 24, 1S34. Nathaniel Melcher having appeared, and being first duly sworn, made the follovving answers to the respective interrogatories, as follow: Question 1. What opportunities have you had of knowing the different kinds and qualities of wr^ipping paper and twine furnished by the different contractors at Boston to the post office department? Ans^ver. I have been in the Boston post office about seven years, using the material furnished. Question 2. State the different kinds of paper and twine furnished at different times, and by whom^ since you have been employed in the post office. r 86] 196 Answer 2. The first that I now recollect was Simeon Ide, of Vermont, some years ago. The (quality of wrapping paper was not so good as that furnished now by C, G. Greene. Sinee Ide ceased to furnish, the quality has uniformly been good. Question 3. Was the difference plain and manifest? Answer 3. Yes. The difference in value, I should think, was from fif- teen lo twenty per cent. There was also a difference in the twine and paper for blanks. Ide's was not so good as that furnished since. NATHANIEL MELCHER. [Doc. No, 53.] Washington, June 25, 1834. Sir: In compliance with the instructions of the committee, we proceeded immediately to the examination of the accounts submitted to us; but, owing to the ditficulty of procuring the printed papers, (some of which, it is be- lieved, are lost,) we are not able to present a full report; we have, however, taken the accounts for advertising proposals for contracts for the year 1S32 as they stand charged, and have ascertained what the actual cost of adver- tising the same quantity of matter the same number of times (that is to say) once a week, in the National Intelligencer, would have been, and submit the result to the Committee, viz. ; The amount ptiid the Globe, . . . . gS,386 50 Actual cnarg.3 lor the same in the National Intelligencer, 2,763 37i Difference, ...... §5.623 12^ It will t;.ke some days to go through with all the accounts in the manner required by the committee, and desired by Mr. Blair; we will proceed with the examination, however, and complete it as early as practicable. Mr. DONOHO, Mr. RIVES, and Mr. FORCE. Hon. F. Grundy, Chairman Com. P. Office and P. Roads, Senate. There was a note appended by Mr. Rives, in relation to the actual cost of the advertising in the Globe, of which no copy was kept. [Doc. No. 54.] (Jhambersburg, November IS, 1834. Daniel Shaffer, being first duly sworn, gave the following answers to tlie respective interrogatories: Question I. Are you postmaster? Answer 1. Yes; at Mercersburg. Question 2. How is the mail carried from Hagerstown to McConnells- bUrg? Answer 2. It is carried on horseback from 1st of April last; they made a few attempts to carry it in stages, but it did not answer a good purpose; it is a tri- weekly mail, and was carried before 1st April, 1834, 1 think, on horseback. 197 [86 ] Andrew Lindsay and myself were the contractors for carrying this mail prior to 1st January, 1S32. We put in cur bid for it again in the fall of 1831, at a price not now recollected; it is in the department. We had got ^600 under our contract, and carried it in two horse post coaches, except about S or 9 months at the last, when we carried it in a fc«r horse post coach. We thought it would make a good route for passengers, and we did carry a great many. The stages still run round by Green Castle,but do not carry the mail. I remained in VVashiiigton until after the bids were given in, and the next day after they were put in I met Reeside, and said to him, well, colonel, I suppose you will take my route from me. Yes, said he, I will take it in spite of every body. I put in for that route at S-IO for a tri-weekly mail, and for a daily mail 90 or 90 odd. You need not be uneasy about it, I will establish the joute, and will give you as much stock on it as you want. This was after the bids were all given in, and before the contracts were cried off. DANIEL SHAFFER. [Doc. No. 55.] Baltimore City, set. ' Personally came before me, James B. Latimer, one of the justices of the peace in and for said city, Charles W. McKinstry, who, being duly sworn on the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, did give tlie following answers to the two interrogatories herein propounded to him, this 13th day of October, 1834: Question 1. Were you present at the lettings of 1831, when James Ree- side's bid of forty dollars for the route from Hagerstown to McCbhnellsburg was announced ? Answer. I was in the room in the General Post Office when it was an- nounced. Question 2. Did you at that time, or any other time shortly after, hear James Reeside name the sum at which he had bid off the route, and his reasons for taking it so low? Stale such conversation as near as you caoj, and the lime and place of holding it. ' Answer. At the time of letting this contract there was a good deal of talk among the contractors as to how Reeside could take it so low as forty dollars, Mr. Reeside said (I think it was in the room, but before I left the General Post Office) that the reason of taking it so low was, that he intend- ed 'to connect that route with the Eclipse Line from Baltimore, and so have a mail line established through the glades to Wheeling. I do not recollect who it was that was speaking to him about it. His observation was not made to me; but being generally addressed to those near him, I heard, as I suppose others did. I never had any conversation with Mr. Reeside on the subject of this contract. C. W. McKINSTRY. Sworn and subscribed before me, , JAS. B. LAThMER, ^justice of the peace of the State of Maryland in and for the City of Baltimore. C 86 ] > 19S [ Doc. No. 56. ] CiiAMBERSBURG, November 18, 1834. Elliott T. JLane, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the interrogatories: Qaestion 1. Have you, at any time, had a conversation with James Ree- gide concerning his contract for carrying the mail from Hagerstown to MeConnellsburg? If so, state what he said. Answer 1. The time Ism not certain, but I know it was soon or imme- ciiately after the contract was ^iven out, in the fall of 1831. He asked me ■what I supposed he had taken the contract at. I told him I supposed he would get an increased price, as his stock was generally good, and the stock ' on that road was not good. He then slated what he had put in as a bid: it was forty or forty-five dollars for every other day, and ninety, or somewhere in ninety, for an every day stage. We had a good deal of conversation about the contractors on the national road. He was a good deal excited, and said he had not been used well by them. He said that rather than not have got that cross line to intersect the line at McConnellsburg he would have given the department five hundred dollars. His 'object appeared to be to have a direct line along that road to intersect the Wheeling line. For some time before I ceased to act as postmaster at Mercersburg, the postmaster at the Welsh run, or his deputy, used to come about once a week for his mail, and take it from my office. I understood the reason why this was done was, that the stage ran round by Green Castle, and did not come past the Welsh- run post office. Sometimes in the winter it was not safe for the mail to come by the direct road from Hagerstown, owing to ice and high water in the Conococheague creek. Question 2, What was the average weight of the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg? Answer 2. I could not form an estimate. We had mail bags which held about one and a half to two bushels: sometimes it came full, at other X'ttnes it was not. Once a week it was generally full. I at one time recommended to Reeside to run his stages round by Green Castle on account of the difficulty in getting over the Conococheague creek. The distance from Hagerstown to G reen Castle is about ten miles, from Green Castle to McCon- nellsburg is twenty or twenty- one miles. ELLIOTT T. LANE. Questfon 3. How was this mail carried prior to the 1st April last? Answer 3. I received a letter from the department, dated 22d November, 1833, staling that they had given permission to the contractors to carry the snail on horseback occasionally. The words of the letter are as follow: " Post Office Departmb^nt, ^'■Northern District, Northern Divisiorif Nov. 22, 1833. << Sir: Privilege has been given to the contractors on route No. 1,231 to change the hour of departure of their four horse post coach from Hagers- town to seven in the evening, or so as to connect at that place with the Reliance line from Baltimore, and to arrive at McConnellsburg by two in the morning, connecting with the Telegraph line going west. By this stage they are to carry a niailj but the main mail is to be conveysd on horsebacky 199 [ 86 ] leaving Hagerstown as at present, on the arrival of the fast line from Balti- more, say eight A. M., and arriving at McConnellsburg by three P. M. " Respectfully, <' S. R. HOBBIE, *' f^ssist. P. M. Gen. ^'Postmaster, Mercer&burg, PaJ" After the receipt of ti)is letter the mail was for a short time carried some- times by horseback and sometimes by stages; then it was entirely carried on horseback, and continued till 1 ceased to act, in. the following April — no mail coming by the stages, which still continued to run. ELLIOTT T, LANE. [Doc. No. 57.] November 17, 1634. JACOB GROVE. Question I. Did you at any time hear James Reeside say he had con- tracted to carry the mail from H^agerstown to McConnellsburg? and if so, at what price? , Answer. I did: it was forty or forty -one dollars. , When Culbertson and I sold out our contract to Siders and Lewis we were talking about it. We got $195 from Hagerstown to Chambersburg three times a week, and •we said it was not much. Reeside said he carried the mail from Ha^^ers- town to McConnellsburg for forty or forty-one dollars, I forget which. This was about two years ago. [Doc. No. 58.] JACOB GROVE. November 17, 1834. SILAS fiARRY. Question 1. Did you at any time hear James Reeside say he had con- tracted to carry the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg? and if so, what sum, and at what time? Answer. I could hot tell the time; I had not any idea of being examined. A short time after the contract was taken he told me he had taken the con- tract for^ forty dollars. Tasked him how it was lie could carr}' the mail for that price; he told me he would carry it for nothing sooner than miss it. By having stock on that line he would have a feeder for his great line from Chambersburg to Pittsburg, in which he was then or about to be engaged. SILAS HAKRY. [Doc. No. 59.] ]So. 1231: $40— SlO. This contract, made the fifteenth day of October, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, between James Reeside, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, contractor for carrying the mails of the^United States, of one part, and the Postmaster General of the United States of the other part, witnessetb, that the said parties have mutually covenanted as lollows, viz. : The said contractor covenants with the Postmaster General; r 86 1 200 1. To carry the mail of the United States from Hagerstown, Maryland, by W€lch run, Pennsylvania, and Mereersburgh, to McConnellsburgh, and back, three times a wefek in four horse post coaches, at the rate of ten dollars for every quarter of a year, during the continuance of this contract; to be paid in drafts on postmasters on the route above mentioned, or in money,at the option of the Postmaster General, in the months of May, Jlugust, No- i)ember, and February. ■ 2. That the mails shall be duly delivered at, and taken from each post of- fice now established, or that may be established, on any post route embraced in this contract, under a penalty of ten dollars for each offence; and a like penalty shall he incurred for each ten minutes' delay in the delivery of the mail after the time fixed for its dclirery at any post office specified in the schedule hereto annexed; and it is also agreed that the Postmaster General may alter the times of arrival and departure fixed by said schedule, and alter the route (he making an adequate compensation for any extra expense which may be occasioned thereby); and the Postmaster General reserves the right of annulling this contract in casethe contractor does not promptly adopt the alteration required. '' ^' * ^ - ,■ , . 3. If the delay of the arrival of said mail continue until the hour for the departure of any cotiRecting mail, whereby the mails destined for such con- necting m^ls shall lose a trip, it shall be considered as a whole trip lost, and -a forfeiture of five dollars shall be incurred; and a failure to take the maii or to make the proper exchange of mails at connecting points shall be con** sidered a whole trip lost; and for any delay or failure equal to a trip lost, th^ Postmaster General shall have full power to annul this contract. 4. That the said contractor shall be answerable for the persons to whctot he shall commit the care and transportation of the mail, and accountable for any daipages whiclv may be sustained through their unfaithfulness or waht^ of care. 5. That seven minutes after the delivery of the mail at any post office on. the aforesaid route not named in the annexed schedule shall be allowed the postmaster for opening the same and making up another mail to be for- warded. 6. The contractor agrees to tlischarge any driver or carrier of said mail whenever required to do so by the Postmaster General. 7. That when tb.e said mail goes by stage, such stage shall be suitable for the comfortable accommodation of at least seven travellers; and the mail shall invariably be carried in a secure dry boot under the driver's feet, or in the box which constitutes the driver's seat, under a penalty of fifty dollars for each omission; and when it is carried on horseback, or in a vehicle other than a sta<^e, it shall be covered securely with an oilcloth or bear-skin against rain or snow, under a penalty of twenty dollars for each time the mail is Wet without such covering; and for permitting the mail to be injured a se-^ eond time, for carrying it contrary to the stipulations before recited, the Post- master General shall have aright lo aniiul this contract. The mail shall be put into a post office, if there be one where the carrier stops at night; if there be no office it shall be kept in a secure place, and there be locked up,, at tlje contractor's risk. • ' . 8. The whole forfeiture and penalties to be incurred in the course of any on^ trip shall not exceed the sum specified in the third article, which the contractor hereby binds himself lo pay to the Postmaster General.' 9. 'The said Postmaster General covenants vvith the said contractor to pay 201 [ 86 ?J as aforesaid for the carriage of said mail as aforesaid, at the rate aforemen- tioned, quarterly, in the months of May^ Jiiigust, Novtmher, and Febru~ ary. 10. It is mutually understood by the contracting parties that if the route, or any part of the route herein mentioned, shall be discontinued by act of Congress, or in the opinion of the Postmaster General becomes useless, then this contract, or such part of it, shall cease to be binding on the Postmaster General, he giving notice of such event, and making allowance of one month's extra pay. 11. This contract shall not be assigned by the contractor without the con- sent of the Postmaster General, and an assignment of the pay shall in no case release the contractor or his sureties from their responsibilities. Should the contractor or his agents be engaged in the transmission of information by express, on the routes herein designated, more rapidly than the mail, with- out the consent of the department, the contracts shall be forfeited. Provided always, That this contract shall be null and void in case the contractor or any person that may become interested in this contract, direct- ly or indirectly, shall become a postmaster or an assistant postmaster. No member of Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon; and this contract shall in all its parts be subject to the terms and requisitions of an act of Congress passed on the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thou- sand eight hundred and eight, entitled '^ An act concerning public contracts." And it is mutually covenanted and agreed by the said parties that this con- tract shall commence on first day of January next, and continue in force un- til the thirty-first day of December inclusively, which will be in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five. In witness whereof, they have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. (Signed) JAS. REESIDE. Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of (Signed) RICHD. C. WHITESIDE. (Superseded by another contract made with James Reeside.) [Doc. No. 60.] November 17, 1834. JOHN WATSON. Question 1. Are you the postmaster at Green Castle? Answer 1. Yes, I am. Question 2. Did the mail stage from Hagerstovvn to McConnellsbarg at any time run round by Green Castle? Answer 2. There was a stage said to be a mail stage, which came rouDd by Green Castle, commencing in January, 1832, and ran for some time, say a year, and continues sometimes yet to run; Tsee it going through. Question 3. Does it bring any mail to, or carry any mail from your office in Green Castle? Answer 3. There was a mail in February, 1832, brought by this stage, and quit some time in April of the same year. Question 4. What are the post offices on the direct route from Hagers- town to McConnellsburg? 2§ r 86 ] 202 Answer 4. 7'he Welsh run and Mercersburg post offices. In running through Green Castle, the stage would not pass the Welsh run office, but came in to Mercersburg. Question 5. How was the Welsh run post office supplied, when the stage ran round by Green Castle? Answer 5. By report, the postmaster went into Mercersburg himself part of the time. About harvest last, say in July, I saw a boy on horseback, who told me he was carrying that mail. Question 6. What contractor carried the mail from Hagerstown to Greee Castle since 1832? Answer 6. It is carried by the stage which runs through from Hagers- town to Chambersburg. I understood Mr. Culbertson and Mr. Siders, of Chambersburg, were the conti-actors. JOHN WATSON. [Doc. No. 61. ] Committee Room, December 3, 1S34. John Siders, having been duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories, viz.: Question 1, Have you at any time carried the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg on horseback? If so, state under whose employment; when you commenced; how long you continued to carry it, what compensation you received, and by what route. Answer 1. 1 have carried this mail on horseback. Josiah Horton, sub- contractor of James Reeside, made, in conjunction with Sam. R. Slaymaker, a new arrangement of the stages of the Eclipse line as to the lime when they should leave Hagerstown, so as not to detain the passengers there over night; of course they could not take the Washington and other mails which came in next morning, and I was employed to carry the mail in the mornings on horseback to McConnellsburgh. This arrangement began 1st November, 1833, and continued until 1st August, 1834. At this time the mails were delivered to Mr. Horton in the evening, and he so carried them for a few trips; but the postmaster, Mr. Kennedy, found it would not do, as the morning mails lay over one day, and then refused to give the mail bags in the evening, and Mr. Horton began to carry them himself on horseback in the morning, and continued to do so until this time. By carrying the mail from Hagerstown in the morning they met Reeside and Slaymaker's Telegraph line at McConnellsburg, which from thence carried the mails westward. I charged one hundred and twenty dollars per quarter. 1 had no contract. The horse mail was carried on the straight road past the Welsh run post office. Question 2. Did you carry the mail from Hagerstown through Green Castle to Chambersburg? If so, how often per week; for what price, and what is the distance? Answer 2. Mr. Thompson and myself were subcontractors under Cul- bertson and Grove, and they carried tlie mail under the lettings of 1831, for about a year, as a tri- weekly mail; when we bought them out, v>'e got the pri- vilege of carrying it six days in the week; and it so continued from February, 1833, to September, 1S34, when it was reduced to a tri-weekly; but to begin again six times a week, after 1st December, 1834, and continued during the setting of the Pennsylvania Legislature. a03 [ 86 3 The distance is 20 miles. The allowance by the department for tt^- ■vveekly mails is 295 dollars, and a proportionate increase for six times a v^eek. Question 3. Was the road from Hagerstown round by Green Castle to r\IcConnellsburg a mail route? Answer 3. No it was not. We carried the Green Castle mail. Question 4. Has the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg been car- ried at an}* time round through Green Castle in a stage; and if not, why? Ansv^'er 4. From the 1st of January, 1832, or about that, the mail was carried round by Green Castle in stages until the time I began to carry it on horseback as before stated, say 1st November, 1S33. It was at first daiiy; but about this time, November, 1S33, was made tri-weekly. No mail was opened at Green Castle. Question 5. At whose instance or by whose employment did James Watson, postmaster at Welsh run, come to Mercersburg for his mail? Answer 5. I am not able to say; but know the fact of his coming theri for his mail. When I carried it on horseback the mail regularly stopped at his office going and returning from McConnellsburg, and has done so ever since. Question 6. Was the Conococheague creek, and the direct road from Ha- gerstown to McConnellsburg, often so dangerous to pass that stages cou' J not get along? Answer 6. Yes; at that time it was often dangerous to cross the creek, and the road was bad. They ran round by Green Casfle because the road was better, and there was a bridge across the creek. The distance was four miles round. Question 7. Do you know any thing more in reference to the transporta- tion of the mails, the manner of carrying them, the sums paid for so doing, or change of contracts, material, in your opinion, to be communicated? Answer 7. I kept the tavern in Chambersburg when Reeside and Slay- maker began to run in 1832 with the fast line. They left Philadelphia at first at 2 o'clock in the morning, I think, and arrived at my house next night from 12 to 1 — never varying much. This continued until some time in the summer of 1832, when a change took place in the hour of departure from Philadelphia, which I think was 8 o'clock. They then arrived at my house to breakfast next morning, say half past 6 to hali past 7. This change did not increase the expedition of the mails; they ran as fist before as they did then. The expedition commenced in Januar}^, 1832. They generally carried seven passengers, but I have seen the stages so fill of mails that they could not carry passengers. The mail from Baltimore to Chambersburg has always been irregular in its arrival. In the summer of 1832, for a short time, it arrived from G to'7 in the evening, but was more frequently from 10 to 11. jy3 , JOHN SIDERS. [Doc. No. 62.] Chambersburg, November 19, 1S34. William Lewis, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to t'r e following interrogatories: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m r 86 ] 20r4 Answer 1. I was for near seven years, but eeased to act in Octoberj 1833. I now hold part of the stock from Bedford, on the Baltimore and Wheeling road, and became an owner on 15th May, 1S32. I was joint owner in the Western Company from May, 1S32, until 1st February, 1S33, when the company dissolved, and I now continue as above stated. Question 2. When did you first acquire any knowledge of an extra allowance of §10,000 a year to said company, on the route from Phila- iielphia to Pittsburg; and did you, as a partner, ever receive any part thereof? Answer 2. I never knew of any such thing until I saw it in Jesse Tom- linson's deposition, taken before the committee of the Senate last spring, and also in Mr. Reeside's deposition before said committee. I never re- ceived any portion or share of that allowance. If that money had been divided as the other money for the contract, I would have been entitled to a part of it on account of my stock. 1 have no knowledge how that money was disposed of or applied. I have had no conversation with Reeside or Slaymaker about it. Question 3. Did you superintend the line from Bedford to Washington; if so, at what time? Answer 3. From Ist April, 1833, till 1st October of same year I did. Since that time I have run it myself. Question 4. At what time did the mail begin to run daily in four horse post coaches on the route from Bedford to Washington, by Somerset, Mount Pleasant, Robbstown, and Williamsport; and how long did it continue? Answer 4. It commenced shortly after this contract of 1st January, 1832, and continued until a few days after 1st September of same year, when half the line was withdrawn, leaving it a tri-weekly line, at which it continues at present. There is now, since 1st October, 1833, an increase in the ex- pedition of the mail. Before that it took two days from Bedford to Wash- ino^ton ; it now runs through in twenty-four hours. That increased speed was optional with myself. Mr. W'eaver, Horton, and myself are the sub-con- :ractors under Reeside. We increased the speed for the purpose of getting passengers. We receive from Reeside §2,900 a year. I superintended the line from Cumberland to Blair's Gap for six months in 1833, from 1st April to 1st October; and 1 know how it was carried in the winter previous; it was carried on horseback, and until some time about the middle of May, when we put on four horse* from Cumberland to Burks, and from there to Bed- ford two horses; four horses from Hollidaysburg to the change, and from there to Bedford two horses. It ran every other day; it was a tri-weekly line. It never ran daily, at any time, iq ray knowledge. I know also that last win\er this mail was carried on horseback. I know nothing of an express mail having run between Philadelphia and Pittsburg at anv time. WILLIAM LEWIS. [Doc. No. 63.] Chambersburg, Nove^nber 17, 1834. Abraham Harbach: Question 1. Have you an interest in the mail route from Philadelphia to ■i ^Pittsburgh; and how long have you been concerned? Answer 1. Yes; and have been for about thirty years. ^205 [ S6 ] Question 2. Did you know any thing of the extra allowance of 10,000 dollars on this route prior to its being noticed in the report of this commit- tee? Answer 2. No, I did not. Question 3. Has James Reeside ever settled with you and the other western partners for that allowance? And if he have, state particularly iu what manner it has been settled. Answer 3. He has never settled with our company, so far as I know of. nor did he say any thing except at our setlement, I think in Angust last, at the Crossings; when the company met and called on him about those extra allowances, as they had understood they iiad been made, and wanted to know from him how he would account for them. He then stated we had all received our proportion ; that this money had been expended for the benefit of the whole concern, VV'e then proposed to appoint a committee, as he did not seem disposed to tell how it had been expended. It was agreed or. that the committee should hear Reeside and Slaymaker by themselves, and they were to report to the company whether we had received our propor- tion. The committee were not to state the particulars as to how this monev had been expended, but merely their opinion whether we had received our proportion or not. The committee consisted of John McKee and Demin; R. rsIcNair; of Pittsburg; they are now part of the company, but were not when the allowances were made; they reported favorably to Reeside and Slaymaker. They were not at liberty to state what passed between them and Reeside and Slaymaker. The report of the committee was in writing, and was entered I think on our minutes; Col. McNair I think has ihem. In 1831 we ran two lines to Pittsburg from Philadelphia, and one from Baltimore by Hagerstown to McConnellsburg; atMcConnellsburg the three lines met, and from Bedford one of the three lines branched oflf through Somerset to Wheeling. The expedition of these lines is pretty much the same now that it was then. At one time since there was a little falling off, but now it is about the same. ABRAM HARBACH. Abraham Harbach called again: Question. Were you at any time since January, 1832, concerned in the tnail route from Bedford to Washington, Pennsylvania; and if so, state at %vhat time? Answer. I was concerned as a stockholder throughout the year 1832. Question. Who conducted the business of that company with the de- partmeht and received the pay? Answer. James Reeside and Samuel R. Slaymaker; I think the contract was from Mount Pleasant to Washington, but it went under the name of the contract from Bedford tc Washington. Sometimes Slaymaker and some- times Reeside settled v/ith the company. Question. How much did they account for with the company as received from the department in. the year 1832 on that route, for carrying the mai'. from Mount Pleasant to Washington? Answ^. The sum was 2,900 dollars, from Mount Pleasant to Washing- ton. I did not understand that there was any allowance for the mail frotr Bedford to Mount Pleasant; if there were any, it was included in the 2,900 dollars. Part of the year 1832 the fast mail from Philadelphia to Pittsburg L Went past Mount Pleasant to Pittsburg, and part of the year a part of the line went up the old Greensburg road. is! Question. Did Reeside and Slaymaker at the time of the settlement of vvvvhich you have spoken in your deposition, say that they applied any por- tion of this extra pay of 10,000 dollars to pay any part of the old debts due from the company? Answer. No, I never heard of that until I saw it in Reeside's deposition before the committee of the Senate; and he said nothing about old debts at the time of the settlement in August last. ABRAM PIARBACH. [Doc. No. 64.] December 26, 1834. JOHN W. WEAVER. Question 1 . Do you know any thing about the weight of the mails from Philadelphia to Pittsburg since 1st April^ 1831? If so, state particularly all you know. Answer 1. The mails in 1831, at Bedford, on Monday, would have weighed I suppose 1,000 pounds. This was the Sunday mail from Phila- delphia; the others would average I suppose 600 pounds. They increased the latter part of 1831; towards the close, the Sunday mail would average I suppose 1,400 pounds, the others from 6 to 800 pounds. From the 1st of January, 1832, for about five months, the Sunday mail I think would have weighed 2,500 pounds; one day in the week, besides, the mail vvas much heavier than the rest; the average of the other days would pro- bably be 800 pounds: after that the mail swere divided at Philadelphia, and were much lighter on our route. I did not reside there in 1833 buS a short time, and do not know about the mails. Question 2. Do you know how the mails were carried from Washington, Pennsylvania, to Bedford, in 1832? Answer 2. Daily, in four horse post coaches, until, I think, 1st Septem- ber; then, I think, daily as far as Mount Pleasant, and the rest of the road, every other day. From Bedford to Mount Pleasant was part of the route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. Question 3. Do you know how the mail was carried from Cumberland to Blair's Gap, in 1832? Answer 3. From about 25th April, 1832, it was carried on horseback three times a week from Cumberland to Bedford, until in July; then it was carried in six-passenger coaches, part of the way with four and part with two horses, until the latter end of October. I was the sub-contractor under Reeside for carrying this mail, and carried it from about 25th April, 1832, to 1st April, 1833. After October I carried it three times a weekj on horse- back, until April, 1833. I also carried the mail, as sub-contractor, from Bed- ford to Blair's Gap during the same period. I ran it from April, 1832, to July, three times a week, on horseback; then in six-passenger coaches, 1 think, until March, 1833, some part of the road with four horses, some part with three, and the balance with two horses, three times a week. I re- ceived ^1,500 })er annum from Mr. Reeside, for carrying this mail from Cumberland to Blair's Gap, or Hollidaysburg, three miles from the Gap. Question 4. During the year 1832, did you generally have as many pas- sengers in the two lines from Philadelphia to Pittsburg as you could carry? 207 [86 ] Answer 4. Our travel from the east generally commenced about the 1st of February, and we ran full until about 1st May, and often had to employ extras; then the travelling gradually fell off until about 1st October, during which time one line and a half would carry the passengers. From 1st Oc- tober until 1st December we ran full again; then we ran very light from that till February; a line and a half would be more than enough to carry all the passengers during that season of the year. The above statement applies not only to 1832, but is the general course of things from 1S2S up till 1833, ^vhen my knowledge of this subject ceased. From the west, if the river was shut, the travel began about 1st February; if the boats were running, we begun to carry full about 10th or 12th January. We run pretty full until latter end of April; and from April until, I should suppose, until 1st September, one line and a half would carry all the passengers. In Septem- ber they begun again to run full, and continued so for about two months; they then, until January or February, run thin again. Question 5. What was the comparative cost of original stock used upon your fast and slow lines between Philadelphia and Pittsburg? Answer 5. The difference of the cost of stock would be, according to my calculations, as ten to seven, consisting in the difference of the quality of the stock. This answer refers only to that part of the route from Cham- bersburg to Pittsburg, not having been interested in the other, or eastern part of the route. Question 6. Is there any difference in the expenses of keeping and run- ning the line? Answer 6. None, I think. Question 7. What is the difference in wear and tear of the stock on the two lines? Answer 7. I should think that the wear and tear of the Good Intent over the other line would be about one fourth more; that is to say, if it would cost $800 a team and coach in the Telegraph per year, it would cost $1,000 in the Good Intent. ;, . Question S. Did you carry the whole m^W through in your cjuick line from the 1st of January, 1832, or did you carry a part of it in the ^.ow line? Answer 8. I think we carried all the mails in the fast line except the way mails; at Bedford, I think, during that year, we put some of the bags for places south of Pittsburg in the line by \Vashington to Wheeling. JOHN W. WEAVER. [Doc. No. 65.] December 20, 1834. Josiah Horton, being duly sworn, gave: Question 1. State how the mail has been carried between Hagerstown and McConnellsburg since the 1st of January^ 1832, and by whom it has been carried? Answer 1. The first year it was carried daily by the Pennsylvania company, consisting, of Reeside, Slaymaker, and others, in four horse post coaches. The stock was then divided, that is, at the end cf the first year; and then Andrew Lindsav and Wm. T. McKinstry carried it till 1st Oc- tober in same way and daily. On 1st October, 1S33, Slaymaker and I bought McKinstry out. Then Lindsay still run his part till 1st April C 86 3 208 1834, and we ran daily in four horse post coaches, but I am not certain if we carried the mail daily. I think the mail was stopped a little before 1st April- During the whole of the year 1833 it ran daily, and it carried the mail. We started Ist January, 1834, and ran out in the evening with our coaches for a while. The postmaster, Mr. Kennedy, at Hagerstown, re- fused to give us the mail in the evening, and then Lindsay carried it out in the morning in stages, every other day, till 1st April, 1834. Since that, till 1st December, we carried it on horseback three times a week, and ran our stages too, but did not carry any mail in them; the post- master would not give us the mail in the evening. Question 2. Which way did those stages run? Answer 2. They always ran round by Green Castle, which was not on the mail route; the mail route was by Welch run; the Welch run office was supplied from the Mercersburg office. I do not know by whom the mail was carried over from Mercersburg to Welch run. The mail was not opened at Green Castle; the postmaster .said he had nothing to do with it. Question 3. Did you continue to run daily after the department re- duced the mail to a tri-weekly? Answers. The stages continued to run daily until 1st April, 1834, since then every other day. Question 4. Why did you continue to run the stages after you ceased to carry the mail in them, and carried it on horseback? Answer 4. For the convenience of our passengers, to keep up the line from Frederick to Wheeling by way of Bedford and Washington. It was since 1st October, 1833, distinct from the Pennsylvania company. Question 5. How was the mail from Bedford to Washington carried since 1st January, 1832? Answer 5. It was carried daily from 1st January, 1832, to 1st Septem- ber, 1832, in four horse post coaches, by the Pennsylvania company; from then, by the same company, every other day, until 1st January, 1833. After 1st January, 1833, it was carried by Lewis, Reeside and Weaver every other day, and so continued until 1st October, 1833; then Lewis, Weaver, Ewing and myself bought out Reeside, and have carried the mail in four horse post coaches every other day until the present time. Question 6. Who paid you for carrying that mail? Answer 6. James Reeside. We took his stock, and were to work it out. He drew the money at Washington. We got from Mr. Reeside $2,900 per annum for carrying the mail. We are paid in the same way for carrying the mail from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg, at jg700 per annum. Question 7. Do you know any thing of an extraordinary increase of mail matter on the route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg in the year 1832? Answer 7. I was in Bedford in the fall of the year, a few times, and saw the stages so full of mails that they could not carry passengers. This was after Mr. Carter quit, and I went up to see how the business was going on Question 8. Did not the stages generally run with but few passengers, in the summer of 1832, in consequence of the cholera in the eastern cities? Answer 8. I knojy they run very light to and from Baltimore. I was there at the time, ana in the summer of 1833, when the cholera was in Wheeling; there was scarcely a passenger for 18 or 19 days between Wheel- ing and Baltimore. JOSIAH HORTON. 209 \ 86 ] December 12, IS34. ■ [ Doc. No. 66. ] "'^ h^i-nzr- JOHN PIPER. Question 1. How long have you been superintending the transportation of the mails for James Reeside; and where? Answer 1. About two years and an half : at Bedford I have the charge of all his mails running through and from there. I have been concerned with the company since 1830, and have a knowledge how they were run; good part of the time Lewis and Carter were concerned with me. Question 2. From 1830 to the present time, how has the mail been run between Bedford and Washington, Pennsylvania. Answer 2. It has been run daily until som.ething like a year; may be, possibly, a little over a year, in four horse post coaches: for the last year or so it has been run in four horse post coaches every other day, and runs so now. Question 3. Do you know tKe precise time at which the daily mail ceased? Answer 3. The half of the eclipse line stopped two years ago, and then the good intent kept up the mail daily for some time, until it became an every other day mail. Question 4. Did this Good Intent run through to Washington, direct; or did it run by Mount Pleasant to Pittsburg? Answer 4. It ran by Mount Pleasant to Pittsburg. Question 5. Since the Eclipse line stopped, has any daily mail run through from Mount Pleasant to Washington? Answer 5. I do not know how that link was supplied; the Eclipse line run every other day to Washington, and I know of no other line running. '-^- Question 6. From 1st January 1832 to the present time, how has the mail been conveyed from Cumberland to Blair's Gap? Answer 6. It was carried for the first year by John W. Weaver; I do not know exactly how it was carried; 1 have seen coaches on the road. After that, in 1S33, Mr. Reeside took charge of it himself, under the super- intendence of Lewis and myself. We carried it in four horse post coaches most of the year — say eight months, until the road became so bad; we car- ried it tri-weekly. Mr. Reeside instructed us to carr}' it daily, but Lewis insisted that three times a week was enough; and we so carried it: during the greater part of the other four months it was carried in two horse coaches or double geared barouches; sometimes I carried it on horseback — that was owing to the badness of the roads. During 1834 it has been carried in three horse coaches nearly all the time; in the early part I carried it in two horse barouches, but after that put on three: I ran it tri-weekly until Oc- tober last, when Mr. Hobbie ordered a reduction of the times, and to be carried on horseback: I have continueil the coaches up to the present time on account of the bulk of the mail; sometimes I could carry it on horse- back, sometimes not, as the packages could not go into the saddlebags. The road was so bad it was difficult to get along with four horses. Question 7. In 1833, did you run with four horses only at the ends of the routes, and then put on two in the intermediate parts? Answer 7. Three of the routes we ran four horse post coaches; this was three fourths of the distance — it is a little more: we ran the other part sometimes with two, sometimes three, and occasionally four horses: the same quantity of horses were kept up. From Cumberland to Blair's Gap we 27 [ 86 ] H^IO took from 7 o'clock A. M. to about 5 to 6 P. M. ; thirty miles to Bed- ford. From Bedford to Blair's Gap we started next morning from 6 to 7 A. M , and arrived at HoUidaysburg, a little beyond Blair's Gap, generally in twelve hours; this is thirty-four miles. Question 8. Can you tell us precisely at what time in 1832 Mr. Reeside began to carry the mail on the route from Cumberland to Blair's Gap? Answer 8. Between January and April, perhaps the 1st of April, I know he was getting his stock. Question 9. Did Reeside and Clarke carry it at the same time? Answer 9. I do not know what time Clarke quit carrying it; 1 know Weaver bought Clarke's stock. Question 10. Did Reeside or Weaver commence immediately to carry the mail in coaches, or did they carry it on horseback for some time? Answer 10. When I first noticed it in Weaver's possession he had the coaches on. Question 11. At what time was tbat? Answer 11. It was in the spring of IS32. About the first of April, I had gone to Philadelphia with about 104 horses, and when I returned the coaches were on. It took me some time before 1 returned. Question 12. At what time did you return? Answer 12. I think it was the forepart of June, of that I am not posi- tively certain. Question 13. At this time had he coaches running on both ends of the route? Answer 13. I am not quite certain if they were on both ends; they came to the office next door to my store. I recollect the drivers; but I can- not say whether they were or not on both ends before I got home. Question 14. At what time were the stages put on the route in the spring of 1833? Answer 14. They were put on very early in the spring. In January, February, and March, there had been a great deal of rain, and I had the stock ready about four weeks before we could get them on the route from the deepness of the roads. During those months the mail was generally carried in two horse barouches; sometimes I carried it on horseback. As soon as ever the roads dried up in the spring, in April, or perhaps sooner, the coaches began lo run. Sometimes we had to stop, as the drivers said they could not get along, and we had to send the mail in wagons or ba- rouches. Question 15. In the winter, when you could not run with your post coaches, did you run this light mail wagon on both ends of the road or on one? Answer 15. Generally on one. On the southern end the mail was light, and could be carried on horseback. When we could get through with coaches we carried it so. Question 16. How was the mail carried between Hagerstown and Mc Connellsburg since 1st January, 1832? Answer 16. I would rather that the evidence of Messrs. Siders, Horton, and others would be taken on this route, as they had the immediate direc- tion of the mail, and I had not. Question 17. Do you know any thing of a great increase of mail mat- ter in 1832 on the Philadelphia and Pittsburg route? Answer 17. There was a very great increase in 1832; in the latter par 211 [ 86 ] of that year, and along in the summer, I have seen mails that would weigh from twenty-two to thirty hundred, over a ton at all events; these were the heavy mails, once a week, sometimes twice, when no passengers could go; this increase began in the summer of 1S32. It remained heavy during the winter of 1832-3, and then became lighter. The mail before always was heavy, but not so as to exclude 6 passengers, as it did in 1832-3. The mail is still very heavy. Question 18. What time in the summer of 1832 did the mails become so heavy? Answer IS. I took charge of the ?tock in October, and when I did so the weight of the mails came under my own observation, and they were then as before mentioned. Question 19. Did you keep a book in which the number of passengers were entered daily, and is that book now in possession of William ^. Thompson, at Chambersburg? Answer 19. I know nothing of any book kept. The waybills were made at Philadelphia and Pittsburg, and we kept no register at Bedford. Question 20. When the weight of the mails crowded the passengers out of the quick line, did they not go in the slow line? Answer 20. I cannot tell. Question 21. About what time in the winter of IS33, or spring, did the mails decrease? Answer 21. I cannot say. JOHN PIPER. [Doc. No. 67.] Chambersburg, November IS, 1834. JOHN H. HOFINS, POSTMASTER, BEDFORD. Question 1. Can you tell how the mail has been carried from Cumberland to Bedford, and from Bedford to Blair's Gap since Jst January, 1832? Answer 1. The majority of trips in stages, four horse and three horse. From Bedford to Hollidaysburg in three horse stages. From Cumber- land to Bedford in two horse stages, sometimes in four horse stages. The four horse stages were used through the summer season, particularly during the season of the Bedford Springs. When stages did not run it was carried on horseback. In bad roads, when stages could not be used, it was carried on horseback. Question 2. Can you specify what portion of the time the mail was car- ried in four horse stages; what portion in two horse stages; and what por- tion on horseback? State as near as you can. Answer 2. The four horse stages were used during (ne season of the Springs, perhaps two months, on the road from Bedford to Hollidaysburg. The three horse stages were used from Bedford to Hollidaysburg, perhaps for six months in the year; and the remainder of the time it was carried on horseback, making eight months in stages and four on horseback; during the whole time it ran every other day; for two or three weeks in the season of the Springs it ran daily, I think. I do not recollect whether they brought the mail daily or not. Question 3. What is the average weight of the mail bag on that route? [ 86 ] 212 Answer 3. On distribution days it might weigh forty pounds; on Other days about half or a little less. The principal distribution day sometimes it would weigh forty pounds; this was Mondays generally. From Bedford to Cumberland the trips were performed most of the time on horseback. Perhaps four months of the summer it was in stages of four and two horses. I think about half of the time in each. This mail ran every other day. During the season of the Springs it ran sometimes daily. Question 4. What is the weight of that mail? Answer 4. It is a small mail. I could not come very near. It was very small, averaging less than five pounds. Question 5. Where did that mail bring letters from? Answer 5. From Cumberland for Bedford, and for distribution. There were some trips three or four letters. It would not average so many. Question 6. Where did the HoUidaysburg mail carry letters? ' Answer 6. For Venango, Armstrong county, Indiana county, Cambria county, Huntington county, and Centre and Mifflin counties. The letters and packages were in part from Bedford, and in part from the distributing office at Chambersburg. "^i^J^.;^: a;j;snifia su k. Question 7. When did James Reeside commence running that route? Answer 7. I cannot say particularly, it may be two years since. Since the mail has been run from Bedford to HoUidaysburg in carriages, the distribution has increased. The mail has run this summer pretty much i-n carriages. The carrying of the mail in carriages has been ordered to be discontinued by the department since about two weeks. Since that it has been carried still in carriages. One time it was too heavy to be carried on horseback. That mail I think would not have weighed fifty pounds, but was too bulky to go into a pair of saddlebags. J. H. HOFiNS. Post Office, Bedford, Pa., June 4, 1832. Sir: Mr. Reeside & Co. have commenced, the 28th of May ultimo, to- convey the mail three times a week on route 1215, Blair's Gap to Bedford, and 1230, Bedford to Cumberland, on horseback, but hare not as yet com- menced in stages. I Yours, very respectfully, (Signed) J. H. HOFINS. Post Office, Bedford, Pa., July 28, 1832. •^''t/SiR: The 26th inst. Mr. Reeside commenced with a two horse coach on route No. 1230, from Bedford to Cumberland, to convey the mail; but on route 1215, Blair's Gap to Bedford, is still performed on horseback. Yours, very respectfully^^^-^^ _^ „r.T.TXTo (Signed) X H. HOFIN^. M i 213 [ 86 ] [Doc. No. 68.] WashingtoiV, Deceinher 24, 1831. Sir: Having understood application is made to the Post OiBce Department for liaving the mail carried in stages from HoUidaysburg to Bedford; from my knowledge of that section of country, the inclination to the Bedford springs, and the termination o f the Pennsylvania canal being at Hollydays- burg, must necessarily render such an improvement popular with the de- partment, and giye general satisfaction to that section of the country. Your obedient servant, SILAS MOORE. Rev. 0. B. Brown. P. S. Respecting the improvement as above suggested, from my know- ledge of that section of country, and adjoining our mail route, 1 hope the applicant may succeed, &e. 4 fore; once it came at 9, and has been as late as 2 in the morning; frequently it i» 1 in the morning. 28 JOHN FINDLAY. [ 86 ] 218 [Doc. No. 75.] Washington, December 4, 1834. John S. Skinner, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the several interrogatories: Question 1 . How long have you been postmaster at Baltimore? Answer 1. Since 1S16. Question 2. What was the time of the departure of the mail from Balti- more to Chambersburg during the year 1831? Answer 2. 1 cannot recollect. My chief clerk, John Smith, can give rtetter information on this point, and others of a similar nature, than I can, especially if he had his books and papers with him. Question .3. Arc you officially advised by the department of the times that the several mails coming to and going from your office ought to arrive and depart? Answer 3. In special cases such information has been given; but no regular schedule of that sort, embracing all the mails, has been at any time supplied, that deponent recollects; and he believes that his correspondence with the department will show that the expediency of such schedules has been suggested. The system, however, of full monthly reports, as now made, of the actual time of the arrival and departure of the principal mails, may supply the necessary information to the department, and so far super- sede the necessit}' of exact instruction to the postmasters of the contract time of such mails. J. S. SKINNER. [Doc. No. 76.] Philadelphia, November 13, 1834- George Carter, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respect- ive interrogatories, as follow: Question. Were you at the lettings of the mail at Washington city i^ the fall of 1831? If so, were you present when the route from Hagerstowii to McConnellsburgh was struck oflf to James Rceside? Answer. I was there, but left the city before the routes were struck off; being an agent for Mr. Reeside I had to leave (here. Question. Do you know at what sum he took that route? Answer. Forty dollars. I saw the contract after it was executed; Ree- side settled with the western company at forty dollars; the settlement ended 31st March, 1832, Reeside told me and the company that he had it raised to $1,400; and the next quarter, ending 30th June, he settled with them for the Si, 400. Question. Have you at any time he^rd Mr. Reeside say why he took that route at the forty dollars? Answer. Yes, I did; he said it was the first route he ever had carried a mail on, and was determined to have it if he carried it for nothing. Question. Do you know any thing of the means by which Mr. Reeaidc obtained his extra allowances, either from your own knowledge or from what he has told you at any time, on any route? AQSwer. I do not. 219 [86 ] Question. How were the mails carried from this to Pittsburg during the year 1S32? Answer. There was one mail, "the Good Intent," left here daily at eight o'clock A. M., and was to go through in fifty-two hours. It seldom did so; the time was too short. There was the ♦* Telegraph," which left, I think, at two in the morning, carried the way mail and sometimes the newspaper bags; there was no time limited that I know of; it generally went through in three days, and ran whether there were passengers or not, winter and summer. Question, Did the rapid mail generally carry a full freight of passengers if they oflered? Answer. Yes; six was the limit, and I have known eight or nine pas« sengers carried in it. The mail was heavy but one day in the week, Sunday, but they could always carry six passengers. The mails from the west this way were never heavy. Question. Were there generally a full freight of passengers on both lines.^ Answer. Yes, except in the summer of 1832, when the cholera was here. Question, Did you superintend the route from Chambersburg to Balti* more during 1832? Answer. No, I did not. Question. Do you know at what time the mails left Baltimore and ar- rived at Chambersburg, in 1S32. Answer. At one time it left Baltimore at seven in the morning, and reach- ed Chambersburg in about twelve hours. The fast Philadelphia line was changed, and then the Baltimore was changed to the evening, so as to con- nect with the fast line at Chambersburg. Question. Do you know other matter or thing connected with the con- duct of the Post Office Department, and which is important in the present inquiry? Answer. There is a transaction in which I was personally concerned which I consider so. I contracted to carry the mail from this city to Ma- nayunk on route 1038 from 1st January, 1832, to 31st December, 1835, twice a day in stages, at 450 dollars per year, and continued to carry it until the 8th July, 1833. The route originally extended from Philadelphia to Norristown; and when I took it, it was curtailed so as to run only to Manayunk. Peters, who transferred the route to me, continued on another route to run from Phila- delphia to Norristown. On the 1st of January, 1833, Reeside set up an opposition line against me. On the 1st of March following lleeside got a contract to run from Philadelphia, through Manayunk, to Norristown and Bridge Port. On the 6th July following my contract was superseded by this contract with Reeside, and I was ordered by the department to discontinue mine. This transaction will appear from the original letters and papers here ex- hibited. Witness then exhibited certain papers marked. Reeajde was at that time my personal enemy, and I believe his object in getting that contract was to break me down; I infer this from a letter which There exhibit, and from divers other information. I suffered great indivi- dual loss from this whole business, and was reduced to poverty by it. I had another route as part contractor from this city to Easton. Samuel and William SUouse and James Reeside were my partners; it began 1st I 86 ] 220 January, 1832. Reeside sold out to Jacob Peters for 2200 dollars, I think, and afterwards sent me word by John Sturdevant that I must sell my stock to Peters for 1 600 dolhirs, or be run off the road; and that he had Major Barry's orders to do so. I had been offered 1800 dollars by Mr. Shouse for my Stock. I was prepared to go to Washington to see Major Barry about this matter, and whether he had authorized Reeside to act in such away towards me. Reeside took a writ, in the name of the western company, and had me arrested, and demanded 40,000 dollars bail. I with difficulty obtained and procured one of the company to sign my bond, and my security was ac- cepted. This prevented me from going to Washington. This suit was submitted to our lawyers, and on the whole being investigated I brought the company in debt 1090 dollars. While this suit was pending I sold out to Peters for the 160O dollars, which was a great loss to me. I suffered in all at least 3000 doUnrs loss in consequence of those proceedings. Question. Did you superintend the route from Blair's Gap to Cumberland, or do you know how that mail was carried, and by whom? Answer. 1 did not superintend the route; John W. Weaver carried the mail for Reeside. It was carried on horseback from Bedford to Cumber- land, and in a two horse carriage from Bedford to Blair's Gap, in 1832; I was there in Bedford often superintending, the Pittsburg route, and saw how this mail was carried. GEO. CARTER.^ [For Document 77, see Appendix.] [Doc. No. 78.] WILLIAM THOMPSON. Question I. How long have you been agent for the western company? Answer 1. I have been in their employment about eight years. Question 2. Can you tell how many lines of mail stages there were ift. 1831, and how they ran from Philadelphia to Pittsburg? Answer 2. There was but one daily from 1st January, 1S31, to Isfe April, 1831. Then there was an additional daily line called the " Good Intent," which continues until the present time. From 1st April, 1831,. the average was about sixty hours from Philadelphia to Pitisburg, for the fast line. The slow line most of the time takes three days and a half, car- rying the way mail. There has been no permanent alteration in the ex- pedition of the fast line since 1st April, 1831. Sometimes it ran through in less time than others. The times of its setting out from Philadelphia, was changed from two or three in the morning to eight, and there is a cor- responding change in its arrival at Pittsburg. Question 3. How many passengers were carried in the fast line? Answer 3. It is now limited to seven; in 1831 it was limited to six,,, and continued so for some considerable time. We never take more than seven now, unless under special circumstances. Question 4, Have you always been able to take six passengers?,! Answer 4. No; it has happened sometimes that the mails were so large 221 • r 8? j we were not able to take any thing but the mails. In 1832 the mails were the heaviest; once a week frequently it so happened. Sometimes it would be so twice a week. Question 5. Are you able from your books to designate at what time it was you were not able to carry passengers? Answer 5. In the year 1832 I find IS blank trips, most of them from Sst October to 31st December. In the same year there were fifty-eight trips of not more than one or two passengers; some of them were way passengers. We always carried passengers through in preference to way passengers. Question 6. Did those trips occur at periodical times when the mails were once a week always heavy? Answer G. The heavy mails were oa Sunday. The 1st and 2d January, 1832, we carried no passengers, 3d light, 7th but one passenger, Sth two, 9th and 11th two, 12th one, 13lh blank, IGth blank, 19th blank, 22d blank, 23d, 24!h, and 25th light, 26th and 27lh blank. — In October, 1832: 1st light, (31 through); no blanks in this month, nor freights of less than three passengers. — In November, 1832: 19th blank, KSth three passengers; 23d. two passengers, 24th one, other days of this week full, 26th one, 29th none, except free passenger, an agent, 30th two through and one way passenger. — In December: 3d blank, 6lh two, 9th two, 10th none, eleventh two, 13th two, 17lh none, 24th none, 29th two, 3Ist none. — 1S33: 2d January two, 8th two, 12th two, 14th one, 15th and 16lh two, 25th. two, 28th two; February 2d one, 9th two, 16th two, 23d two; March 3d none, and con- tinued to run full from that time. — 1831 : October 20th two passengers; this is the only trip in the month of less than three passengers, and but one trip of three, 26th October. — November 13ih blank, 14th two, 15tii blank, 20th two, one through, and one way, 27th iwo. — December Sth two, 6th one, 8th two, 13th one, 16th one, 17lh one, ISth and 20th two, 23d one, 28th one, 29th blank. Question 7. Did you any time send any part of the mail through from Philadelphia to Pittsburg by any other than your rapid line? Answer 7. I never knew any port of the mail through sent by any other than the fast line. We sent the way mail by the other line. Question 8. Were you present at the time James Reeside settled with the company for the extra allowance of ;^l(),000? Answer 8. I was at the meeting, but not at the settlement. I was not present when any thing was said about it, and know nothing concerning it Question 9. Whsn the fast mail was put on in April, 1831, was there a great increase in the mail as to weight? Answer 9. The mail was heavy when the speed was increased, ft in- creased cowsiderably during 1832; and about January, 1833, it came dowa to about what it was in 1831. WM. P. THOiVlPSON. Inlerrogalorles to be propounded to William Thompson by the commis- sioners named in the annexed commission: Interrogatory 1. Can you state from books, or otherwise, the number of passengers, each day, in the "Good Inlent" or rapid line from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, westward, from 1st April to 1st July, 1832? And the number each day, eastward, in the same line and durint^ the same time? If bo. [ 86 ] 222 give the whole, cle die in diem, and then the whole number each way to wit: 1st. The number of passengers westward. 2d. The number of passengers eastward. Interrogatory 2. In a former deposition of witness he has staled that there were, in the year 1S32 eighteen blank trips. How many of these were before, and how many after 1st April, 1832? Interrogatory 3. Witness also stated in his former deposition that there were fifty-eight trips in the year 1832, with not more than two passen- gers. Were the eighteen blank trips included in the fifly-eight light trips? and how many of those light trips were before and how many after the Jst of April, 1832? Attest: MW. ST. CLAIR CLARKE, Secretary » Washington, December 23, 1824. In pursuance of the power and authority vested in us by the annexed commission, we. Jasper E. Brady and Thomas Hartley Crawford, the com- missioners named therein, proceeded on this twenty-ninth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, to take the following depd- «ition of William P. Thompson, which we reduced to writing, and herewith return to the honorable the Committee of the Senate of the United States on the Post Office Department, under our hands and seals. To the first interrogatory the witness answers: I cannot state from the books in my possession what number of passengers were carried in the Good Intent line from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, or from Pittsburg to Philadelphia, from the 1st of April to 1st of July, 183;}. I have not in my possession the way- bills sent from Philadelphia to Lancaster, and from Lancaster to Chambers- burg; or from Pittsburg to Chambershurg; therefore I cannot designate by my books the passengers trom Philadelphia to Pittsburg from those who started from Chambershurg, or from any other point. To the second interrogatory he answers as follows: Of the blank trips men- tioned in 1832, seven were before the 1st of April, tb.e balance after that time. To the third interrogatory he answers as follows: The eighteen blank trips mentioned in 1832 were not included in the fifty-eight light trips. Of the fifty-eight light trips nineteen were before and thirty-nine after the; 1st of April. William P. Thompson, of the borough of Chambershurg, Pennsylvania, was duly sworn to the truth of the facts set forth in the within deposition. WM. P. THOMPSON. Sworn and subscribed the 29th December, 1834, before us. JASPER E. BRADY. T. HARTLEY CRAWFORD. We return to the honorable the Committee of the Senate of the United States on the Post Office Department the commission transmitted to us, with ihe deposition of William P. Thompson taken under it. Witness our hands and .seals, the twenty-ninth day of December, one thousand eight hundred .ind thirty-four. JASPER E. BRADY. [l. s.] T. HARTLEY CRAWFORD, [l. s. •223 C 86] Washington, January 5, 1835. Gentlemen: I have been directed by the committee to return you the commission under which you have heretofore acted, and to request that you will perform the additional duties asked of you as soon as po^ssible. Ordered, That the commission executed by Jasper E. Brady and Thomas Hartley Crawford, esquires, of Chambersburg, be returned to their, with di- rections to re examine the witness, William P. Thompson, on the first in- terrogatory, and request him to state the number of passengers westward, and the number of passengers eastward, in the " Good Intent" line, each day, from the 1st of April to the 1st of July, 1832, without regard to the fact whether they went through from city to city or not; request him also to bring the book before them, and show how he ascertained the number of blank trips and the number of light trips for the year 1832; and direct him by a similar process to show, as nearly as he can, the number of passengers each way, in that line, on each day between the said 1st of April and 1st of July, 1832. Attest: MW. ST. CLAIR CLARKE, Secretary, To Jasper E. Bradt, and Thomas Hartley Crawford, Esqs., Chambersburgf Pennsylvania. A. The following is a statement of the number of Passengers in Good Intent Line, westward and eastward, frornChambersburg, from the 1st of April to the \st of July, 1832. Date 1832. Passengers from Cham- bersburg, westward. Date 1832. Passengers from Cham- bersburg, eastward. April 1 2 6 6 April 1 2 6 3 3 1 3 3 4 4 41 5 3 5 4 6 4 6 7 7 . 6 7 7 8 5 8 6 9 2 9 4 10 2 10 5 11 1 11 2 12 5 12 6 13 6 13 5 14 2 14 7 15 6 15 3 16 5 16 2 17 6 17 5 18 2 18 6 19 5 19 8 ^- 20 6 20 6 86 ] Q24 , Statement — Continued. Date 1832. Passengers from Cham- Date 1832. Passengers from Cham- bersburg, westward. bersburg, eastward. 21 4 21 4 22 6 22 4 23 6 23 5 24 5 24 7 25 6 25 S 26 3 26 S 27 6 27 6 28 5 28 6 29 5 29 1 30 2 30 6 May 1 8 May 1 1 2 1 2 4 3 5 3 6 4 6 4 5 5 4 5 5 6 3 6 6 7 2 . 7 I 8 S 8 3 9 3 9 7 10 5 10 7 11 2 11 1 12 4 12 3 13 2 13 6 14 14 7 15 2 15 6 16 5 16 3 17 6 17 3 IS 1 IS 3 19 19 7 20 4 20 7 21 3 21 4 22 5 23 3 23 3 23 7 24 4 24 8 25 6 25 3 26 2 26 4 27 5 27 6 28 1 2S 7^ 29 1 29 2 30 2 30 1 31 8 31 Tune 1 4 June 1 6 2 4 2 2 3 1 3 1 4 6 4 ' I 225 Statement — Continued. [86] Date 1832. Passengers from Cham- Date 1832. Passengers from Cham- bersburg, westward. bersburg, eastward. 5 3 5 2 6 2 6 4 7 7 7 1 8 7 8 8 9 9 9 4h 10 8 10 5i 11 4 11 2 12 8 12 4 13 13 5 14 4 14 2i 15 1 15 16 5 16 5 17 1 17 4 18 2 IS 2 19 19 4 20 7 20 2 21 3 21 6 22 1 22 5 23 2 23 24 2 24 25 1 25 1 26 26 7 27 I 27 7 28 7i 28 10 29 51 29 4 30 4§ 30 5 Total westward 337§ Total eastward 397i JASPER E. BRADY, T. HARTLEY CRAWFORD. In pursuance of the power and authority vested in us by the annexed commission, we, Jasper E. Brady and Thomas Hartley Crawford, the com- missioners therein named, caused Mr. William P. Thompson to appear again before us on the tenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, and in pursuance of the within order of the honorable the Committee of the Senate of the United States on the Post Ofiice Department, proceeded to examine him further on the first interrogatory; in answer to which he says that the annexed paper marked (A), and identified by the signatures of Jasper E. Brady and Thomas Hartley Crawford, contains a true daily statement of the number of passengers who left Chambersburg in the stage line Good Intent, as well for the eastward as for the westward, amouniing in the aggregate in the former to three hundred and ninety-seven and a quarter, and in the latter to three hundred and thirty-seven and one 29 [86] 226 half, betwesn the first day of April and the first day of July, one thousand eight huiKlred and thirty-two. That deponent was enabled to ascertain these facts, as well as the number of the light and blank trips for the year IS32, by reference to two daily record books kept by hixTi, as a clerk in the stage office at Chnmbersburg, of those who travelled in the said line from Chambersburg. That deponent states that the number of blank trips in the year 1832 were twenty instead of eighteen, two having been overlooked in the former examination. That the two blank trips heretofore omitted, were on the 2Gth and 27th days of January, 1832, and are included in the seven mentioned in his former deposition as occurring before the 1st day of April. WM. P. THOMPSON. Sworn and subscribed before us the lOth day of January, A. D, 1835. JASPER E, BRADY. T. HARTLEY CRAWFORD. [Doc. No. 79.] December 23, 1834. John H. Foster, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the re- spective interrogatories: Question 1. Where do you reside, and what opportunities have you had of observing the passing and repassing of ihe mails between Philadelphia and Pittsburg, and for what length of time have you observed them? Answer 1. I reside now, and have done so for two years, in Chambers- burgj Pennsylvania; six months before that I resided in Washington, Pennsylvania, on the Wheeling road: previous to that I resided for many years in Lancaster city. I was employed as a driver on the mail line between Lancaster and Harrisburg previous to the last two years and a half. Mr. John Tomlinson and Samuel Slaymaker were the first contract- ors: after they died 1 continued to drive on the same line. I continued for some time on the same route after Mr. Reeside became a contractor: I have handled mails pretty much since 1S14. Question 2. Do you know any thing of a great' increase of mail matter since the year 1S30? If so, state when and to what extent this increase was, and how it occurred. Answer 2. Ever since I have been acquainted with the line, the mails have been increasing. Question 3. Do you know of any sudden or extraordmary increase since 1830? Answer 3. No, no sudden increase. Question 4. How was the weight of the mails in 1832, compared with the mails in 1S30 and 1S33? Answer 4. I was in Washington, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1832; the mails had increased that year compared with 1S30, and they fell off again in 1833. The mails now run about as heavy as in 1833, but I think the mails are not so heavy as in 1832. Question 5. How have you been employed for the last two years and a half, or since you went to live at Washington, Pennsylvania? Answer 5. 1 have been employed as agent, the first 6 months for Reeside, Slaymaker and Co. Since January, 1833. for Slaymaker & Co. The part- ners are Tomlinson, Miller, Downing, and others. Question 6. Can you state at what particular time, in 1832, the mails be* came so heavy? Answer 6. They had been growi.^g heavier for som^ time; " ,t! lathe 227 [ 86 ] latter part of 1832 they were so heavy as to prevent passengers from going once a week; sometimes twice. The Philadelphia Sunday mails were the heaviest. This was in the '-Good Intent" or <'Fast line." The Telegraph, or slow line, ran at the same time; this mail was not so heavy. W'e generally carried in the fast line, in 1832, when we could, six pas- sengers; sometimes teven. I never weighed the mails; they consisted of locked leather hags, and Canvas bags. I should think the average weight of these Sunday mails would be from 2,500 to 3,000 pounds. Question 7. Do you know what occasioned this increase of the mails in 1833? Answer 7. I do not. It appeared to be a regular increase. I do not re- collect of any sudden increase- Question 8. Was there any book kept in which the daily number of pas- sengers were registered? If so, have you got it, or in whose custody is it? Answer 8. There were books kept: Wm. P. Thompson kept books of this kind in Chambersburg. I never kept any. Question 9. Do you know any thing concerning the running of the mail from Bedford to Washington, Pa.? Answer 9. During the six months I lived at Washington, in 1832, I do. Part of the time, I mean after I first went there, the mails ran cfery day* I think about the first of September, 1S32, half of this line was withdrawn, and then they ran the coaches every other day until I came away, which was, as before stated, about 1st January, 1833; and I have never been over the road but once since. JOHN H. FOSTER. December 24, 1S34. John Foster, being again called, gave the following answers to the respective jiterrogatories: Question 1. Are you acquainted with the cost of stock necessary to carry on a contract for the transportation of the mail in four horse post coache? Answer 1. Yes. Question 2. Can you state what would be about the difference of original cost necessary to carry the mail in the Glood Intent, or fast line, and the Telegraph, or slow line, from Philadelphia to Pittsburg? Answer 2. As the two lines have run for the last two years, we have the same number of horses and coaches on both? Question 3. How is it as to wear and tear of horses and coaches? Answer 3. The fast line is severer on horses and coaches considerable; I would say one-fourth more, perhaps not so much. The original cost of horses and coaches are about the same. JOHN H. FOSTER. [Doc. No. 80.] Washi.ngtox Citv, September 26, 183L We will agree to convey the mail on route No. 1,031, from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, daily in four horse post coaches, agreeable to advertisement, for the yearly compensation of seven thousand dollars. [ 86 ] 228 Or we will make the following improvements, to convey two daily mails from Philadelphia to Pittsburg: — First mail to leave Philadelphia at two o'clock A. M. and arrive at Pittsburgh in two days and five hours, so as to arrive in Pittsburg at seven o'clock A. M., and extend the route to Wheeling* so as to arrive, including route 1 170, at Wheeling the third day by nine o'clock P. M., from 1st April to 1st December; and, from Ist December to 1st April, to Pittsburg in three and Wheeling four days; and return from Wheeling by Washington, Pittsburg, and Chambersburg, to Philadelphia within the same time; changing the mail as follows: — at Lancaster, Harrisburg, Chambersburg, Bedford, Sommersett, Mount Plea- sant, and at any other offce that is or may be established on the route. 2d. The second mail to leave Philadelphia at seven o'clock A. M.,or immediately after the arrival of the New York mail, and arrive in Pittsburg m three days and five hours, so as to arrive in Pittsbiirg by noon, changing the mail at all the way offices as follows: — Buck Tavern, Spread Eagle, Paoli, Warren Ts<1:arn, Frasier, West Whiteland, Downingiown, Coates- ville, Sadsbury, Black Horse, Salisbury, Williamstown, Paradise, Lan- caster, Mount Joy, Eliz:ibethtovvn, Middletown, Highspire, Harrisburg, Hogestown, Carlisle, Stougbstown, Shippensburg, Greenvillage, Chambers- burg, St. Thomas, Loudon, McConnelisburg, Licking Creek, Juniatta Crossings, Bloody Run, Bedford, Schellsburg, Stoystown, Laurel Hill, Laughlinstown, Legonier, Youngstovvn, Greensburg, Adamsburg, Stewarts- ville, to Pittsbur;^, and all other offices that be established on said road, and back, daily, in four horse post coaches, for the yearly compensation of twenty-seven thousand dollars. We will agree to carry the mail on route No. 1,198, from Bedford to Washington, Pa., via White Horse, Sommersett, Donegall, Mou> t Plea- sant, McKane's Old Stand, Robslown, Gambles, and Parkinson's Ferry, to Washington, Pa., as advertised, for the yearly compensation of twenty-nine hundred dollars. We agree to carry the mail on route No. 1,197, from Mount Pleasant to Stewartsville, daily, and back, in four horse post coaches, for the yearly compensatipn of two hundred and seventy-five dollars. We do agree to carry the mail on route No. 1,231, from Hagerstown to McConnelisburg, via Welch ran and Mercersburg, as advertised, for the yearly compensation of forty dollars. Or we will carry the same, so as to connect the mail at each place with the great eastern and western mails, daily, in four horse post coaches, for the yearly compensation of ninety-nine dollars ninety-nine dollars. t We do agree to carry the mail from Philadelphia to Lancaster, on route No. 1,098, via Blockley, Haverford, Newton Square, Edgemont, West Chester, Marshalton, McWilliams, Humphreyville, Fountain Lin, Swan, Gap, Arabella, and Strawsburg, and back, daily, in four horse post coaches, for the yearly compensation of eighteen hundred dollars ± We do agree to carry the mail on route No. 1,230, from Bedford, Pa., to Cumberland, Md., three times a week in coaches, from the 1st of April * Including' route 1,170, which route is incUuled In the yearly compensation of $27,000. I He says he me;mt 81,999. 4 We will make tlie following' improvements.by connecting this mail at Lancaster with the York, Baltimore, and Washington City mails, and tlie great we^tein mail at Lancaster. Th s improvement will be of great importance to tlie counties of Delaware, Chester, and Lancas- *^cr, particularly so during the session of Congress and Legislature of Pennsylvania. 229 [ 86 ] to the 1st of October, and once a week on horseback from the 1st of October to the 1st of April, so as to connect with the Winchester mail at Cumber- land and the great eastern and western mail at Bedford, which is much wanted during the summer season, for the yearlj compensation of thirteeni hundred dollars. JAMES REESIDE, SAMUEL R. SLAYMAKER, J. TOMLINSON. To the Hon. Wm. T. Barry, Postmaster General. [Doc. No. 81.] Washington, July 12, 1832. Sir; When we entered into contrast with you to run two daily mails be- tween Philadelphia and Pittsburg, one with unexampled rapidity, and the other in three and a half days, we had no idea whatever of carry'ino- the newspaper mail in our most rapid line, nor do we suppose it was ever contemplated by the deportment. It was our intention, and we sn express- ed it in all our conversation with you, and with the superintendent of mail contracts, to carry the principal letter mail only in the most rapid line, not believing it practicable to carry the heavy load of newspapers sent to ihe west with sufficient rapidity to reach Pittsburg in the shortest time specified. Indeed, if we could have supposed that it would ever become necessary to carry the newspaper with that rapidity^ we should not have undertaken it for less than $15,000 a year beyond what we now receive; but experience soon taught us that great complaints were made against the department and ourselves when the newspapers were not received as soon as the letters, and that these complaints were not confined to Pittsburg, but extended all over the west. To satisfy the public, and sustain the credit of both the depart- ment and ourselves as its servants, we made the experiment of trying to carry the newspapers with our most rapid line. We have partially suc- ceeded, but with very great loss. For three days in the week we are com- pelled to exclude all passengers, to the loss of not less than SlOO a day. We are willing to perform our contract to the full extent of its meaning, but we must relinquish carrying the newspaper mails by our most rapid line, unless we can in part be remunerated for it. If, however, the Postmaster Gene- ral is willing to silence the public clamor, which is so great when we carry them in our slow line, we will carry all the newspaper mails, together with the letter mail, in our most rapid line to Pittsburg and Wheeling, in the shortest time specified in our contract, and so arrange the connexion of the Baltimore mail at Chambersburg with our swift line, as to carry the newspaper, as well as letter mail, from Baltimore to Pittsburg in two days, for the additional allowance often thousand dollars per year, from the 1st of April last. The increased expense to us will not be less than Sl5,000 a year, and for our own credit, and the credit of the department, we will make one third of the sacrifice, and perform the service for §10,000 a year. We would gladly do it for a less sum if we could afford it, but we cannot, and at that rate our sacrifice will be as much as we can bear. It would be much more gratifying to us if the public would be satisfied without it; but thej- [ 86 ] 230 will not, and our own feelings will not suffer us to perform a service in which we cannot give satisfaction to the public. Very respectfully, Your obedient servants, J AS. REESIDE, SAML. R. SLAYMAKER. To the Hon. W. T. Barry, Postmaster General. A true copy from the original on file in ths General Post Office. MVV. ST. CLAIR CLARKE, Secretary, (The above letter is marked " Granted.") [Doc. No. 82.] JOHN GRAHAM. Chambersbukg, November 18, 1834. Question 1. Have you an interest in the mail route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg; and if so, how long have you been concerned? Answer i. I have, and have been concerned, I think, since 1828. Question 2. Did you know any thing of the extra allowance of $10,000 on this route, prior to its being noticed in the report of this committee? Answer 2. No, I did not. Question 3. Has James Reeslde ever settled with you and the other wes- tern partners for that allowaiice; and if he has, state particularly in what manner it has been settled? Answer 3. I never received any thing but my share of the regular mail pay- Question 4. What arrangement has been made, or what settlement had about the glO,000 extra pay at any time: state particularly the time, place^ and circumstances? Answer 4. At our settlement in August last, at the Crossings, Mr. Ree- side and Slaymaker requested a comnr.ittee to be appointed for them to ex- plain to, as to how the extra pay had been disposed of — disinterested men. I do not i-ecollect whether two or three were appointed. Mr. McKee and Mr. McNair were two, or all of them. They reported that the extra pay had been used for the interest of the parties concerned, and that Reeslde ought not to be called on to account for it. Question 5. Were any members of the company permitted to be present when Reeside and Slaymaker made their explanation to the committee? Answer 5. 1 do not know. I think not. Question 6. Did Reeside or Slaymaker either give you any intimation as to the use which had been made of that money; if so, state it? Answer 6. They did. They said they were at great expense going to Washington and travelling about; had the whole charge of the concern, and if any difficulty occurred they had to attend ta it; and there was some route between Baltimore and Philadelphia on which they had been charged with extra allowance, but which they never had received; and some other charges of extra allowances which they had not received. They did not state what had been done with those extra allowances, but that the $10,000 was in part to cover these allowances which they had not received, and which had been charged to them, and for which they had done services, but had not received the pay. 231 C 86 ] Question 7." Did you ever ascertain from the arbitralors what explanations had been made, or what papers had been shown them, by Reeside and Slay- maker? Answer 7. No, I never did; nor did I inquire. Question 8. Was it understood that the statements made to ihe committee, and their proceedings, except their award, was to be confidential? Answer 8. Yes. Question 9. Were you interested in the route from Bedford to Washing- ton, Pa,, since 1st January, 1832? Answer 9. I was, until the company dissolved, which I think was on 1st January, 1S33. Question 10. For how much did Reeside account to the company for the transportation during the year 1S32, on that line? Answer 10. I cannot tell. J. GRAHAM. [ Doc. No. 83. ] November 19, 1S34. Dunning R. McNair, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories: Question 1. Were you one of the arbitrators or committee to whom James Reeside and Samuel R. Slaymaker, and their partners in the western stage company referred the question respecting the extra allowance of ten thousand dollars a year, made to them on the route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg? And if so, state the whole of the circumstances. Answer 1. I was, with Mr. McKee. The company met at the Crossings of Juniatta in August last, for the purpose of making a quarterly settlement; and at that time the extra allowances were talked of. Mr. Reeside and Slaymaker introduced it themselves. Mr. McKee and myself were ap- pointed the committee to hear their statement of the receipt and expenditure <»f those allowances. There were no others present but ourselves and Ree- side and Slaymaker. They said they had received this ten thousand dollars, extra allowance, for which they said they had rendered extra services to the company suflBcient for the portion of the other partners, they being owners •of about three-fourths of the stock. Those services were expenditure of time and money, on which they based their claim. At first I think they said they had been at considerable expense in getting petitions, and other exertions in getting the allowance raised from seven thousand to twenty- five thousand dollars. Their time in going to Washington and their ex- penses there were very considerable. They did not say, or intimate, that any money had been expended to procure the good will or assistance of any one. They also made an item of charge, which we considered fair, for drawn all the pay at Washington and paying it out to the other part- ners, for which they had never received any compensation. They present- ed no accounts to us. I made from their representations to us some calcu- lations of expenses: we estimated that the other partners were entitled to about one-fourth of the extra allowance; and that Reeside and Slaymaker were entitled to this for their extra trouble. Question 2. Did you think the expense and time of Messrs. Reeside and Slaymaker, in obtaining the contract, and the improvement upon the con- f 86 ] 532 tract, and their other extra services, was fairly worth sixteen thousand six hundred and sixty -six dollars, the aggregate of the extra allowance? Answer 2. I considered the benefit derived to the company from their exertions in procuring the contract and improving it, together with certain claims of Mr. Reeside, heretofore presented but not allowed, were equal to the proportion due to the other partners. Question 3. Were those claims of Mr. Reeside submitted to you and Mr^ McKee to award upon at that time? Answer 3. They were spoken of at that time as a charge which the com- pany was entitled to pay, but had ROt paid. Question 4. Who spoke of them? Were they submitted to you by the company, and were you authorized to decide upon them also? Answer 4. At the time of our appointment those claims were not known by tlie company as a part of our action on the extra allowances, nor was it noticed in our report. I do not l^now that I ever named them to any of the company when speaking of our report. Mr. Reeside got our report. Those claims were named to us by Reeside and Slaymaker after our appointment. They were shown to the company at a previous settlement at Harris- burg. Part were allowed and part rejected. Those rejected and other sums he said he had paid were the items spoken of by Reeside to us. He showed us nd items nor account at this time. The transaction between himself and 0. B. Brown was spoken of by Slaymaker to us at this time; but he said nothing more than what was con- tained in his deposition taken before the committee of the Senate last spring. D. R. McNAlR. [Doc. No. 84.] CHAMBERSBUKa, November IS, 1834. John McKee, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories: Question 1. Were you one of the arbitrators or committee to whom James Reeside and Samuel R. Slaymaker and their partners in the Western Stage Company referred the question concerning the extra allowance of $10,000 a year, made to them on the route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg? And if so, state the whole of the circumstances. Answer 1. After the usual business of the company, at a quarterly set- tlement, ending SOth June last, had been transacted, at the Crossings of Ju- niatta, Messrs. Reeside and Slaymaker appeared, and requested that a commit- tee might be appointod to inquire into the extra allowance as reported by the Committee of the Senate. The company, in full meeting, called on Mr. McNair and myself to be that committee. We adjourned to hear the parties, Reeside and Slaymaker. The understanding of all parties was, that what they had to say was to be said to us in private, in the absence of the other partners. Messrs. Reeside and Slaymaker said to us that they had drawn the (810,000 a year for, I think, a year and seven months, and had divided it equally between them; that, as •was known to us, they owned about three quarters of the whole stock; that three quarters of that money they claimed as their own; as to the residue, ly explained to us that they had been at a great deal of trouble and a 233 [ 86 ] great deal of expense in procuring the present contract; they had increased Ihe speed twenty-lour hours, and put on a second daily mail; there was a number of expenses which tliey had never broui>,ht before the company, ai a company. We examined tlieir books, and found it to be so. They stated that they hod been at trouble and expense to get petitions along this line, to show the expediency of the ailditional speed and second line; that they had drawn the mail pay quarterly, and divided it out to the partners; in doing this, they had incurred expenses in going to Washing- ton, for wliich they had made no charge; that they were at considerable expense in Washington; they had to live free and be generous. Question 2. Did thsy state or intimate to you thai they had paid, given, or lent any portion of this money, or any other money, to any person or persons in the department, or placed it in such situation that any officer or officers in the department received it, or the benefit of it? Answer 2. I asked that question specially of Mr. Slaymaker, and told him that he was suspected of so doing. He declared solemnly there never had been any transaction of that kind, nor any thing more than that matter with Mr. Brown, of which he had spoken in his deposition before the Committee of the Senate, and which had been published. 1 did not speak to Mr. Reeside about if, nor did he say any tiling to me. I viewed it as a business transaction, and that if they had charged four or five thousand dollars to the company for doing their business, and to cover their personal expenses, if would not have been too much. The whole amount received by them was about {516,600. Reeside and Slaymaker were owners of three-fourths of the line, and of course were -entitled to three-fourths of the money, leaving about $4,000 to come to the Other partners. This sum I considered them as paying to Reeside and Slaymaker for doing their business. The compensation for one daily line had been $7,000. Two daily lines were now run, and g25,000 were paid. The speed of one remained the same; the other had been expedited to run in two days and a half. J con- ceived that the western owners, by losing this sum, were still very much heneftted by the increased ailovvance. Question 3, Is there any other matter or thing in relation to the present inquiries, which you deem of importance to communicate? If so, stale it. Answer 3. I know of none. Question 4. Are you now a partner in the line with Mr. Reeside? Answer 4. I own Robvjrt Stewart's interest; when I bought his real estate, 1 was under the necessity of buying that with it. This extra allow- ance had ceased before I bought my interest. JNO. McKEB^ [Doc. No. 85.] NoS. 1,031, 1,170— $27,000, .$6,750. This contract, made the fifteenth day of October, in the year one thou- sand eight hundred and thirty-one, between James Reeside, of Philadelphii, Samuel R. Slaymaker, of Lancaster, and Jesse Tomlinson, of Philadelphia, contractors for carrying the mails of the United States, ol one part, and th« iBostraaster General of the United States of the other part, witnesseth, that 30 I 86 1 234 the said parties have mutually covenanteH as follows, viz.: The said con- tractors covenant with the Postmaster General: 1. To carry the mail of the United States from Philadelphia by Buck tavern, ■ Spread Eagle, Paoli, War ren tavern, Frazer, West Whiteland, Downing- town, Coatsville, Sadshnry, Black horse, Salisbury, VVilliamstown, Para- dise, l^nncaster, Mount Joy, Elizabelhtown, Middletown, Hijih Spire, Harrishiirg, Hogestosvn, Carlisle, Stonghtstown, Shippensburgh, Green village, Chambersburgh, St. Thomas, London, McConnellsburgh, Licking creek, Junialta Crossings, Bloody run, Bedford, Schellsburg, Sloystown, Laurel Hill, Langhlinlown, Ligonier, Yonngstown, Greensburg, Adams- burg, and Stevvartsville, to Pittsburg, and back, twice a day, in four horse •post coaches; one of the daily mails to run by Bedford, Somerset, Mount Pleasant, Turtle creek, to Pittsburg, and back. No. 1,170. From Pittsburg by Harriottsville, Cannonsburg, Washing- ton. Claysville, West Alexandria, and Triadelphia, Va., to Wheeling, and back, daily, in four horse post coaches. The 1st mail to be changed at each county town through which it passes; the 2d mail at every office on the route; and to furnish armed guards for the whole, when required by the ■department, at the rate of six thousand seven hundred and tifiy dollars for every quarterof a year, during the continuance of this contract; to be paid in drafts on postmasters on the route above mentioned, or inmoney, at the option «f the Postmaster General, in the months of May, August, November, and February. -i 2. That the mails shall be duly delivered at, and taken from each post •office now established, or that may be ^established on any post route em- 'ijraced in this contract, under a penalty of ten dollars for each offence; and ti like penalty shall be incurred lor each ten minutes delay in the delivery of the mail after the lime fixed for its delivery at any post office specified in the schedule hereto annexed; and it is also agreed that the Postmaster Gene- ral may alter the times of arrival and departure fixed by said schedule, -and alter the route (he making an adequate compensation for any extra expense which may be occasioned thereby); and the Postmaster General re- serves the right of annulling this contract, in case the contractors do not promptly adopt ihe alteration required. 3. If the delay of the arrival of said mail continue until the hour for the dep?rture of any connecting mail, whereby the mails destined for such connecting mails shall lose a trip, it shall be considered as a whole trip lost, and a forfeiture of one hundred dollars shall be incurred; and a failure to .take the mail, or to make the proper exchange of mails at connecting points, •shall be considered a whole trip lost; and for any delay or failure equal to a trip lost, the Postmaster General shall have full power to annul this contract. 4. That the said contractors shall be answerable for the persons to whom they shall commit the care and transportation of the mail, and accountable- for any damages which may be sustained through their unfaithfulness or want of caie. 5. That seven minutes after the delivery of the mail at any post office on the aforesaid route not named in the annexed schedule, shall be allowed the postmaster for opening the same, and making up another mail to be for- warded. 6. The contractors agree to discharge any driver or carrier of said mail whenever required to do so by the Postmaster General. 7. '"That when the said mail goes by stage, such stage shall be suitable for the comfortable accommodation of at least seven travellers; and the mail 235 [ 86 3 shall invariably be carried in a secure dry boot, under the driver's feet, or in the box which constitutes the driver's seat, under a penalty of fifty dol- lars for each omission; and when it is carried on horseback, or in a vehicle other than a stage, it shall be covered securely with an oilcloth or bearskin, against rain or snow, under a penalty of twenty dollars for each time the mail is wet, without such covering: and for permitting the mail to be injured a second time, for carrying it contrary to the stipulations before re- cited, the Postmaster General shall have a right to annul this contract. The mail shall be put in a post office, if there be one where the carrier stops at night; if there be no office, it shall be kept in a secure place, and there be locked up at the contractor's risk. 8. The whole forfeiture and penalties to be incurred in the course of any one trip shall not exceed the sum specified in the third article, which the contractors hereby bind themselves to pay to the Postmaster General. 9. The said Postmaster General covenants with the said contractors to pay as aforesaid for the carriage of said mail as aforesaid, at the rate afore- mentioned quarterly, in the months of May, August, November, and February. 10. It is mutually understood by the contracting parties, that if the route, or any part of the route herein mentioned shall be discontinued by act of Congress, or in the opinion of the Postmaster General becomes use- less, then this contract, or such part of it, shall cease to be binding on the Postmaster General, he giving notice of such event, and making allowance of one month's extra pay. 11. This contract shall not be assigned by the contractors without the consent of the Postmaster General, and an assignment of the pay shall in no case release the contractors or their sureties from their responsibilities. Should the contractors or their agents be engaged in the transmission of information by express on the routes herein designated more rapidly than the mail, without the consent of the department, the cpntract shall be forfeited. Provided always. That this contract shall be null and void in case the contractors or any person that may become interested in this contract, di- rectly or indirectly, shall become a postmaster or an assistant postmaster. No member of Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this con- tract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon; and this contract shall, in all its parts, be subject to the terms and requisitions of an act of Congress passed on the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, entitled '* An act concerning public contracts." And it is mutually covenanted and agreed by the said parties, that this contract shall commence on the first day of .Tanuary next, and continue in force until the thirty first day of December, inclusively, which will be in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five. In witness whereof, \\\cy have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. (Signed) JAS. REESIDE, [seal.] SAM'L R. SLAYMAKER, [seal.] JESSE TOMLINSON. [seal.] Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of ROB'T D. CARSON, JACOB SHERER. [ 86 ] 236 No. 1,031. Contractors to be allowed 25300 per annum additional, from 1st January, 1832, for conveying the mail three times a week in four horse post coaches, from Harrisburg, by Sliinmantown and Mechanicsburgh, to Carlisle. See letter to Recsuie and Slaymakcr, dated I4th December, 1831. No. 1,031. Allowance of iglO,000 for extra conveyance of newspapers, found on the pay list, withdrawn from 1st December, 1S33. September 24, 1S34. No. 1,170. Curtailed at Washington from Pitts- burg; decrease 33 miles, deduction $741 a year, from day of 1834. Schedules of Nos. 1031, 1170, 1231, part o/1198 and 1388, 12/A Sep- temberj 1832. Leave Philadelphia daily at - - - - - Arrive at Chambersburgh next day by - Leave Chambersburgh same day at - - - - Arrive at Pittsburgh next day by . - - - Leave Pittsburgh daily at - - - - - .Arrive at Chambersburgh next day by - Leave Chambersburgh same day at - - - - Arrive at Philadelphia next day by - - - Leave Pittsburgh daily at (June 30, 1834,) - - - Arrive at Washington same day by 11 a. m., and Wheeling by Leave Wheeling daily at - . . . . Arrive at Washington same day by 9 A. M., and at Pittsburgh by Leave Pittsburgh daily at . - - - , Arrive at Washington same day by - - - - Leave Washington daily after the arrival of the great mail from Wheeling, say -..--- Arrive at Pittsburgh next morning by - Leave Hagerstowu daily after the arrival of the great mail from Baltimore, say - - -_ - - - 7 A. m. Arrive at McConnellsburgh same day in time to connect with the great or rapid mail from (/hambersburgh, say - - - 1 p. M. Leave McConnellsburgh daily after the arrival of the second mail from Mount Pleasant, say - - - - - 3 p. m. Arrive at Hagerstovvn same day by - - - - 9 r. m. Leave Mount Pleasant every other day at - - - 2 a. m. Arrive at Washington same day in time to connect with the mail from Pittsburgh for Wheeling by - - - -11a.m. Leave Washington every other day after the arrival of the mail from Wheeling at ----- - Arrive at Mount Pleasant same day by - - - - Leave Baltimore daily at - - - - . Arrive at Chambersburgh same day by - Leave Chambersburgh daily at 8 or 9 a. m., after the mail arrives from Pittsburgh, (November 12, 1833,) . - - Arrive at Baltimore same day by - - - . 8 A. M. 8 A. H. 9 A. M. 6 p. M. 4 A. M. 12 M . 1 P. If. 1 P. M. 4 A. M. 6 P. M. 5 a. M. 6 p. M. 2 p. M. 7 p. £1. 10 p. ST. 3 a. H. 9 A. M. 7 p. M. 7 A. M. 3 p. il. 3 A. V. 4 p. M. 237 86 ] TViis Schedule^ subject to alteration hy the Postmaster General, agree- ably to the provision (ionlaiued in the second section of the contract. From 1st April to 1st December. No. 1031. 1st Mail. Leave Philadelphia daily at - - - - • Arrive at Pittsburgh in (ifty-two hours, via Mt. Pleasant, by Leave Pittsl)urgh daily at ..... Arrive at Philadelphia in fifty three hours, in time for the morning steamboat to New York, by . - • . - 2d Mail. Leave Philadelphia daily, after the arrival of the mail from New York, at - - . . . - - Arrive at Pittsburgh in eighty hours, via Stewartsville, hy Leave Pittsburgh daily at - - - - Arrive at Philadelphia, in eighty hours, by - No. 1170. Leave Pittsburgh daily at - - - - Arrive at Wheeling same day by - - - Leave Wheeling daily at . - - - Arrive at Pittsburgh same day by - - - From December 1st to April 1st. No. 1031. 1st Mail. * Leave Philadelphia daily at - - - - Arrive at Pittsburgh the third day by - Leave Pittsburgh daily at - - - - Arrive at Philadelphia third day by - - - 2d Mail. Leave Philadelphia daily at - Arrive at Piitshurgh the fourth day by - Leave Pittshnrgh daily at . _ - . Arrive at Philadelphia the fourth day by , - No. 1170. Leave Pittsburgh daily at - - , - Arrive at Wheeling same day by . - - Leave Wheeling every day at - Arrive at Pittsburgh same day by - - » •3 p. ar. 7 p. M, 4 A. M. 9 A. M. - 4 A. M. -12 N00X> - 4 A. M. - 12 K00N» - 8 A. M. - 9 p. M. . 4 A. M. - 6 P. M. 2 A. &[. 8 p. M. 1 A. M. 6 P. M. 8 a. M. 6 p. M. 4 A. M. 2 p. M. 3 A. M. 6 p. M. 3 A. M. Gp. Mo Post Office Department, Northern Divisiony October 6, 1S34. I certify that the foregoing arc true copies from thu originals on file in this department. THOMAS B. ADDISON, Co7itract Clerk of the Northern Division. • Sec letter to Contractor, dated 26tU May, 1832. [ 86 ] 238 [Doc. No. 86.] • Decemhtr 23, 1S34. Alexander F. Glass, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories: Question 1. Where do you reside, and what opportunities have you had for observing the passing and repassing of the mails Irom Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, and for what length of time? Answer 1. I now reside in Columbia, Pa., and have done so since May last; previous to that at Harrisburg, from January, 1832; and previously, from October, 1S31, at the office of Slaymaker and Co., in Philadelphia. I am now, and was while in Harrisburg, an agent for the above company; and at Harrisburg parilcularlj*, the mails passed daily under my observation, h; Question 2. Do you know any thing of a great increase of mail matter on that route since the year 1830; if so, state when, and to what extent this increase was, and what was the cause of il? Answer 2. There was a great increase. It was gradual up to the latter part of 1S32, and the early pait of 1833; the m^ils were then at their heaviest. I think in the spring of 1833 there was a sudden decrease ia their weight. Question 3. Do you know what caused this sudden decrease? Answer 3. I understood, from the contractors and agents, that part of the mails were then sent by Baltimore to Wheeling. This was about the time the steamboats began lo run to Baltimore. Question 4. How were the mails, as io weight, in 1832, compared lo 1631 and 1830, except the latter part of 1832, of which you have spoken? Answer 4. I had no opportunity of judging previous to January, 1832. Question 5. Were the mails of the latter part of 1833 and through 1834 lighter or heavier than in January, 1S32? Answer 5. I think the mails have continued lighter since the spring of 1833 than they were in Janrary, 1832. wh.en I first went to Harrisburg. Question 6. What was the extent of the increase of mails in 1832; and how did they affect the running of the coaches? Answer 6. In the latter part of 1832 we put on coaches of a different construction; they had a swinging boot in front to take part of the mails, which we laid aside since the summer of 1833. The mails on Sunday were almost always so large that we could not carr}'' any passengers; some- times it was so on one other day of each week. This-continued I think un- til the change in 1833 before spoken of. I should think the heavy mails spoken of would weigh at least three thousand pounds. We had from seven to twelve and fourteen mail bags. I have often helped to fill the stage inside as high as the doors. 1 never weighed, but judge from their weight in handling. Question 7. Did you keep any books showing the number of passengers each day? Answer 7. I only kept, while at Harrisburg, a book for way passengers. Thompson, at Chambersburg, kept a general book of passengers. Question 8. Did the great western mail pass through Columbia always since 1833? Answers. No. It only began about May last. ALEXANDER F. GLASS. 239 [ 86 3 [Doc. No. 87.] Chambersbukg, November IS, 1S34. Samuel R. Slaymaker, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the interrogatories: ' Question 1. What amount did you receive of the extra allowance of $10,000 on the route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, and who received the balance? Answer 1. I received one half of it, and .James Reeside received the balance. Question 2. In what manner did you settle with your other pajtners for that allowance? State the time, manner, and circumstances. Answers. Witness refuses to answer the question. He was then re- quested to retire, and the comn^ittee, on consultation, were unanimously of the opinion that the question was proper, and ought to be answered; and- thereupon directed the witness to ai)pear before them that the querUion might be again propounded to him. Whereupon the witness appeared, and the question being again propounded to him, refused to answer. Samuel R. Slaymaker again voluntarily appeared' before the committee, and testified as follows: Question 1. W^hat portion of the allowance of $10,000 per annum, amounting in the whole to Sl7,5()0, for carrying the newspapers in the fast line from Pliiladelphia to Pittsburgh was paid to you by the department? Answer I. One half. Question 2. Had you partners on that line? Answer 2. I had. Question 3. Did you pay over any portion of that money to your part- ners, or what disposition did you maUe of it? Answers. 1 settled with my partneis for it by claims which 1 held against them. Question 4. Can you furnish the commitlec with a statement of those claims? Answer 4. I can't tell the Items exactly;! have" not them heie. Question 5. State as nearly as you can what they were. Answer 5. Services rendered for two years and three months, travelling expenses, losses sustained in accounting for the receipts on waybills in the offices betwen Chambersburg and Downingtown. Question 6. When did you settle with your partners? Answer 6. In May or June last. Question 7, Did you settle youiselves, or was the saltlement made by arbitration? Answer 7. I settled with two of the company. Question S. Who were they? Answer 8. Jno. Sinckion and Isaac Downing. Stockton resides in Vir- ginia; Downing in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Question 9, Did you exhibit an account stated with them? Answer 9. I showed them a memorandum of the losses I supposed 1 had eustained, and told them at the time I had rendered the services, lor which I had received no compensation. Question 10. Were those two persons authorized to settle in behalf of U^e whole company? [ 86 ] 240 Answer 10. They were. Question 1 1 . Were they also interested in this allowance? Answer 1 1 . Yes. Question 12. Did you ever make known to the other members of the company the fact that you had received this extra allowance, and that you claimed it on account of services rendered and losses eustained? Answer 12. I did not. Question 13. Why did you not inform your partners of the allowance? Answer 13. I can state no particular leason for if. Question 14. How long had you been receiving this allowance before it was made known to your partners, and how often had you settled with them without communicating it? Answer 14. I cau't tell. I do not recollect how often or how long. Question 15. When those two individuals above named were autho- rized to settle with you in hehnlf of the company for this allowance, was it onderstood that your communication to them should be in private, or was it open before such members of the company as saw fit to attend? Answer 15. It was open to such of them as chose to come in. Question 16. Was Jesse Tomlinson one of your partners? Answer 16. He was. Question 17. Did you ever state to him that 0. B. Brown was to have $1,000 of that allowance? Answer 17. Never, to my knowledge. Question IS. Did you ever state to any person that you had been charged with extras on some of your other routes which you had never received, but for which you had performed service, and that this 1^10,000 per annum was in part to make tiial good to you? Answer IS. I have no recollection of it. Question 19. Is it true that you were so charged for extras which you never received? Answer 19. I do not know thai I was. Question '20. 1 find in your account under date June 30, 1S32, a credit for express mail, York to Philadeljihia, from the 1st December, 1831, to 1st April, 1S'?2, S3, 150. Did you run such express during that time? Answer 20. I suppose that to be one of the winters we run it. We run it two winters. Question 21. Give an account of that express? Tell us what it was, and what service it rendered? Answer 21. It vvas an express line of coaches to carry a portion of the mail from Washington to Philadelphia. I run the road from York to Phi- ladelphia; Mr. Stockton from \\ ashington City to York. Question 22. Had you a line of coaches, beside the express coaches, from York to Philadelj)hia; and did you, on another contract, carry the mail be- tween those places? Answer 22. I had another line between York and Philadelphia, in which I carried the mail. Question 23. What did you receive for carrying the mail on that route, feeside the express? Answer 23. From Lancaster to Philadelphia is included in my Pittsburgh contract; York to Lancaster and Lancaster to Gettysburgh I took under Mr. Stockton. Question 24. How often di'l vou run on that route from York to LancaS' ter? 241 [ 8G ] Answer 24. Daily. Question 25. Did you, in addition to your daily line, run an accommoda-" tion line for passengers? Answer 25. I did not. Question 26. Did you in the winter, while you were paid for yourexr- press, run two lines of coaches on that route? Answer 2G. I did. Question 27. Did you during the whole time run two daily lines of coaches from Ist-fanuary to 1st April, IS32, York to Lancaster? Answer 27. We ran, whilst the navigation was closed, two lines. Question 28. Did your regular daily line and your express set out from York and arrive at Lancaster at the same time? Answer 2S. No. Question 29. Did you run an additional line during that winter from Lancaster to Philadelphia, or was the mail which came hy that express line Bent on from Lancaster hy one of your other lines of coaches? Answer 29. We ran an additional line for that express mail. Question 30. During the suspension of naviujation did all your line* of coaches generally run full of passengers from York to Philadelphia? Answer 30. I think not. Question 31. What time did your regular mail leave York going east- ward, and at what time did your express line leave York in same direction? Answer 31. The regular mail left about 2 P. M. The express from 6 to 8 P. M. Question 32. At what time did each line arrive in Philadelphia? Answer 32. The regular mail waited at Lancaster over night and went on with Pittsburgh mail next day. The express went on immediately, and reached Philadelphia from S A. M. to 10 A. M. Question 33. Has any part of that extra allowance of 10,000 dollars per annum, or of any other sum charged to you or paid to you by the depaitment^ been in any manner returned to any of the offic:>rs of the department, or has it been left or placed in such situation that any officer or officers of the department have received it, or have received the benefit of any portion of it, directly or indirectly? Answer 33. No. Question 34. Has any portion of the money which you stated on a former occasion you had lent to 0. B. Brown been repaid by him; and if it have, state particularly the time and manner of repayment? Answer 34. It has not been repaid, nor any pirl of it. Question 55. Diil you at the time of making those loans, make them with the view that they ever were to be lepaid? Answer 35. I did expect Mr. Brown to repay me. Question 36. Did you expect him to repay you in money of his own, or did you expect repayment in another manner? Answer 36. In money of his own. Question 37. H.ive you since your last examination found any memoran- dum of either of those loans to Mr. Brown on your books, or among your papers? Answer 37. I never have examined for them. Question 38. Have you .seen any such memorandum since? Answer 38. No. Question 39. Do you bilieve you have any memorandum of tiie kind? 31 [ 86 ] 242 Answer 39. My impression is, that I have them entered in my memoran- dum book at home. ■ ' , Question 40. Did you mention these loans to Mr. Brown to Messrs. Stockton ard Downing at the time they settled with you for this allowance of 10,000 dollars, as items of your claim against the company? Answer 40. They vvere spoken of at the time in speaking of the report of the committee, hut not seliled as items in that account. Question 41. Did you have any conversation with Major Barry or Mr. Brown about the mode in which you should carry the newspapers be- tween Philadelphia and Pittsburgh before your bid was accepted in 1831 j if you did, state what it was? Answer 41. I had conversations with one or both of them. I do not re- collect whelhcr before or after the hid was accepted. The understanding wa?, that the r ewspapers were to be carried in the slow line, and nothing but letters in the fast line. Question 42. Did you carry the newspapers in the slow line during any part of the year 1S;32? Answer 42. We carried a considerable portion of them in the slow line. Question 43. Did you carry any part in the slow line through, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, or merely ihose newspapers for the way post offices? Answer 43. My impression is we carried in the slow line a considerable portion through to Pittsburgh. Question 44 During what part of the year did you carr}' a portion of newsprip'jrs through to Pittsburgh in the slow line? Answer 44. In the beginning of the year. Question 45. Did you not carry during the whole year as you did from the beginning? Answer 45. My impression is we did not. Question 46. Do you know that there was any order to the postmaster at Philadelphia to make any change in the mails he should give you to carry, on either of your lines, durinu; that year? Answer 4G. I do not know whether there was or not. Question 47. Did you carry such mails as were given you by the post- master, or were you in the liabil of .••electing such as you saw fit to carry, or such as in your own judgment yon thoujiht you ought to carry? Answer 47. I was not at Philadelphia where the mails were loaded, but at Lancaster, when we passed them on; and 1 do not know. Question 4S. Who superintended that mail line at Philadelphia? Answer 4S. Jesse Tomlinson a part of the time, and Ziba Durkee a part of the time. Question 49. There is a letter signed by James Reeside and yourself, ad- dressed to 'he Postmaster General, in which this extra allowance is asked for. It bears date May 12, 1S32. Was that letter written and signed by you and Reeside at the time it bears date? Answer 49. My impression is thai it was. Question 50. Was this e.xtra allowance made shortly after the writing of thai letter? Answer 50. I think it laid over for some time without a decision. Question 51. What time do you think the allowance was first made? Answer 51. I cannot recollect; my impression is it was in the tall of 1832. Question 52. Did you in the spring of 1833 tell Jesse Tomlinson that this allowance was not yet made? 243 [ 8^"]' Answer 52. I told him at one time that the allowance was not yet made; I do not recollect when it was. Question 53. At the time you so told him had the allowance been made? Answer 53. I presume it was not, or I should not have told him so. Question 54. At whose request did you write the letter of May 12, 1832; was it at the request or by the directions of any officer of the department; if it were, state wlio, and the circumstances attending it? Answer 54. When we spoke to the Postmaster General about the allow- ance, he told us to communicate any thing we h.id to say in writinj;. SAMUEL R. SLAYMAKER. [Doc. No. 88. — Sec Appendix.] [Doc. No. 89] Correspondence and order of cfun/ge in route from Ilagerstown to McConnellsburg. Nov. 21, 1833. Ko. 1231, Maryland: Hagerstown to McConnellsburg, 26 miles — Reeside and Sla) maker; daily, four horse post coaclies, 1400 dollars. To be reduced to three times per week. Contractors request that schedule mny be arranged so as to connect at Hagerstown with the Reliance line from Baltimore, and with the fast line at McConnellsburg; or, if that is denied, that they may carry mail on horse, and connect the stages as above. Shall we allow them privilege of carrying mail on horse, according to the present schedule, and allow them to run the stajics acconling to the schedule the)'' propose, and also to carry a mail on thai? Do so. Wrote contractors and postmasters Hagerstown, Mercersburg, and Mc- Connellsburg. Post Office Department, Northern Division^ Nov. 22, 1833. Gentlemen: The Postmaster General allows you the privilege of chang- ing i\w. hours of departure and arrival of your four horse post coach mail on 1231, from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg, provided you will convey a mail on horseback on that route daily, according to the present schedule. A mail must be conveyed in the post coach also each trip. 1 am, respecifidly, Your obedient servant, S. R. HOBBIE. Messrs. Reeside and Slaymaker, Lancaster, Pa. Po.sT Office, Hagerstown, ^prit ly, 1S34. Sir: The contractor on route 1231, from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg, Penn., instead of transporting the mail tri- weekly, as is now the case, [ 86 ] 244 to carry it daily, provided permission be given to leave Hagerstovyn at 4 A. M., which, under the summer arrangement of the Wheeling arrange- ment, will be before the arrival of the mail from the east. He also says that he will require no additional compensation to that now given. If thia •rrangement meets your approbation, if it is your wiah I will arrange the schedule. Respectfully, HOWARD KENNEDY. Post Office Department, Northern Division, and No. 1215, Bedford to Blair's Gap, to a horse mail twice a week. It appears that the contract for the tri. weekly service on these routes was not drawn up earlier than March, 1832, and was not carried into execution till some time afterwards. The postmaster of Bedford, J. H. Hofins, re- ports, under date of the 4th June, 1832, that the tri-weckly service com- menced on the 28th May, on horseback; and under date of July 28, 1832^ that Mr. Reeside commenced on 1230 with two horse coaches on the 26tb of that month. I find nothing on file showing that the routes have beenrua differently than what is above reported. But the contractor aveis that sinc& he put on stages in the spring or summer of 1832 he has run in six passenger stages with four horses most of the lime, going on horseback when the bad state of the roads compelled him to do so. The route from Hagerstown to McConnellsburg is No. 1,331. I find that it was contracted to James Reeside, to run daily in four horse post coaches. In the retrenchments of last fall it was reduced to three times a week. I cannot find any reports from postmasters or other information on file, showing that the route wus not run daily in four horse post coaches, during the time the contract so required it to be carried, or as often at least astri-weekly in four horse post coaches since. After the route was redueed to three times a week the contractor applied for a chango of schedule, which the department deemed it inexpedient to grant. He then proposed^ if the department would consent to his coaches running by a different sche- dule from the existing one, to carry a mail three times a week in his coaches,, ind also to carry a mail three times a week on horseback according to the existing schedule, giving a six times a week mail, under a contract that called for only a tri-weekly, and without any additional charge. This was acceded to by the department. It appears to have been run in this mannei^ fhrough the winter of 1834; and after that arrangements were made with the postmaster of Hagerstown, as he reports, to carry it daily in coaches without additional charge. The route from Pottsville to Phifadelphia is route No. 1,036, conlracted to James Reeside, Jacob Peters, John N. ISLltemorc, and others. I find nothing on the files, nor any other information in the possession of the de- partment, showing that the contractors have not run twice a-day in four horse post coaches, as the contract requires. S. R. HOBBIE, Assistant Posinmster Gfnei'aL To the Hon. W. T. Barrf, Pontmaater General. [ Doc. No. 92. ] Hackensack, N. J., September 20, 1331- We will convey llie mail agreeably to advertisement on route No. 951 from the city of New York, State of New York, to Philadelphia, Pennsyl^ vania, for the yearly compensation of nineteen thousand five hundred dol-^ lars — furnish guard for the mail free of expense to the Post Office Depart- ment. ALBT. DOREMUS, 30 HORACE THOM PSON • [ 86 ] 250 Washington, December 5, 1834. I certify the above to be truly copied from the original on file in the Ge- ineral Post Office. MW. ST. CLAIR CLARKE, Secretary. [Doc. No. 93.] Washington City, D. C, Sept. 26, 1831. We will convey the mail agreeably to advertisement on route No. 1,389, from Baltimore to Cumberland, and on route No. 1,201 from Cumberland to Wheeling, for the yearly compensation of nine thousand dollars; and for the yearly additional compensation of five thousand dollars, we will convey the same from Baltimore to Wheeling in fifty-six hours — fifteen hours less than advertised time. We will convey the 'mail agreeably to advertisement on route No. 951, from the city of New York to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the yearly compensation of eight thousand dollars; or For the yearly compensation of fifteen thousand dollars we will convey ihe mail on route No, 951, from city of New York to Philadelphia, in eleven hours; and For the yearly compensation of eighteen thousand dollars we will convey the mail from New York to Philadelphia in safety carriages, made for the express purpose of conveying mails, in ten hours each way. EZRA PL ATT, of lieadmg, Pa. WM. F. FENLON, of Georgelown, D. C. JAMES L. GILLIS, Montmoring, Pa. JOHN M. HUGHES & THERS, Albany, N. Y, Washington, December 5, 1834. I certify the within writing to be truly copied from the original on file ■}n the General Post Oifice. MW. ST. CLAIR CLARKE, Secretary. [ Doc. No. 94. ] Washington Citt, September 2|6, 1831. Dear Sir: I offer, on the part of the Philadelphia and New York Union L»ine Stage Company, to convey the United States mail, as advertised, on route No. 951, for the yearly compensation of $13,200. • I engage to convey the mail as it now is, for the first year; the remaining three years to convey the great mail by steamboats and the Camden and Amboy railroad. To leave each city at 3 o'clock P. M., and arrive by 12 o'clock at night, making but nine hours through from city to city. I also engage to convey a mail by land daily, (Sundays excepted,) in two horse post coaches during the last three years. To leave Philadelphia and New York at 3 o'clock P. M., and arrive next day at 6 o'clock A. M. I will also engage to convey a morning or steamboat mail as it is now conveyed for the first year; the remaining three years to convey it by steamboats and the Camden and Amboy railroad. Leave each city at 6 o'clock A. M., and arrive by 3 o'clock P. M. same day, being but nine flours from city to city, for the yearly compensation of $16,000. 251 [ 86 ] The railroad will, in all probability, be completed from Bordentown to Amboy by the 1st of September, 1S32. In that case the contractors would then commence conveying the mails by that conveyance, if agreeable to Post Office Department. References to the enclosed letter, as well as others previously handed in to the department. 1 have the honor to be Your most obedient servant, VVM. B. JAQUES, .'?^e;i^, New Yorky For the Philadelphia and New York Union Line Stage Company. To the Hon. War. T. Barry, ' Postmaster General. P. S, I beg leave to state to the Post Office Department, that the present applicants offered to include the present contractor. W. B. J. Washington, December 5, 1834. I certify the above to be truly copied from the original on file in the General Post Office. MW. ST. CLAIR CLARKE, Secretary. [Doc. No. 95.] No. 951:— ^6,000. This contract, made the fifteenth day of October, in the year one thou- sand eight hundred and thirty-one, between James Reeside, of Philadelphia, Pa,, contractor for carrying the mails of ihe United States, of one part, and the Postmaster General of the United States of the other part, witnesseth, that the said parties have mutually covenanted as follows, viz. : The said con- tractor covenants with the Postmaster General: 1. To carry the mail of the United States from New York, N. Y., by Jersey City, N. J., Newark, Elizahethfown, Rahway, New Brunswick, Kingston, Princeton, Trenton, Morrisville, Pa. , TuUytovvn, Brisfol, Anda- lusia, Holmesburg and Frankford, to Philadelphia, daily, in four horse post coaches, the department to defray the expense of carrying the mail across the Hudson river. It is hereby stipulated that the contractor shall, when- ever the Postmaster General shall direct, so expedite as to always run from post office to post office, through the entire route, in thirteen hours; shall run two mails a day during steamboat navigation, one to leave the respec- tive cities in the morning, and the other in the evening, and always give such further increased expedition as may at any lime be necessarv to per- fect the connexion at each end of the route; shall furnish the mails with a double armed guard at his own expense, and so expedite as to gain one hour between New York and Nevv Haven, or more, if required, and furnish government expresses, when required, for the additional sum of thirteen thousand dollars per year; and if a second daily mail shall be required by land during the winter, he shall carry the same ibr the further sum of fifteen hundred dollars a year; at the rate of fifteen hundred dollars for every quarter of a year, during the continuance of this contract; to be paid in drafts on postmasters, on the route above mentioned, or in money, at the option of the Postmaster General, in the months of May, t^ugust, Novem" ber' and February. [ 86 ] 252 2. That the mail shall be duly delivered at, and taken from each post office now established, or that may be established on any post route em- braced in this contract, under the penalty of ten dollars for each offence; and a like penalty shall be incurred for each ten minutes delay in the deli- Tery of the mail after the time fixed for its delivery at any post office speci- fied in the schedule hereto annexed; and it is also agfreed, that the Post- master General may alter the times of arrival and departure fixed by said schedule, and alter the route (he making an adequate compensation for any extra expense which way be occasioned thereby;) and the Postmaster General reserves the right of annulling this contract in case the contractor does not promptly adopt the alterations required. 3. If the delay of the arrival of said mail continue until the hour for the departure of any connecting mail, whereby the mails destined for such con- necting mails shall lose a trip, it shall be considered as a whole trip lost, and a forfeiture of one hundred dollars shall be incurred; and a failure, to take the mail, or to make the proper exchange of mails at connecting points, shall be considered a whole trip lost; and for any delay or failure equal to a trip lost, the Postmaster General shall have full power to annul this contract. 4. That the said contractor shall be answerable for the persons to whom he shall commit the care and transportation of the mail, and accountable for any damages which may be sustained through their unfaithfulness or want of care. 5. That seven minutes after the delivery of the mail at any post office on the aforesaid route not named in the annexed schedule shall be allowed the postmaster for opening the same, and making up another mail to be forwarded. 6. The contractor agrees to discharge any driver or carrier of said mail, ■whenever required to do so by the Postmaster General. 7. Tliat when the said mail goes by stage, such stage shall be suitable for the comfortable accommodation of at least seven travellers; and the mail shall invariably be carried in a secure dry boot, under the driver's feet, or iii the box which constitutes the driver's seat, under a penalty of fifty doU lars for each omission: and when it is carried on horseback, or in a vehicle other than a stage, it shall be covered securely with an oilcloth or bear-skin, against rain or snow, under a penalty of twenty dollars for each time the mail is wet, without such covering; and for permitting the mail to be injured a second tinic, for carrying it contrary to the stipulations before recited, the Postmaster General shall have a right to annul this contract. The mail shall be put in a post office, if there be one where the carrier stops at night; if there be no office, it shall b? kept in a secure place, and there be locked up at the contractor's risk. 8. The whole forfeiture and penalties to be incurred in the course of any one trip shall not exceed the sum specified in the third article, which the contracior hereby binds himself to pay to the Postmaster General. 9. The said Postmaster General covenants with the said contractor to pay as aforesaid for the carriage of said mail as aforesaid, at the rate afore- mentioned, quarterly, in the months of Mai/, Jlu^ust, Novembery and February. 10. It is mutually understood by the contracting parties, that if the route, or any part of the route herein mentioned, shall be discontinued by act of Congres.*!, or in the opinion of the Postmaster General becomes useless, 253 [ 86 ]' then this contract, or such part of it, shall cease to be binding on the Post- master Genera!, he giving notice of such event, and making allowance oC one month's extra pay. 11. This contract shall not be assigned by the contractor without the consent of the Postmaster General, and an assignment of the pay shall in na case release the contractor or his sureties from their responsibilities. Should the contractor or his agents l)e engaged in the transmission of information by express on the routes herein designated more rapidly than the mail^ without the consent of the department, the contract shall be forfeited. Provided a/way s, That this contract shall be null and voiil, in case the contractor, or any person that may become interested in this contract^ directly or indirectly, shall beccm3 a postmaster or an assistant postmaster. No member of Congress shall be almitted to any share or part of this con- tract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon; and this contract shall, in all its parts, be suhject to the terms and requisitions of an act of Congress passed on the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, entitled " An act concerning public contracts." And it is mutually covenanted and agreed by the said "parties, that this contract shall commence on tiie first day of January next, and continue ia force until the thirty-first day of December inclusively, whic|j will be in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five. In witness whereof, they have hereunto interchangeably ^et their hands and seals, the day and year first above written. (Signed) JAMES REESIDE. [seal.] Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of . (Signed) Richar'd C. Whiteside. The following are the additional entries made upon the contract for route No. 951: The increased service stipulated in the contract was directed by the Post- master General fiom the beginning, for which he is entitled to the additional sum of jSl 3,000 per year; and for the second mail during the winter the further sum of $1,500 per year; for an express mail, by order of the Post- master General, S3, 150 per year. (Dispensed with; see entry foot of contract,) April 25, 1S33. J. Reeside engages to run in twelve hours between Philadelphia and New York, agreeably to printed schedule of this date, and to carry an additional way mail from Philadelphia to Trenton in time to lap on the steamboat mails, ami back; and from New York to Bruns- wick with like connexion and hack daily; and to connect the way mails from the post ofilce at Brunswick with the steamboat line; also to connect the mails at Pliiladelphia between steamboat and post office. The two horse stage line \o be run during the season of steamboat navigation — all for the additiDnal sum of 4^5,125 GO Service to commence on 1st May. Novendicr 19, l^OS. "Express mail" dispensed with by arrangement mad^ 25th April, '33. Allowance of $3,150 to cease from day of 25th April, 1833. June 19, 1834. Contractor to be allowed $ per annum, for supplying Lawrenceville and Six Mile Run, increased distance miles, from In July, 1834. [ S6 ] 254 This schedule subject to alteration by the Postmaster General, agreeably to the provision contained in the second section of the contract. Winter arrangement, as directed by the Postmaster General to be ob- served from 1st January. 1832. Leave N.York daily at 4 P. M.; arrive at Philadelphia next day by 5 A. M. Leave Philadelphia daily at 3 P.M. ; arrive at N.York next day by 4 A. M. Extra line to run all the year and by this schedule: Leave Philadelphia daily at 4 A.M.; arrive at N- York same day by 5 P.M. Leave N.York daily at 6 A. M.; arrive at Philadelphia same day by 7 P. M. Express line for winter only: Leave N.York dail}' at 7 A.M. ; arrive atPhiladelphia same day by 6 P. M. Leave Philadelphia daily at 9 A.M.; arrive at N. York same day by 9 P.M. Summer arrangement: Leave N.York daily at 4 P.M.; arrive at Philadelphia nextdayhy 5 A. M. Leave Philadelphia daily at G P.M. ; arrive at N .York next day by 7 A. M. May 14, 1832. Contractor directed to arrive at New York from Phila- delphia by S A. M. See letter book east and north. February 25, 1833. It is understood tiiat the contractor is to be allowed sixteen hours during the winter arrangement. I, James Reeside, being appointed a mail contractor, do swear that I will faithfully perform all the duties required of me, and abstain from every thing forbidden by the law in relation to the establishment of post offices and post roads within the United States. And i do solemnly swear that I ■will support the Constitution of the United Stales. Sworn before the subscriber, for the of this day of A. D. Know all men by these presents, That we, James'Reeside as principal, and Richd. Morris and David Dorrance as sureties, are held and firml)' bound unto the Postmaster (General of the United States of America, in the just and full sum of six thousand dollars, value received, to be paid unto the Postmaster Geneial, or his successors in office, or to his or their assigns; to whicii payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these pre- sents. Sealed with our seals; dated the .seventeenlh day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty one. The condition of this oBligation is such, that whereas the above bounden James Reeside, by a certain contract bearing date the fifteenth day of Octo- ber, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundted and thirty-one,, covenanted with the said Postmaster General to carry the mail of the United States from New York to Philadelphia as per contract annexed, com- mencing the first day of January, orie thousand eight hundred and thirty- two, and ending the thirty first day of December, which will be in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five. Now, if the said James Rec^^ide sliall well and truly perform the cove- Bants in the said indenture expressed on his part to he performed, and shall account for all penalties, and shall promptly repay all balances that may at any time be found due from him, then this bond is to be void; otherwise to remain in full force. JAMES REESIDE, [seal.] RICHD. MORRIS, [seal.] DAVID DORRANCE. [seal.] Signed, sealed, and delivered, in the presence of (Signed) R. C. Whiteside. J 255 [ 86 3 [Doc. No. 06.] December 17, 1834. 0. B, Brown, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respec- tive interrogatories, as follows, viz.: Question 1. Were there any propositions or conversations between you and Edwin Porter, respecting your having an interest in the contract for transportation of the mail between Mobile, in Alabama, and New Orleans, at any time? and if so, state when, and all you know on that subject. Answer 1. Mr. Porter some time, I rather think about August or Sep- tember, 1831, told me that his engagements would require more money than he could conveniently raise; and asked me if I knew of any person who would be willing to make an investment of a few thousand dollars in his business. I told him I did not at present, but probably might hear of one in a short time that would be glad to make such investment; my mind was upon Dr. Jackson, who had then 4 or 5,000 dollars in my hands. In the month of November following, Dr. Jackson, who was attached to the army, and stationed at Smithville, North Carolina, visited us. He left this place on his return in the beginning of the following month, December^ and left in my hands a few thousand dollars, With instructions to make sucb investment of it as would draw at least lawful interest, and as would be per- fectly safe. At that time it did not occur to my mind to say any thing tO' him on the subject of Mr. Porter's proposition. But some time after he had gone, I believe about the middle of January, 1832, it occurred to my mind that it might be a profitable investment to him. I did not, however, feel authorized to make it unqualifiedly, without first obtaining his appro- bation, although I had long held and still held his power of attorney to act for him, in any or all his pecuniary matters. Mr. Porter, at that timCj,^ spoke to me of his want of money; I told him of my having money in my hand of Dr. Jackson's, or some of a friend; I think I named Dr. Jacksouj, but am not certain; of which I advanced him three thousand five hundred dollars; on this condition, that I should have the right to lake for Dr. Jack- son that amount of stock in the company which transported the mail be- tween Mobile and New Orleans. Dr. Jackson, on his way home, was arrest-* ed by sickness at Edenton, North Carolina. I wrote to him at EdentoUj. informing him that 1 had something in view for him, by which I believed he would do better than to remain in the army; and desired him, as soon as he should recover sufficient strength, to return to this place. He, howerer, never recovered, but died on the last day of January, 1832. The matter thus rested for, 1 believe, more than a year, when I tbld Mr. Porter that I desired to have nothing to do with the contract, but to regard the money as a loan from the time he received it. I did then believe that the contract was making, clear of all expense, more than 50 per cent, p^r . annum upon the whole capital invested; but Dr. Jackson having deceased, I should be held accountable for his money, if any loss should be sustained, but 1 should receive no part of any profits that might accrue; and farther than this, it would devolve on me to superintend his interest, or the inter- est of his chiltlren, his family, in case any such stock shoulii beheld for him or them; which I could not. upder any circumstances, consent to do, in re- * lation to business where the transportation of the mail donstitnted an iaol- portant item. iv> . Question 2. \%hat relation or connexion was Dr. Jackson to you? Answer 2. He was the son of my wife, by her former husband. 186] 256 Question 3. Was there any change in the contract for the New Orleans mail, between the time that Mr. Porter and you first held this conversation and the time of advancing the money to him? Answer 3. At the time we held this first conversation, Mr. Porter had, I believe, but a small interest in that contract. It then was for carrying the mail between Mobile and New Orleans, three times a week, twenty-five thousand dollars per annum: but, as near as I recollect, about the 1st of De- cember, 1831, Mr. Porter became the sole contractor on that route, though I believe he had partners in the property employed, and the contract was altered so as to run seven times instead of three times a week, at S40,000 instead of '^25,000 per annum, from 1st January, 1832. Question 4. Did you frequently see Mr. Porter during the year 1832 and the early part of 1833? Ans'vver 4. Yes, frequently. Question 5. Why did you delay so long in determining and communi- cating to Mr. Porter that you would not take an interest in the contract? Answer »5. I considered the money very safe, and thought very little on Ibe subject, and therefore had not fully determined whether it ought to be taken for the heirs of Dr. Jackson or not. Question 6. What sum of Dr. Jackson's had you in your hands in Au- gust, 1831? Answer 6. I cannot exictly tell; it was upwards of four thousand dol- lars. Question 7., Have you any entry in any book, or any writing, showing the amount of Dr. Jackson's money in your hands? Answer 7. Dr. Jackson's accounts and mine were between ourselves, and he had in liis hands my written acknowledgement of it. Question 8. Who has the custody of his papers? Answer 8. His widow. Question 9. Are not those papers in your power, so that you are able to show to this committee any written acknowledgement of yours in the hands of Dr. Jackson at his death? Answer 9. They are in the custody of his widow, and I presume she would let me see them if I desired it. Question 10. Has that paper of which you speak been shown to you since the death of Dr. Jackson? Answer 10. Not that I recollect. Question 11. At what time was this money placed in your hands !?y Dr. Jackson? Answer 11. At different times; I collected several thousand dollars for him from tlie sale of property in North Carolina, in the county of Perqui- mans. Question 12. At what time were these moneys collected? Answer 12. The last property I sold for him was in 1823; it was sold on a credit. Question 13. If any large sum were received by you at any time, state it. Answer 13. I settled all those matters with Dr. Jackson, and did not think they would be inquired of. Question 14. At the time he was with you in 1831 did he place any- further sum in your hands? ^ Answer 14. On (hat point I am not able to recollect. 257 [ 86 ] Question 15. In January, 1832, when you made this advance to Mr, Porter, how much of Dr. Jackson's money had you in your hands? Answer 15. 1 cannot exactly recollect, but I presume it must have been nearly six thousand dollars. Question 16. Did you hand that §3,500 to Mr. Porter at one or several times? Answer 16. I am not certain, but I think at two different times. Question 17. Has any more money of Dr. Jackson's come into your hands since his death? Answer 17. There has, but how much I cannot tpll. Question IS. Slate as nearly the amount as you can? Answer IS. I cannot recollect. Question 19. Does it amount to thousands? Answer 19. VVhy, 1 should suppose it might amount to a thousand or two, perha|js not over a thousand, that I have actually received. When I was in difficulty from endorsements, Dr. Jackson allowed me to make use of four or five thousand dolhrs of his money for my own relief; in conside- ration of which I agreed, at any time when it should be in my power, to make any advances on account of moneys that might be due to him, when- ever he might desire to make an investment beyond any amount of moneys that he might have in hand. On this account neither he nor 1 was careful as to any exact arnount which I might have of his in my hand; and if an op- portunity had offered at any time to make an investment for his benefit to the amount of four or five thousand dollars more than 1 had in hand of his at the time, I never should have hesitated in doing f o, if I could have bor- rowed the money from bank, confidently believing that other moneys which he had due to him would be collected within a reasonable time to discharge the debt, without any risk on my part. Quesiion 20. Have you not kept an account of the money of Dr. Jack- son which has come into your hands since his death? Answer 20. I have not. I liave trusted to his wife to keep it, except one receipt of S 1000. Question 21. When and from whom was that received? Answer 21. It was received from Mr. Porter in the fall of 1832,1 think. I do not remember if it was in that fall or in the fall of 1833. Question 22. For what was it received? Answer 22. It was received on account of moneys of Dr. Jackson ad- vanced to him. December ISth, 1834. Witness again appeared: Quesiion 23. Was this Si, 000 which you received of Mr. Porter, in part of the principal of the loan of JS3,500, or for what consideration was it? State particularly. Answer 23. Il was for no part of that sum of $3,500, neither principal nor interest; but it was on account of another sum of $4,500, which Mr. Porter had received of Dr. Jackson's money through me. Quesiion 24. Are you now able to state at what time this $1,000 was paid you? Answer 24. It was in the fall of 1833; I think it was in the month of October. Question 25. At what lime did you lend Mr. Porter that .$4,500? Answer 25. I believe it was in the month of November, 1832. That transac- tion will be belter understood by a narration of the whole, which is as follows: 33 [ 8G ] 258 R. C. Stockton and J. N. C. Stockton were contractors for carrying the mail in Virginia, between Fredericksburg and Staunton, a part of the route between Staunton and Chrisiiansbiirgh, and 1 believe one or two con- necting routes. Mr. Porter's route connected with theirs at Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, and at Staunton. Then; did not appear to be a friendly feeling between Mr. Porter and R. C. Stockton. Mr. Porter called on me and told me that J. N. C. Stockton had propo.«ed to purchase R. C. Stockton's half of that contract, and would do it provided he Mr. Porier would take one half of the .same, that is one fourJi of the whole contract, which would cost him S9,000. He expressed a desire to do so, and asked my opinion of the expediency of his doing so. I told him that to produce a harmonious ieeling among all the parlies whose routes were connected, I should think it advisable, provided he considered the property vvorth the money which he would be required to pay for it. He told me he was de- termined to do so; but knew not how to raise the whole of the money re- quired, and asked me if I could furnish him with the means of paying for about one half of it. I told him that I could within a very few days have at disposal a sum equal to that, belonging to the estate of Uie late Dr. Jack- son, which was to be placed at interest, and I would lei him know within a short time whether I could let him haveit. In a few days after I agreed to let him have the money on this condition, which was his own proposition, that it might be an investment in that stock for the benefit of the heirs 6f Dr. Jackson, gr it might be at the rate of legal interest. This was in the month of November, 1S32, I think. It thus remained till the spring following, probably about five months, when I informed Mr. Porter that, upon mature deliberation on the subject, I thought it inexpedient for any money of Dr. Jackson's estate to be vested in any kind of stage stock through my agency; and that I should therefore regard it purely in the character of a loan, at the legal rate of six per centum per annum. Mr. Porter at that time was about leaving the city, and the matter thus rested till the following fall, 1S33, when Mr. Porter paid to me the §1,000 named, and told me that it had been to him a very profitable purchase. That this money had enabled him to effect it, and that he was willing for the one year's use of it to give to the heirs of Dr. Jackson that $1,000; that it had made for him much more than gl,000, and that he would give me his note for the principal, with interest from the end of one ye-ir from the time he had had it, which note I took and siill hold. Question 26, Is that note and the other note for §3,500 given to you in your own right, or to you as tKustce; dr guardian for the heirs of Dr. Jackson? Answer 26. In rny own right, of course, because I have never become the legal guardian of the children of Dr. Jackson, though it was his dying request that I would aotas4heir guardian, which I have done in fact, though noi in form; and therefore, I am myself bound to the heirs of Dr. Jackson for all the money belonging to them which comes into my hand; and if by «ny investment whatever it should be lost, I should consider it my loss and not theirs. Question 27. Have you any written entry made at the time of the re- ceipt of this one thousand dollars, or shortly after; or did you give any written paper, showing that this was so much money received by you for the heirs of Dr. Jackson. If aye,,produce it to the committee, if in your power. 259 [ 86 ] Answer 27. I keep no book of accounts; I made a memorandum of iJ on a loose piece of pa])er, and I presume I can find it if I have not handed it over fo Mrs. Jackson. At this point the committee suspended further examination,. and directed witness to produce by to-morrow morning all original entries, papers, or documents relating to the above transaction. Decemher 19, 1834. "Witness appeared, and said, in answer to the order of yesterday: I have no other papers than these; and then produced a paper which he 6ald was a true copy of an original paper in possession of Mrs. Jackson^ which the committee refused to receive as a compliance witli their order of yesterday, and directed the witness to produce the original; he then pro- duced two notes of Edwin Porter, wliich were copied, and are as follows: Washington, January 13, 1832. 3,500 dolls. On demand, I promise to pay 0. B. Brown or order, thirty-five hundred" dollars, borrowed money, with interest from date, value received. -H'^' EDWIN PORTEU. Washington, November 13, 1SS3. 4,500 dolls. On demand, 1 promise to pay 0. B. Brown or order, four thousand five hundred dollars, borrowed money, with interest from date, for value re- ceived. I EDWIN PORTER. Witness afterwards produced the paper, which he said was the original: Due .lohn S. Jackson, per settlement 1st December, 1831 $4,668 3& Received on his account in 1832, Cash of Mrs. Jackson 112 00 Cash collected in xMaryland 340 00 Cash of the Paymaster 160 00 1833, Cash of E. Porter - 1,000 00 Amount in cash ... - - g6,280 30 Received in notes in 1832, T. P. Andrews - - 400 00 R. C. Edelen . - - 600 00 H. Garner - - - 111 70 Isaac Hill . - - 500 00 A. Kendall - - - 500 00 Total i g8392 00 For the above sum of eight thousand three hundred and ninety-two dol- lars, I hold myself accountable to the administration of the late John S. Jackson, as 1 have engaged to keep the same at interest for the benefit of his heirs. The interest which accrued prior to the 1st of Janunry, 1834, is to be a matter of seliiement between her and nie, on account of the ex- penses of herself and children. From the Isi of January, 1834, I am to pay her interest for the above sum. 0. B. BROWN. [ S6 ] 260 Question 2S. When w.ns this pnper made out and signed by you? Answer 28. It was made out last evening; we settled that last evening- Question 29. You say, then, that the original paper, which you produce ; us under the order of yesterday, was made out since a copy of that order vas handed to you; do you say so? Answer 29. I do not say so. Question 30. What then do you say? Answer 30. I say that particular paper was. Question 31. Was not the copy which you produced to us this morning, and represented to us as a copy of an original paper, made out at the same time, either immediately before or after the original, and in fact a duplicate of it? Answer 31. It was made out, I suppose, two or three hours after the original was made out. Question 32. Did you look for the original memorandum concerning 'hat thousand dollars received from Mr. Porter; and if you did so, have ou found it? Answer 32. I looked for that with other papers; not more specially for Ihat than others, but I have not found it. Whether I preserved it after "oentioning the fact to Mrs. Jackson, I am not certain, though I think it >t improbable that it is j^et somewhere among the very great mass of mis- c ellaneous papers which I have. Question 33. Did you find any entry of it in any book, either of Mrs. Jackson's or your own? Answer 33. No, I did not. Whether Mrs. Jackson has an entry of it: not I cannot say; I did not examine. Question 34. Does this paper contain a true account of the amount of moneys of Dr. Jackson, which you had in your hands, according to the dates? Answer 34. It does, and I am now indebted to Dr. Jackson's estate that iimount. Question 35. What amount of cash had you in your hands of Dr. Jack- son's or his estate in the year 1831? Answer 35. In the year 1831 i had of cash which had been paid me by Dr. Jackson, ^4,668 30. In 1832 I had o( cash which had been paid me by Dr. and Mrs. Jackson, ^5,280 30; but this was not all I had, for what ! had received on any of the notes I cannot tell. Question 3G. What amount of notes had you in your hands in 1832? Answer 36. I had $2,111 70. Question 37. Had you received in that year, 1832, any thing more than .he interest? Answer 37. 1 doubt whether I had. Question 38. How much, then, do you suppose should be added to the S5,2S0 30 to make up the full amount of cash in your hands? Did it amount [n S300, more or less? Answer 38. I cannot say. Question 39. How much cash had you in 1833 on the same account? Answer 39. Six thousand two hundred and eighty dollars and thirty cents, •sides the notes above mentioned. Question 40. W^ere those notes endorsed to you? Answer40. None of them. Question 41. Can you tell the precise day on which you paid Mr. Porter e S4,500? I [ 86 ] Aniwer 41. I became accountable to him for it in November, 1832. Whether I paid it at that time or at a subsequent day I have now no recol- lection. Question 42. Was it paid by means of a check on any bank, by draft, or was it paid in money? Answer 42. It was not paid by check on bank, because I kept no bank, account at the time. It was eventually paid by me in money; but whether to Mr, Porter in person or to his order, I have no recollection. 0. B. BROWN. December 20, \834. O. B. BROWN AGAIN EXAMINED. The committee showed him an original paper from the tiles of the de- partment, of the tenor following: << Charlottesville, 25(h February, 1S33. "Sir: Enclosed you have certificates in relation to the very heavy extra expenses at which I am and have bean at since 1831, owing to the late ar- rival of the mail from Washington city during the stoppage of navigation and the earlier hour, during the whole time, at which I have to deliver my mail from Charlottesville into Fredericksburg; which has caused me the additional expense of three teams, at one thousand dollars each per annum. ''Which claim I respectfully submit to your consideration. ** Your most obedient servant, " J, N. C. STOCKTON. "Hon. William T. Barry, Postmaster General." " Granted from the beginning of 1832. »* The contract time for leaving Fredericksburg is 2 A. M. The new ar- rangement of the great southern mail requires the arrival at Fredericksburg two hours earlier than contract time. *' 1,951. February 28, 1833, additional allowance for expediting between Fredericksburg and Charlottesville, and for detention, &c." Question 43. And inquired of him on what day the allowance specified in that paper was made? Answer 43. In answer thereto witness saith, that it is entered to the cre- dit of the contractors on the books cf the department on the 2Sth March, 1833; and witness believes that to be the day on which the allowance was made, from the circumstance of its entry on that day. The committee also showed another original paper from the files of the department, of the tenor following, and put to him the following interro- gatories concerning it: Question 44. In whose handwriting is this paper? ^i Answer 44. That paper is all in my handwriting, except the words *< allowed," twice written, which is in the handwriting of the Postmaster General, William T. Barry. Question 45. At what time was the allowance made mentioned in that paper? Answer 45. It is first entered to the credit of the contractors by a ge^ [ 86 ] 262 :ieral, and not a special entry, under date of 1st July, IS32, from which it would appear that the allowance was made prior to that date, but the pre- cise time I cannot tell. These general entries are made once every three months. Question 4G. What routes were included in the purchase by Edv - 500 ' ' For a laborer ------ 240 Making - - - - - - - g 1,640 Of this amount I received no more than the 500 dollars. In the appropriation bill passed 18th March, 1830, there is the following clause — "For superintendency of the buildings, making up blanks, and compen- sation to two watchmen and one laborer, 1640 dollars," — covering the above estimate. Question 70. Do you recollect an inquiry made by a committee of the Senate of the Postmaster General, as to this or some other annual allowance to you in 1830-1831, and did you draw up the answer to that inquiry? Answer 70. I do not distinctly recollect the inquiry; but I find in a re- port (printed) of the Postmaster General to the committee of the Senate, reported to the Senate 3d March, 1831, in answer to several resolutions of the committee of the Senate, the following clause: *' My chief clerk has not received any additional compensation for his services as such; but from Oct. 1st to Nov. 15lh, 1829, there was a vacancy in the office of one of the assistants, during which time, amounting to 46 days, he was acting assistant, and performed the duties of that office; and for that period, and that period only, he received the compensation prescribed by law for the same." I have no recollection who drew that clause; but the Postmaster General says he drew it himself, and I have no doubt he did. Question 71. When the contract was made in the fall of the year 1831 with Reeslde, Slay maker, & Co., for the transportation of the mail from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, was there any parole contract or agreement con- cerning the transportation of the newspapers and packages, which does not appear in the written contract? Answer 71. It was at that time the distinct understanding of the Post- master General and myself, for we conversed on the subject, that newspa- pers and other printed matter, which constitute the great burden of the mail, should be transported by the slower line, which ran through in about the time that the most rapid mail had ever before run; and their more rapid line was designed principally to convey the letters from the east for Pitts- burg, and all places north and west of that place, in the shortest possible time. Question 72. Was this understanding communicated to the contractors? Answer 72, I do not know that it was communicated in writing to them, but it was the subject of conversation with Mr. Reeside at the time. Question 73. Was it a subject of conversation with Mr. Reeside before he put in his improved bid, which was accepted. Answer 73. That I do not recollect. Question 74. Do you not consider, in the department, an accepted bid as z contract? Answer 74. No, we do not; we consider it the incipient state of a con- tract, but not a contract, because no security is given. [ 86 ] 268 Question 75, Do you not consider the contract as bound by his accepted bid? Answer 75. Unquestionably we do. Question 7G. Then is not every thing you concede to him by conversa- tion or otherwise, after his bid is accepted, the same, precisely, 8S if you made the concession after the contract vvas executed? Answer 70. No; because after acceptance many explanations may be re- quired as to the construction of the hid; the intent and meaning of the parties in making the biil, and in accepting the bid, are often required to be ascertained before the consummation of tiie rontract. Question 77. Are )'ou in the habit of accepting bids that are so uncer- tain that they require parole explanations before the contract is executed, and are you in the habit of permitting the subsequent explanation of the party to he incorporated in the contract? Answer 77. The Postmaster General himself makes all acceptances, and his rule is to accept that bid which he believes to be best for the department and for the public; and if such bid should require explanation, he would not forego its benefit because it required such explaYialion. Such appears to be the rule which governs the Postmaster General, but he can himself beat answer whether he strictly adheres to it. Question 78. Is it your habit to draw the contract, or haife it drawn, con- formably to the accepted bid, or do you make it out according to the expla- nation of the contractor of what he intended in making his bid? Answer 78. The clerk v/ho fills the contract commonly tills it from the accepted hid; but if any important variation is made in the manner|of running and the compensaiion to be received, and such variation is reported to tliC clerk before he fills up the contract, it is commonly entered in the filling of the contract. Question 79. Was it before or after the annunciation of the bids, in 1S31, that you had those conversations with the Postmaster General about the mode of carrying letters and papers on the route from Philadelphia to Pitts- huvo-, mentioned by you in your answer to a former interrogatory? Ansv.-er 71). I do not recollect; but it was not far from the same lime. Question SO. In what time was the mail in facL carried on that route, in the nioj-t rapid line from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, from the 1st of April to the 1st of October, 1831? Answer 80. When I speak of the time of carrying the mail I speak of the contract time; for if it was carried more rapidly it would not likely be reported, and I do not know it. Question 81. Do you not know, and did you not know in the fall of 1831, that the mail was carried from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, in one of the lines of coaches in about sixty hours, more or less, from the 1st of April of that year? Answer SI. Ido not now recollect what I knew then; but if it was regularly carried with greater rapidity than the contract required, I did not know it. Question 82. Did you about the time of the taking effect of the present contract, advise the postmaster of Philadelphia of the parole agreement be- tween you and Mr. Reesidc about the transportation of newspapers, and direct him to hold them hack, and put them into the slow line. Answer 82. I suppose between me and Mr. Reeside means between the department and Mr. Reeside; but I do not recollect at this time any com- munication made to the postmaster at Philadelphia on the subject, nor 269 [ 86 j should I be likely to remember at this period if such communication was made. Question 83», Can you answer from the books whether it was made? Answer S3. I can examine whether such communication was recorded. Question 84. Your answer seems to imply that such communications were made without being put on record; is it so? Answer 84. No such implication is intended; such letters were always intended to be recorded; but whether the clerk, who was to record them, always performed liis duty I do not j)retend to say, though I presume he did. Question 85. If any communication were made from the department to the postmaster at Philadelphia, between the 4th of October, 1831, and 1st of Januai'y, 1S33. directing in which line of stages he should send the news- papers, and other heavy matter, intended for Pittsburg, or directing any change in the line in which it was sent, produce it to the committee- Answer So. I have searched the books and can find none. Question 86. Slate the reasons, and produce the vouchers, for making an extra allowance of Si, 595 to James Reeside, on the Baltimore and Cham- bersburg route, since 1st of January, 1S32? Answer 86. The route from Baltimore to Chambersburg was advertised with the following schedule: — <' Leave Baltimore every day at 4 A. M. Arrive at Chambersburg same day by 9 P. M. Leave Chambersburg every day at 2 A. M. Arrive at Baltimore same day by 8 P. M.'" The proposal of Mr. Reeside I cannot now get, because I am told it is in the hands of this committee, but its purport, as nearly as I recollect, was this: "To carry the mail, as advertised, at $1,900 per annum; or to delay the departure from Baltimore till after the arrival of the steandjoat mail from Philadelphia, and arrive at Chambersburg the same day in time (o connect with the mail from Philadelphia for Pittsburg, for S3, 495 per annum." The proposal was accepted at $1,900 as advertised; the Postmaster General re- serving the alternative of substituting the other if he should at any time think proper. The contract was tilled under date of 15th October, 1831, at §1,900 per annum. The following letter I find on record, dated Decem- ber 29, 1831. Post Office Depaktment, December 29, 1831 . Sir: To form a connexion with the rapid line at Cham.bers'burg, so as to run from Baltimore to Pittsburg in fifly-two hours, you are requested so to expedite on route No. 13SS, as to arrive at Chambersburg from Baltimore by 3 P. M . VV. T. BARRY. James Reeside, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa. On the same date 1 find on tlie schedule of the contract the following alteration: — "Leave Baltimore daily at 1 A. M. Arrive at Chambersburg same day by 3 P. M. Leave Chambersburg daily at 2 or 3 A. M. - Arrive at Baltimore same day by 5 P. M." [ 86 ] 270 This alteration required the running to conform to the proposition for ^3,495 per annum, and it was on this that the additional allowance appears to have been made. Question 87. What is the distance from Baltimore to Chambersburg? Answer S7. It is stated to be seventy-seven miles on our route book. Question SS. At the date the above order was given to Reeside, at what time did the fast Pittsburg line arrive at Chambersburg from Philadelphia? Answer 88. The fast mail under the winter arrangement, it being cus- tomary to give longer time in winter than in summer, was required to leave Philadelphia at two A, M. and arrive at Pittsburg the third day by eight P. M., making sixty-six hours. There was no time set for its arrival at Chambersburg; but, Chambersburg being about midway between Philadel- phia and Pittsburg, it was computed that it would arrive at Chambersburg the second day, for the passengers to dine while the postmaster was distri- buting the mail, and that the arrival from Baltimore, at three in the after- noon, would be just in time to connect with it before its departure for Pittsburg. On the 26lh of May, 1832, the" more rapid mail was directed to leave Philadelphia at three P. M. and arrive at Pittsburg in fifty-two hours. In this arrangement it was calculated that it would arrive at Chambersburg from three to five in the afternoon of next day, so that the arrival of the mail from Baltimore to Chambersburg, at the same time, would be neces- sary to perfect the connexion. I find on the letter book, under date of the 5th of July, 1832:— Post Office Department, July 5, 1832. The department is advised that you frequently leave Baltimore for Cham~ bersburg without awaiting the arrival of the afternoon mail from this city. This mail carries all the letters, &c. to Pittsburg, Detroit, &c , and the breach of connexion at Baltimore has the effect to delay them one day. You will, therefore, in no event leave Baltimore till after the arrival and distribution of this mail. The subjoined schedule of your contract, if ob- served, will entirely rectify the evil. Leave Baltimore daily at 1* A. M. Arrive at Chambersburg daily at 3 A. M. Arrive at Baltimore same day by 5 P. M. 0. B. BROWN. Messrs. James Reeside & Co., . Baltimore, Maryland. From this letter it appears that the delay of the departure from Baltimore was necessary to form a connexion with the mail from Washington City, and the arrival at Chambersburg from 3 to 5 P. M, was necessary to form the connexion there with the mail from Pittsburg. I find the letter of 12th September, 1832, of which the following is an extract. [extract.] Post Office Department, September 12, 1832. The following schedule must hereafter be invariably observed: — Leave Baltimore daily at 7 A. M., arrive at Chambersburg same day by 8 P. M. * We do not require you to delay till 1 A. M., but are willing you shall depart as soon as the mail from this place can be distributed. 271 [ 86 ] Leave Chambersburg daily at (8 or 9 after mail arrives from Pittsburg) 3 A. M. Arrive at Baltimore same day by (in 13 hours) 4 P. M. The mails from Baltimore and Washington City to Pittsburg will be sent by way of Hagerstown and McConnellsburg, which will give them the greatest celerity. On their arrival at McConnellsburg they must be put into the Good Intent, or the most rapid line, which must always con- nect with the line from Hagerstown at that point. (Signed) 0. B. BROWN. James Reeside and Co. It appears from this that the mails from Washington City and Baltimore for Pittsburg and places beyond Piu^uurg were no longer sent on the route from Baltimore to Chambersburg, but from Baltimore by Hagerstown and McConnellsburg, at which last place they connected with the most rapid line for Pittsburg. The mail therefore from Baltimore to Chambers- burg appears to have been made to connect with the slower line from Phi- ladelphia to Pittsburg, its object being mainly to carry letters and papers for the Chambersburg distribution, and for the intermediate offices between Chambersburg and Pittsburg, at all of which offices the slower line de- livered and received mails; but the more ra{)id line delivered and received mails only at the county towns. The schedule for the slower line was: " Leave Philadelphia at 4 A. M., arrive at Pittsburg in 80 hours." Chambersburg being about midway, it was concluded that it would arrive at Chambersburg in 40 hours from IMiiladelphia, which would be 8 P. M.; and therefore the mail was directed to leave Baltimore at 7 A. M., which was after the arrival of the great mail from Washington City, and to arrive at Chambersburg at 8 P. M., to connect with the slower Philadelphia mail for Pittsburg, which would make the whole time of running from Baltimore to Pittsburg 53 hours, and supply every intermediate office bet'veen tlie two places; which was believed to be a better arrangement than the former, which required it to run through in 52 hours, without supplying any of the intermediate offices between Chambersburg and Pittsburg except the county towns. Question 89. Was this caculation about uniting with the slower line at Chambersburg made at the time this order was made, or was it made by you yesterday and this morning? Answer 89. I state the facts as they then existed. Question 90. Did that mail in fact unite Avith the slow line as you have stated? Answer 90. I do not recollect ever to have heard to the contrary. Question 91. Do you believe that the slow line did in fact take 40 hours from Philadelphia to Chambersburg in the usual course of things, so as not to arrive at Chambersburg before S o'clock in the evening of the second day? Answer 91. I have no evidence to the contmry, and do not recollect ever to have heard any thing to the contrary, and therefore have no reason to believe to the contrary. Question 92. Do you believe from your knowledge of the route from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, that it takes that mail as long to run from Phila- delphia to Chambersburg as it does to run from Chambersburg to Pittsburg. Answer 92. I have never travelled either of those routes, and have never made any inquiry with a view to settle that point, and therefore have no belief about it. , [ 86 ] 272 Question 93. If you have no opinion or belief on that subject, how could you make the estimate from the SO hours which the slow line was to take from Philadelphia to Pittsburg, that it would take just 40 hours to Cham- bersburj;, and therefore direct the Baltimore mail to meet it at Chambers- burg to go on in that mail to Pittsbure.? Answer 93. The estimate was made from the distance alone; and if the mail from Philadelphia should arrive at Chambersburg an hour earlier, that time, it was jjresumed, would be occupied by the postmaster at Chambersburg in the distribution of the mail; and it was also confidently believed that the interest of the contractors on account of their passengers would in this, as in other cases, be a sufficient inducement for them to maintain the connexion, though at any time there might be the variation of an hour or two with either line. Question 94. Do you believe that the Baltimore mail did in any one in- stance arrive at Chambersburg in time to connect with that line from Phila- delphia in the manner above stated? Answer 94. I know of no evidence to the contrary. Question 95. Will you state your belief whether it ever did or did not. connect with that line at Chambersburg in the manner stated. Answer 95 I had or remember of no evidence to the contrary, and there- fore never believed to the contrary. Question 9G. Did you ever have any evidence of the fact that it did so connect, and do you affirmatively believe that it did so connect. Answer 96. When a connexion of that kind is directed, we take it for granted that that connexion is maintained, unless the contrary is reported;, and therefore I did believe that, it did so connect, and should have believed so to the present moment, JMit for the information given me a few days ago by an honorable member of the committee, in presence of the committee^, but since the 4th of Marcii, 1S33, having had nothing to do with the OiBce of Mail Contracts, v. batever information niay have been given to the depart- ment I have not seen subsequent to that time. Question 97. Was your opinion that those lines did connect as above sta- ted, founded solely on the fact that it had been so ordered? Answer 97. The furangement of the schedule iiaving been made wilji that, view, in the belief that it would produce that effect, and that the interest of the contractors would require them to maintain it, the subject no longer dwelt on my- mind; and I doubt whether I ever should afterwards have thought of a disconnexion, or that my mind would ever have been drawn to the subject, unless some communication nr inquiries should lead me to it. Question 98. Was it the cose that during the first winter arrangement for the rypid line between Philadelphia and Pittsburg, that the mail which left Baltimore, say on Tuesday, at 1 A, M., was to fall in at Chambersburg with that which left Philadelphia on Monday, at 2 A. M., and the mail matter carried by both go on together to Pittsburg? Answer 98. It is the case that it "was so to have done. Question 99. Do you know or believe that it was in fact ever so done in any single instance? Answer 99. I did believe it was, and do not recollect ever to have doubted it until I had the information, before named, in the committee room. Qiiestion 100. The committee have received a copy of a letter purport- ing to be signed by you and addressed to James Reeside, present, dated 9th October, 1829, in v/hich you say, << from a strict examination of the docu- 273 [ 86 3 ments and testimony of the extra expense incurred by you on route No. 231, Philadelphia to New York, in so expediting the mail as to carry it both ways in 14 hours, including the expense of crossing; the Hudson in the night, it appears that the sum of 0000 dollars a year will nearly cover it.^'' Will you produce to the committee the documents and testimony above referred to? ^ Answer 100. I have had a search made, and haVe not been able to find them. [Doc. No. 97.] New York, November 7, 1834. COL. JOSEPH DODD. Question I. How long have you been employed in the post office in thia city, and in what capacity? Answer 1. Since 1817 I have carried the mail between the office here and Jersey City. Question 2. What mails have been carried during the years 1832 and 1S33, and what have been the hoursof arrival and departure of each between New York and Philadelphia? Answer 2. 1st. The great southern mail arrives at 6 o'clock A. M., and departs at 4 o'clock p. m., daily. This has been the case since April last. Previous to that date it departed at 3 o'clock v. m., and arrived at 6 A. M. I. am a contractor for carryitig this mail to and from Jersey City. In 1817 I made a contract with the department to carry it for 500 dollars. This con- tinued until Reeside became a contractor to carry the mail from Philadel- phia to New York, when he allowed me for the same service the sum of 600 dollars. In 1832 I again became a contractor with the department at the rate of 800 dollars, which I still receive from ih.e department. 2d. The Phdadelphia morning mail, which leaves at 6 o'clock A. M. , and is carried in the boat fo Philadelphia. It has been carried in steamboats ever since Mr. Iu'eeside was a contractor, except when the boats do not run in the winter season; then it is carried by a line of stages from Jersey City. He then runs three lines of stages, one at 6 in the morning, one at 10 a. m., and one at 4 o'clock p. M. This mail is carried in the morning line, and the great southern mail in the 4 o'clock line. There has been no change in the hours of departure in this mail for two or three years past; for the hours of arrival it depends upon the boats, and upon the line of stages when the boats do not run. With this mail I have nothing to do as a contractor. Mr. Reeside pays a carman, Mr. Amos, for carrying it over to Jersey City, or to the boat. It is always carried in the ordinary lines of boats aad stages. Mr. Reeside does not run any line of stages through while the boats are run- ning. I suppose the average time of the boats' lying by, each year, between New York and Philadelphia, is about throe months. 3d. At 10 o'clock A. ar., eacb day, a newspaper mail is sent by the boats when tiiey are running, and by the stages when they are not. It contains no letters, but carries newspapers, pamphlets, &c. For its arrival and dej)ar- ture it depends upon the lines of steamboats and stages in the same way as the morning mail does. It is usually very heavy. 4th. About a month since a mail from New York, thro'.igh Newark, New Brunswick, Princeton, and Trenton, and to Bristol and Philadelphia, was 35 86 ] 274 started, which is carried by Mr, Reeside, It leaves New York at about half past three, but I do not know at what hour it arrives at Philadelphia. There is also a daily return mail from Philadelphia to New York, which reaches New York about six. I believe it is carried in two horse carriages, but am not sure. Previous to this establishment of this mail there was a regular connected line of carriages for a mail on this route, which run backward and forward daily, carried by Mr. Reeside. Question 3. What is the difference between the route and mail as they existed previous to the late arrangement made by Mr. Reeside, and as they now exist? Answer 3. The Trenton mail has been taken from that route, and is now sent to Bordentown, and thence to Trenton. No other difference that I know of. Question 4, Do you know the reason why the Trenton mail has been ta- ken from that daily route and is now sent by Bordentown? Answer 4. I believe it was at the request of the postmistress; I know of no other. Question 5. Does Mr. Reeside now carry the mail from Bordentown to Trenton? Answer 5. I understand it so. There has been a regular daily line run- ning both ways between the two cities, through Newark, Nevv Brunswick, Princeton, Trenton, and Bristol, to Philadelphia by land, for the last two or three years, at all times carried by Mr. Reeside. I know of no other regular mail line between the two cities, except those which have been mentioned. Winter before last there was an express mail run by Mr. Reeside between the two cities, commencing about the first of Januaiy, and continuing until about the middle of March. In the first place he undertook it in a little wsgoQ with two horses; he found he could not get along with that, and then run it with two pair of saddlebags on horses, a saddlebag on each horse, with, light riders. The hour of starling at New York was 10 o'clock a. m. The hour at Philadelphia I do not know. It arrived here from ten to one at night. At first, when the roads were good, they sometimes arrived at nine p. M. One end of the saddlebags was filled with letters mailed up, and the other with newspapers. The mailed letters were altogether from Washing- ton; sometimes when mails arrived at Washington in time, letters south of that were sent. The newspapers were for the editors in New York only. The weight of the bags was usually from thirty to forty pounds each, inclu- ding the weight of the bags. The bags were made of stout leather. I re- ceived these bags at Jersey City, and brought them over to the ofiice, and was paid for this service by the department; the amount I do not recollect. The other mails before mentioned were all running at the same time. This was in addition to them. There was another express, which was private, run at the same time by the Journal of Commerce. If I recollect right, Reeside's arrived first. Question 6. Have any of these mails, and if any, which, been guarded within the last two years, and in what way, and for how long a time? Answer 6. Mr. Reeside's has two guards, one going and one coming, and has constantly had them since the contract. The one leaves here to day, the other leaves Philadelphia — one each way, and go through from city to city with the great southern mail, which leaves Marketfield street at 4, by the boat. 275 [ 86 1 The southern mail goes to Amboy by water, thence it goes by the railroad to Philadelphia by a guard, I mean a person who watches the mail bags du- ring their transportation, and sees to their removal from one conveyance to another. The guard goes regularly, or at least I start him regularly. There was a time, five years ago, before this contract, the guards met at Kingston, and each returned again to where he started. It was changed by Reeside. The mail was guarded a part of the time by the former conwrac- tors. I do not know what Reeside pays the guards. They are armed. I am not aware of their being suspended at any time. None of the other mails are guarded. The mail which goes by land through Newark, &c., to Phila- delphia by night, is not guarded. JOSEPH DODD. [Doc. No. 98.] No. 951, pr. $800— S200. This contract, made the twentieth day of December, in the year one thou- sand eight hundred and thirty-one, between Joseph Dodd, of New -York, N. Y., contractor for carrying the mails of the United Stales, of one part, and the Postmaster General of the United States of the other part, wit- nesseth, that the said parties have mutually covenanted as follows, viz.: The said contractor covenants with the Postmaster General: 1. To carry the mail of the United States from Jersey City, New Jer- sey, across the Hudson river, and from the Hudson river to the post office in the city of New York, both ways daily, and at such times as the Post- master General shall require, and within the shortest time practicable, at the rate of,two hundred dollars for every quarter of a year, during the con- tinuance of this contract; to be paid in drafts on postmasters on the route above mentioned, or in money, at the option of the Postmaster General, in the months of May, August, November, and February, 2. That the mails shall be duly delivered at, and taken from each post office now established, or that may be established on any post route em- braced in this contract, under a penalty of ten dollars for each offencej and a like penalty shall be incurred for each ten minutes delay in the de- livery of the mail after the lime fixed for its delivery at any post office spe- cified in the schedule hereto annexed; and it is also agreed, that the Post- master General may alter the times of arrival and departure fixed by said schedule, and alter the route (he making an adequate compensation for any extra expense which may be occasioned thereby); and the Postmaster General reserves the right of annulling this contract, in case the contractor does not promptly adopt the alteration required. 3. If the delay of the arrival of said mail continue until the hour for the departure of any connecting mail, whereby the mails destined for such con- necting mails shall lose a trip, it shall be considered as a whole trip lost, and a forfeiture of dollars shall be incurred; and a failure to take the mail, or to make the proper exchange of mails at connecting points, shall be considered a whole trip lost; and for any delay or failure equal to a trip lost, the Postmaster General shall have full power to annul this contract. 4. That the said contractor shall be answerable for the persons to whom he shall commit the care and transportation of the mail, and accountable for any damages which may be sustained through their unfaithfulness or want jof care. [ 86 ] 276 5. That seven minutes after the delivery of the mail at any post office on the aforesaid route not named in the annexed schedule, shall be allowed the postmaster for opening the same, and making up another mail to be for- warded. 6. The contractor agrees to discharge any driver or carrier of said mail, whenever required to do so by the Postmaster General. 7. That when the said mail goes by stage, such stage shall be suitable for the comfortable accommodation of at least seven travellers; and the mail shall invariably be carried in a hecisre dry boot, under the driver's feet, or in the box which constitutes the driver's seat, under a penalty of fifty dol- lars for each omission; and when it is carried on horseback, or in a vehicle other than a stage, it shall be covered securely with an oilcloth, or bear- skin, against rain or snow, under a penalty of twenty dollars for each time the mail is wet, without such covering: and for permitting the mail to be injured a second time for carrying it contrary to the stipulations before re- cited, ihe Postmaster Genei-al shall have a right to annul this contract. The mail shall be put in a post office, if there be one where the carrier stops at night; if there be no office, it shall be kept in a secure place, and there be locked up at the contractor's risk. 8. The whole forfeiture and penalties to be incurred in the course of any one trip, shall not exceed the sum specified in the third article, which the contractor hereby binds himself to pay to the Postmaster General. 9. The said Postmaster General covenants with the said contractor to pay as aforesaid for the carriage of said mail as aforesaid, at the rate afore- mentioned, quarterly, in the months oi May, August, November, and Fe- bruary. 10. It is mutually understood by the contracting parties, that if the route, or any part of the route herein mentioned, shall be discontinued by act of Congress, or in the opinion of the Postmaster General becomes useless, or if a line of stages or steamboats shall be esiablished on the whole or any part of it, where the mail is not so carried, under this contract, then this con- tract, or such p&rt of it, shall cease to be binding on the Postmaster General, he giving notice of such event, and making allowance of one month's extra pay. 11. This contract shall not be assigned bv the contractor without the con- sent of the Postmaster General; and an assignment of the pay shall in no case release the contractor or his sureties from their responsibilities. Should the contractor or his agents be engaged in the transmission of information by express on the routes herein designated more rapidly than the mail, without the consent of the department, the contract shall be forfeited. Provided always, That tliis contract shall be null and void, in case the contractor, or any person that may become interested in this contract, directly or indirectly, shall become a postmaster or an assistant postmaster. No member of Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this con- tract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon; and this contract shall, in all its parts, be subject to the terms and requisitions of an act of Congress, passed on the tvvenly-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, entitled "An act concerning public contracts." And it is mutually covenanted and agreed by the scid parties, that this contract shall commence on first day ol January next, and continue in force 277 [ 86 ] until the thirty-first day of December, inclusively, which will be in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five. In witness whereof, they have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals the dav and year first above written. [Signed] JOSEPH DODD. Signed, sealed, and delivered, in the presence of [Signed] C. Goodwin. Post Office Department, Northern Division. Office of Mail Contracts, December 17, 1834. I certify that the foregoing is a true copy from the original on file ia this office. THOS. B. ADDISON, Clerk. B. [Doc. No. 99.] Statement of the times of arrivals and departures on route No. 951, a/ New York and Philadelphia respectively, at different periods, since the commencement of the present contract^ on the 1st January y 1832. In the winter of 1832, The Great Mail line Left Philadelphia at 1 p. m., then - - - - 2 p'^ m. Arrived at New York by 5 a. m., then - - - 6 a. m. Left New York at -0^^- - - - - - 2 p. m, . Arrived at Philadelphia by - - - - - 6 a. m. The above connected with a line that left Washington at 6 a. m. of the day previous to its arrival in Philadelphia. The 2d or City line , Left Philadelphia at - - - - - - 6 a. m. Arrived at New York by - - - - - 6 p. m. Left New York at - - - - - - 6 a. m. Arrived at Philadelphia by - - - - - 6 p. m. The Express line during the session of Congress, and suspension of steam- boat navigation. Left Philadelphia at 9 A. M., then - - - -10 a.m. Arrived at New York by 9 p. m., then - . - 10 p. m. Left New York at 7 a. m., then - - - -8 a.m. Arrived at Philadelphia by 7 p. M.,nhen - - - 8 p. m. This connected with an express line from Washington to Philadelphia, established for the purpose of getting Congressional intelligence into New York in time for the New York morning papers. It left W^ashington after the receipt into the post office of the Washington morning papers, say 2 A. M. of the day previous to its arrival at Philadelphia, and went by way of Lancaster. [ 86 ] 278 In the summer of 1833,' The Great Mail line Left Philadelphia not later than - - - - 6 p. m- Arrived at New York by - - - - -7a. m. Left New York at - - - - - - 4 p. m. Arrived at Philadelphia by - - - - - 5 a. m. This connected with a line that left Washington at 11 or 12 p. m. the day previous to its arrival at Philadelphia. The 2d or City line Left Philadelphia at - - - - - - 6 a. m. Arrived at New York by - - - - - 6 p. m. Left New York at - - - - - - 6 a. m. Arrived at Philadelphia by - - - - - 6 p. m. In the winter of 1S33, The running of the different lines appears to have been the same as in the winter of 1S32. Early in the spring, and late in the fall of the year, it would be the case that steamboats would be running on the Chesapeake and Delaware, when the state of the roads rendered it necessary to run this route through New Jersey, according to the winter arrangement autho- rized by the department, after the drawing up of the contracts, which allowed three hours more than the summer one. And at such times the arrivals of the mail, by boat, at Philadelphia would in many instances be very late, owing to lale hours of departure from Baltimore, and obstructions in the navigation by ice and fogs. In such cases the arrivals in New York would be delayed to 8 and 10 a. m., and sometimes beyond that hour. The foregoing facts are not stated from my personal knowledge, for I had not, until in March. 1833, any ofiicial charge of this division of duty. They are derived from different sources, chiefly from the officer who then superintended the mail transportation. In the summer of 1S33, Soon after the rising of Congress, in March, 1833, the department took measures for expediting the mail between Washington and New York, and between that metropolis and the eastern cities, with the view of sending it over this great thoroughfare of travel and communication with the ut- most practicable celerity, especially during the winter and spring seasons. There was the strongest necessity for doing so. A private express had been kept up for a portion of the preceding session over an important ex- teot of this line, to counteract the mischiefs of which had obliged the de- partment to incur a very large expense. And it was regarded as the most imperative duty of the department to prevent the establishment of these private expresses in future, and in the first jilacc to make such arrangement of the mail as would remove all just ground for resorting to them. Experi- enced agents were sent along the line to ascertain the best mode in which the desired expedition could be effected. It was found to be absolutely ne- cessary to run the mail from Philadelphia to New York in twelve hours, in bad roads as well as good, and it appeared, by an order on file, and an en- dorsement on the contract, that the contractor was at such times entitled to sixteen. Unless this speed was performed, the connexion could not be maintained during an important portion of the year between the southern mail coming into Philadelphia, and the steam boats leaving New York for Albauy and New Haven at 7 a. m., in which it was designed to send the 279 [ 8S ] great mail. The contractor, Mr. Reeside, unwillingly undertook to give the increased speed. The difficulties in the way of doing so had multiplied. The weight of the daily mail on this line, as proved by the certificate of the postmaster of New York, had augmented to 3,318 pounds. The road had been rendered longer and more difficult to travel by the circumstance of the Philadelphia and Trenton railway and the Nev.' York and New Brunswick railway being in process of construction on the bed of the stage road at diffijrent points, compelling him to run on a more circuitous track; and the shortening of time had the effect of making the route more entirely a night one. The accomplishment of this speed was deemed ut- terly impracticable by the contractor, unless he was relieved from stopping with the mail at the numerous intermediate offices on the route. And this being also the opinion of the department, it became necessary to provide an additional line for conveying the mail to the offices between Philadel- phia and Trenton, not accessible to steamboat supply, and to the offices be- tween Jersey City and New Brunswick. And it was required of the con- tractor, at times when the road east of New Brunswick should become so deep as to make it impracticable for a coach to be drawn with the requisite speed, to have provided a sufficient number of horses and riders to convey on horseback; the mails to be on such occasions put in long bags for that purpose. The contractor asked for this and two other items of necessary service, contracted for at the same time, S9, 123; but eventually accepted the price estimated by the department for the whole, to wit: S5,125. From which deduct the expense (S3, 150) of the express mail line, dispensed with by this arrangement, and the cost of the improvement, and the other service referred to, stands at iSl,975. By this, and one or two other changes on this line, the department effected a gain of fifteen hours between Washing- ton and New York in the despatch of the mail, on the winter arrangement, and gave to Boston and Albany, and the depending points, their Washing- ton and southern mail one day quicker than before. After this arrangement went into efl'ect, on the 1st of May, 1833, and until the middle of February, 1834, the running has been, in winter as well as summer, as follows: The Great Mail line Left Philadelphia after arrival of southern mail usually at - 6 p. m. Arrived at New York at from - - - - 4 to 6 a. m. Left New York usually at - - - - - 4 p. m. Arrived at Philadelphia from 3 to - - - - 5 a.m. This connected with a line that left Washington at from 10 to 12 o'clock of the night previous to its arrival at Philadelphia, in ivi /iter as well as sum- mer. In the winter there were instances of arrivals at Philadelphia from the south so late as to delay the arrivals at New York on 951, though run- ning in 12 hours, till after the departure of the New Haven boats. In such cases the mail was immediately despatched by the contractor, by land, to New Haven, and the connexions with the mail for Boston generally preserved. The 2d or City line run as before. The Way flails for Pennsylvania and Jersey towns Left Philadelphia at - - - - - - 6 a. m- Arrived at New York next day by 10 or - - - 11 a. m. Left New York at - - - - - -2 p.m. Arrived at Philadelphia next day by - - - - 6 p. m. [ 86 3 280 About the miJdIc of February, 1S34, the contractor engaged the Amboy and Camden RaUroad Conripany to convey for him the mails of the great ]tne, and also of the second or city line, running his stages from Jersey City, opposite New York, to Amboy, the termination of the railroad. Not long afterwards, the experiment of running a steamboat from New York to Amboy in the night succeeding, the mails were conveyed by steamboat and railroad through from city to city with still greater speed. This arrangement was a desideratum with the department, and could only be eflfected through Mr. Reeside, as he held the contract for the entire service until the 31st December, 1835. The Great Mail line At present leaves Philadelphia after arrival of southern mail in the afternoon- Arrives at New York from - - - - 3 to 6 a.' m. Leaves New York at - - - - - - 4 p. m. Arrives at Philadelphia from - - - - 3 to 5 a. m. The 2d, or City line Leaves Philadelphia at - - - - - - 6 a. m. Arrives at New York by - - - - - 2 p. m. Leaves New York at - - - - -6 a.m. Arrives at Philadelphia by - - - - - 2 p. m. The 3d, or Slow line, for bulky matter, Leaves Philadelphia at - - - - - - 10 a. m Arrives at New York next day by - - - - 10 a. m. Leaves New York at - - - - - - 10 a. m. Arrives at Philadelpliia next day by - - - - 10 a. m. The 4th, or Way line, for the Pennsylvania and Jersey towns, Leaves Philadelphia at - - - - - - 6 a. m. Arrives at New York next day by - - - - 5 a.m. Leaves New York at - - - - - - 3 p. m. Arrives at Philadelphia next day by - - ► 10 or 11 a. m. S. R. HOBBIE, 30M September, 1834. Assistant Postmaster General. [Doc. No. 100.] New York, November 7, 1834. Joseph Benedict, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories: Question 1. How long have you been a clerk in the post office of this city.^ Answer I. Seven years, and have charge of the distributing department. f^ Question 2. During the year 1832 and in 1833 what mails were received from Philadelphia at this office, and at what hours did they arrive? Answer 2. At some seasons of the year there are more than one. Our regular large southern mail arrives daily at 6 in the morning, and closes at the office at 2 P. M. The mail we receive by the steamboat from Phila- delphia arrives usually before 4 o'clock; now it comes about 2 o'clock. 1 581 [ 86 ] usually goes off at 6 in the morning; we close it at 5. What we send by this mail is for Philadelphia alone, although we often receive other mails by the steamboat than that from Philadelphia. I think this mail depends for departure and arrival on the steamboats entirely. This has been the regular arrangement for these two m.ails for some years past. There was a mail in the winters of 1S32 and 1S33 received some time in the night. 1 think it continued during the sessions of Congress, but I am not sure. It was received every night, and was called an extra or express mail. I am not able to recollect whether we made up and sent a mail to the south by this conveyance; nor do I recollect whether there was a fixed hour for it to arrive. I think it did not run at any other time than when Congress was in session. 1 am sure it did not run regularly throughout the year. We receive two regular' mails every day besides the express mail spoken of. There is mail matter, papers, pamphlets, &c., which has heretofore been received in the early part of the day by the boat, between 10 and 12 o'clock. Question 3. With the exception of the express mail before mentioned, have you any regular mail from Philadelphia besides the great southern mail which arrives about 6 in the morning, and the New York and Phila- delphia mail, which arrives about 4 o'clock in the afternoon? Answer 3. Not unless that is considered a regular mail which arrives from 10 o'clock A. M. to 12 in a boat. QueslioR 4. Are not the great southern mail, and the New York and Philadelphia mail, brought by the steamboat ami railroad line of convey- ance? Answer 4. I do not know in what manner Mr. Reeside gets them here. Question 5. When the steamboats are not running, do these two mails continue? Answer 5. The New York and Philadelphia morning mail is not sent when the steamboats do not run. Question 6. Has there been any alteration to your knowledge within the last two years, in the time of arrival and departure of these two mails? Answer 6. At 2 o'clock we have closed the southern mail constantly. The New York and Philadelphia morning mail formerly closed at S in the evening, and for about two years it has closed at 5 o'clock in the morning. Sundays, the great sriSSSIiern mail closes at half past one. The express mail spoken of was the mail which came in portmanteaus, and witness understood on horseback. They sometimes would weigh forty pounds. There were two of ihem came daily: probably 35 to 40 pounds would be an average weight of each. Question 7. Has there been any incrensod expedition in the conveyance of the mails between Philadelphia and New York, for the last two years, except the express horse maii? Answer 7. We have received the mails, I think, at the same time through- out the two years. The express horse mail was usually received about II o'clock at night; sometimes it did not come till 4 o'clock in the inorning. Question 8. Do you know any thing of a distinct separate mail from (lie city of New York to New Brunswick, in Jersey? Answers. There is a mail wiiich is made up four times a week; twice by way of Trenton, and twice a week by Brunswick, including the counties of Monmouth, Hunterdon, and part of Middlesex. T.he mails for Trenton and 36 [86] 2Sa Brunswick arc not sent in this route. I do not know whether this mail ii carried by a separate conveyance or not. I do not know who is the con- tractor. It closes at the same hour with the great southern mail, and is sent out of the letter office at the same time with the other, and is called in our office the Millstone mail. There is another mail which closes at the same hour, and is called the southern way mail, and includes the ollices be- tween this and Philadelphia, upon the main coach route through Newark, New Brunswick, Trenton, and Bristol. How it is carried I do not know. There is nothing in it for Philadelphia, or beyond Philadelphia. Question 9. Where are these several mails delivered to the contractors who carry them? Answer 9. If Col. Joseph Dod is the contractor for carrying; the great southern mail and the way mails from the office, as I think he is, they are delivered to him at the office, and he conveys them, as I suppose, to the boats and to Jersey City. JOSEPH BENEDICT. [Doc. No. 101.] Copy of interrogatories addressed by the Committee to the Postmasters at Holmesburg, &c., 15th December, 1834; Interrogatory 1. How have the mails between Philadelphia and New Yorlc been brought to and carried away from your office since 1st January, 1832? State in what mode of conveyance; in four horse post coaches, two horse coaches, or in what manner? How are they now carried? What changes have been made from that time to the present? At what times were those changes made, and for what length of time did each change continue? Interrogatory 2. At what hours have they arrived, at different periods, from each direction? Interrogatory 3. Have there been any deficiencies or failures in the run- ning or delivery of those mails? If so, state what they were. Interrogatory 4. By whom have the mails been carried and delivered at your office? Interrogatory 5. Do you know any thing respecting the contracts for carrying those mails? If so, state what they were, and what they are now. Interrogatory 6. At what limes have these mails, or any part of them, been carried by or through your office? State of New Jeksey, county of Essex, ss. Be it remembered, that on this nineteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty-four, personally appeared before me, Daniel S. Moore, one of the justices of the peace in and for said county of Essex, Prudden Ailing, esq. postmaster at Newark, New Jersey, who, hav- ing produced before me six several interrogatories, directed to him by Mat- thew St. Clair Clarke, secretary, &e., dated "15th December, 1S34, Wash- ington^" and being by me first duly sworn, according to law, to the first of said interrogatories answereth and saith: That he came into the post office at Nev/ark, New Jersey, on the first day of April, 1833; that then, and for some time afterwards, the mails between Philadelphia and New York were brought to and carried away from his 283 [ 86 J office in post coaches with four horses; that afterwards ne way mail to and from Philadelphia was carried in a wagon with one horse; then afterwards, and now, in a carriage with two horses; that said mail was carried to and from New York in a coach, with four horses, and lately by the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation company; that he cannot tell at what time or times those changes were made, as this deponent is not required nor does he keep any record thereof To the second of said interrogatories he answereth and saith: That at the said time he came into office the mail from the south arrived at his office at about four o'clock in the morning, and from New York at about five o'clock in the afternoon, until the said change first above named; since then and now the way mail is received from the south at about four and a half o'clock in the afternoon, and from New York at about five o'clock in the afternoon. To the third interrogatory he answereth and saith: That there were formerly some unimportant delays, but none lately. To the fourth interrogatory he ansvvereth and saith: That he was informed and believes that Mr. Reeside carried and delivered said mails at his office, when they were carried, in post coaches with four horses, as aforesaid; that afterwards the way mail was carried to and from the south to his office by Mr. Coddington; that the said mail to and from New York was carried by Mr. Vreeland, to meet Mr. Coddington's con- tract; and that now it is carried to and from New York, to meet said con- tract, by the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation company. To the fifth interrogatory he answereth and saith: No. To the sixth interrogatory he answereth and saith: That once the Railroad car left the mail from New York at Jersey City, on the same evening it was delivered at his office by the Orange mail stage, in about one hour after its usual time; that he had the same immediately forwarded to New Brunswick. And further this deponent saith not. P. ALLING. Taken, sworn, and subscribed before me, the day and year aforesaid. DANIEL S. MOORE, Justice of the Peace. Princeton, December 23, 1834. Dear Sir: In reply to certain interrogatories propounded by M. St. Clair Clarke, Secretary of the Committee of the Senate of the United States, investigating the concerns of the General Post Office, John A. Ferrine, post master at Princeton, N. J., would say: Answer 1. In answer to the first interrogatory the postmaster saith, that he has only been in office since the 1st day of October last past, and can con- sequently say nothing of his own knowledge as to the manner in which the mails between Philadelphia and New York were conveyed prior to that time. They are now and have been since the first of October conveyed from Trenton to New Brunswick in two horse coaches, and no changes have been made from that time to the present; how they were carried from Philadelphia to Trenton, and from Now Brunswick to New York he is un- able to say. [ 86 ] 284 Answer 2. The mails arrive from New York generally between the hours of eight and nine, and from Philadelphia between the hours of nine and ten o'clock A. M. Answer 3. There have been no deficiencies or failures in the running or delivery of the mails. Answer 4. The mails have been carried and delivered at this office by the coaches and drivers of Phineas Wiihington, and since his decease by the coaches and drivers belonging to his estate. Answer 5. He knows nothing respecting the contracts for carrying the mails, either as to what they were or what they are now. Answer 6. The postmaster is doubtful whether he understands the question as to whjft time these mails or any part of them pass by or through his office: as he apprehends it, he would reply, that the mails pass through his office each day, from both directions, (except on Sundays). JOHN A. PERRINE. December 24, 1834. Before me, Charles M. Campbell, justice of the peace for Middlesex county, personally appeared on this twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, John A. Perrine, postmaster of Princeton, N. J., who, being duly sworn according to law, saith that the answers above stated, and to which he has subscribed his name, are true in substance and in fact, to the best of his knowledge and belief. JOHN A. PERRINE. Sworn and subscribed before me this 24th dav of December, 1834. C. M. CAMPBELL, J. P. HoLMESBURG, Pa. , December 19, 1534. Sih: I received last evening « letter from Mw. St. Clair Clarke, esq., re- questing from me answers to six intenoi;atories. "First. How have the mails between Philadelphia and your office been delivered since Januarv, 1832?'' The mails are now delivered to this office and taken from it in the same way that they have been for the last six or seven years, in four horse coach- es. Leave this office from S to half past S A. M. ; returning, leave Philadel- phia at 4 P. M. al)out six m.cnths in the year, and arrive here about G P. M. The remainder of the year, leave here from 8 to half past S; returning, leave Philadelphia at half pisst 3 P. M. ; arrive here about h:)lf past 5 P. M. No changes have been made durin^i; the above period, with the only exception of this year, wiien the mails from Philadcl])hia were delivered from the be- ginning of May to the last of Septsmber twict; a day: in the morning deli- vered at 10 A. M , and closed here at half past 3 P. M., for which the con- tractor has informed me he never received anj- additional compensation. The second interrogatory is very much embraced in the above. To the third interrogatory: Very little variation as to the arrival and de- parture of the maiis from this office. The fourth interrogatory: " Bj' vi'hom have the mails been carric [ 86 ] £92 dence to redeem it. No labor or expense to be spared in doing so. Please answer. Begin immediately. The department will not let you lose by it. 1 I am, respectfully, ' '• Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN, Superintendent of Contracts. James Reeside, Esq., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [ Doc. No. 107. ] (No- 2.) Philadelphia, January 25, 1833. Dear Sir: Your favor dated the 22d instant has just came to hand? which I have examined with much care, but must confess myself at a loss I to come at the exaet meaning it is intended to convey. That there is at present and has been for some time back an express car- ried on horseback between this city and New York is a fact which is well known, and which is publicly acknowledged by the newspapers in New York. That it is impossible to carry the ivhole of the great eastern mail through in coaches or otherwise with the same speed that a small package can be carried through on horseback is a fact that requires no comment. Not having pointed out this matter clearly in your letter whether it was the wish of the department that a certain portion of mails should be sent by express to New York, or that the whole of the great eastern mail should be expedited so as to reach New York at an earlier hour than it now does. Should it be the latter, I would at once assure the departmemt of the im- possibility of having it carried through in as short a time as it is now carried by express on horseback. In either case, the department may rest assured'of my willingness and de- termination to use every exertion in order te-meet the views and wishes of the department. Should you desire it to be sent by express, I have no hesitation in saying that I can have it sent through in a shorter time than it can be done by any other individual in the country. This will be handed to you by Mr. Swing, whom I have sent on with di- rections to ascertain from you personally your views of this matter, and who will give you all the information respecting the express that has been sent from this to New York alluded to in your letter. With respect, Your obedient servant, JAS. REESIDE. Rer; O. B. Bi:own, Post Office Department, Washington City. N. B. I will say to a certainty I will go from this city to New York in; 6 hours, or faster than any other one can do it» J. REESIDE. [Doc. No. 108. ] C No. di ) Post Office Department, Offi,ce of Mail Contracts, January 28, 1833, Sib: Mr. Ewioe has presented your letter of the 25th. The Postmaster S93 t ^6 ] all the ©xchnnge papers from the south for editors in the city of New York, and all the letters for the New York city delivery, shall be immediately despatched by a horse express for New York, and that in the shortest pos- sible time, say in six hours from office to office; so as to leave Philadelphia say at one, and deliver at New York by seven; or leave Philadelphia at an earlier hour, if the mail shall arrive from the south in time to do so, and deliver it as much earlier. Return from New York under the same speed, leaving immediately after the arrival of the Boston mail, with all exchange newspapers from the east and north for the Philadelphia editors, and all letters for the Philadelphia delivery, and arrive at the post office in Phila- delphia in six hours, or in the shortest time practicable. This arrangement is to be continued daily, till the steamboat mails shall become regular as during the summer establishment. If one horse is not sufficient to carry it, you will send two or more, no it may be done, and the weight properly divided. Directions will be given to the postmasters in both cities to have their offices open for the delivery of letters after the arrival of those mails, and for the delivery to' editors of their exchange newspapers. Let this express be noted in the papers. 1 am, respectfully. Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN, Superintendent of Mail Contracts. James Reeside, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa. [ Doc. No. 109. ] ( No. 4. ) Post Office Department, Office of Mail Cotitracts, January 28, 1833. Sir: The Postmaster General has established an express mail to be car- ried on horseback between Philadelphia and New York, to leave Philadel- phia as soon as you can despatch it after the arrival of the southern mail, to take all exchange newspapers from the south for editors in the city of New York, and all letters (both from the south and those originally mailed at your office) for the New York city delivery only. In the same manner it will return from New York after the arrival of the Boston mail at that city, with letters and exchange papers for the Philadelphia delivery. The Postmaster General directs that you det:patch this mail with all pos- sible expedition after the arrival of the southern mail, and you always have your office open at night for the receiving of the express, and keep it open for the immediate delivery of the exchange papers and the letters that may be received by it. Please give notice to editors that they may receive their exchange papers from the north after the arrival of this mail at night, whatever may be the hour of its arrival. I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN, Sif.perintendent of Mail Contracts. Postmaster, Philadelphia, Pa. (Similar instructions to the postmaster of New York.) [ 86 3 ^^4 [Doc. No. 110. ] ( No. 5. ) Post Office Department, Office of Mail Contracts, February 9, 1834. Sir: It is understood that the editors of the Journal of Commerce have established rai express between Philadelphia and Washington, to connect with the Government express between Philadelphia and New York; for which purpose they have removed their horses from the road between the two last mentioned cities, and placed them between Philadelphia and Washington. To counteract this plan as far as practicable, you are requested not to send by the express running between Philadelphia and New York, any thing which has not been received at your office from the south by the regular mail, or which was not originally mailed at your office for the New York delivery. The object is to prevent the express of the department from being m any way auxiliary to the express established by the editors. I am, respectfully, Your obedient servant, 0. B. BROWN, Superintendent of Mail Contracts, Postmaster, Philadelphia, Pa. [Doc. No. 111.] (No. 6.) Post Office, New York, January 28, 1835. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant. The Journal of Commerce first established a daily express, between Phila- delphia and this city, after which, as T understand by general arrangement amono- some, if not all of the morning papers, a second express was esta- blished for the same objects. I had made some inqijiries on the subject before the receipt of your letter, intending: to communicate the facts to the departmi nt. I have the best reason to believe that all kinds of mailable matter are brought daily by these expresses. An arrangement is made by an understanding with their agents and others, that all mailable matters for them, including letters and packets, be addressed from the south to the office at Philadelphia", whence they are conveyed to this city by express. I pre- sume it is done under the claim to employ special messengers. The use of the means of the department to a certain point, with a view of defeat, on another branch of the route, the very object for which the mails are esta- blished and maintained, appeared to be the subject of peculiar abuse. Any further information within rriy reach will be promptly communi- cated, and such views as you may deem proper to direct enforced with energy at this office. With great respect. Your obedient servant, SAMUEL L. GOUVERNEUR. The Postmaster General of the United States. ^95 [ 86 3 [Doc. No. 112. ] (No. 7.) Post Office, New Yore, February 1, 1833. Sir: The express mall from Philadelphia arrived here Jast evening at 9.30 o'clock, bringing letters and a few slips for the editors, but no news- papers. Why the latter were not brought we are not accurately informed. The same mail was despatched from the office this morning 12.30, being 20 minutes after the arrival of the eastern mail. We sent a large portman- teau, containing all the letters as included in your instructions, and some papers from the east, as well as others from this city. If it be intended that the newspapers from the east, all of ihem for editors, should be forwarded in this mode, 1 fear it will not be possible to do so by a horse express, and that a portion of them must be detained here until other means of convey- ance are provided. If arrangements could be made at the east to bring the papers for editors in a separate bag, it would greatly facilitate this process. To detain the express here until ail the newspapers are assorted, selecting those and all of them for edi^rs from the mass, would operate seriously in point of time to defeat the intentions of the department. In the com- mencement of this system, due allowance will no doubt be made for some irregularities and defects; but with a single eye to give all effect in my power to the views in which it originated, every effort will be made at this office to contribute to that result. With great respect, Your obedient servant, SAMUEL L. GOUVERNEUR. 0. B. Brown, Esq., SupeTintendent General Post Office, Washington. [Doc. No. 113.] (No. S.) Trenton, February 25, 1833. Dear Sir: You will perceive by the enclosed that I have attended to your directions as far as practicable. It is their own exposition of the mat- ter, and such as they gave me. I neglected to mention to you in my letter of yesterday, that the cauise of the private express beating that of the Government, alluded to in Mr. Mumford's letter, was owing to but one cause. Their express came through from Washington. The Government express from Philadelphia, after the arrival of the steam- boat, giving the newspaper express the start of six hours in advance of that of the Government. The lateness of the succeeding arrivals originated from the cause mentioned in the enclosed letter. No mail having arrived from the south, they supposed, from the lateness of the arrival of the express the following night, that there would not be any more. This was caused by the late arrival of the steamboat, and no preparation was made on the road for taking it on. This is their excuse; whether it will pass current is for you to determine. I have just received a letter from Mr. Withington on the subject; he attaches the blame to Thompson's bad horse, &c. [ 86 1 2d6 I think we shall be able to get the mail [through in time to connect with the boat, should the roads not get worse than they now are. The mail arrived in Philadelphia this morning at (i o'clock. I have good reason for believing that it will continue, unless a change should take place in the roads. The mail has left Jersey City the last few days at a few minutes past 3 o'clock P. M,, and will continue to leave at that hour, unless you direct otherwise; that is, 3 o'clock. The teams intended for the national road are here to night, and start to- morrow for the west; they are twelve in number, Jersey stock. Yours respectfully, D. EWING. Colonel James Reeside. P. S. No opposition express for the last four days. Your express horses are in good order, with but two exceptions. [Doc. No. 114.] (No. 9.) Trenton, February 25, 1833. Sir: Mr. Ewlng came here this evening, and complains that there has been three failures of the express arriving at New York in time, and wishes us to state the reasons. As near as we can recollect, there was no mail from the south the day previous to the first day the mail came in the boat. Our riders remained up on the lookout nearly all that night; the next night the mail came from the boat, and arrived late in Trenton. Our riders were ready, and went off immediately after its arrival; but the men upon the road, supposing there would be no mail, (as it missed the night previous,) after waiting until a late hour went to bed, which caused much delay at the places of changing, which was the reason of the first failure: the second and third we cannot account for in an}'' other way than the fact of the nights being ex- tremely dark, and the roads being extremely bad, almost to the horses, knees, together with the late arrivals at Trenton; the time we do not recol- lect. As to those particular evenings of the failures^ there was no bills to mark the time on, and it is difficult for us to say where the fault lies. You know about our Jersey roads, after the breaking up of the frost; they are, I need not tell you how bad. The express arrived here this evening at five minutes past eight o'clock. We think there will be no failure hereafter. During the two or three days that the opposition, express run, we done all that could possibly be done. One day they were nearly an hour ahead of us at Trenton, and we run in with them at Jersey City, as I was informed. One day they were so far ahead that there was no chance, having gone through to Kingston and returned to Trenton with the same horse, and all that before our express arrived from Philadelphia. Respectfully, (For Hutchinson and Weart,) D. HUTCHINSON Col. James Reeside. 297 [ 86 ] Sir: Mr. Hutchinson has given you the particulars concerning the delays of the ex])ress, all except that he has not |)ut the roads as had nor the nights as dark as they really was, and there was one night the mail laid at the Hook two or three hours before they could find any one to take it over: it was so late at night, and the hoys did not know where to find Col. Dodd, was the reason I believe. Yours, &c., W. H. STEBBS, For Stehbs S,- HlUy'd, [Doc. No. 115.] (No. 10.) New York, February 7, 1833. Sir: You will perceive from the enclosed notice that the Journal of Com- merce of this city has made an arrangement to run an express from Wash- ington city to Philadelphia, for the purpose of availing tnemselves of the Government express between Philadelphia and this city, and thereby anti- cipate the mail and the Government express one day. We call your atten- tion to tlie subject, in the iiope that the department over which you pre- side Will immediately nip the plan in the bud, b_y putting on a similar ex- press, which we presume need not last more than a week or two, and which would effectually put a stop to such proceedings. Confiiding in the belief that you will consider the measure expedient, we shall refrain from doing any thing until we receive your reply to this communication. Waiting with patience till return of mail. We are, very respectfully, Your obedient servants, JOFIN LANG & CO., New York Gazelle. D WIGHT, TOWNSEND & CO., N. Y. Daily Advertiser. JAS. WATSON WEBB, Courier and Enquirer. AMOS BCTLER, Mercantile Advertiser. REDWOOD FISHER, Advocate and Journal. JOHN I. MUNFORD, New York Standard. Hon. W. T. Barry, Postmaster General. fc* [Doc. No. 116.] (No. 11.) Daily express, one day in advance of the Government express, and tioo days in advance of the mail. The editors of the Journal of Commerce have made arrangements to re- ceive the Washington papers during the remainder of the session of Con- gress, on the same day that they arc printed., being one day in advance of the Government express, and two days in advance of the mail. If the former arrangement was acceptable to the public, it is fair to presume that this will be still more so. There is no excuse for the dilatory course o{ the mail, at a time when the whole community is on the alert for the news which it brings; nor in fact is the Government express at all up to the mark 38 298 when such important interests are peniling. As the Government have deigned to become imitators of our former enterprise, we shall be curious to learn whether they will imitare us also in the jjresent. At any rate our readers may rest assured that, barring accident.'^, the jjro-ceeding-? of Congress, in one way or other, shall be inserted in the Journal of Commerce during the remainder of the session the next morning afier they are published in Washington. We shall still thus be able to publish these important proceedings one day in advance of any of our morning cotemporaries, and )o send them off by the eastern and northern mails, one day sooner than they can be obtained through any other paj)er, whether published in Washington or New York. Our arrangements are nearly or quite completed, and we expect to re- ceive this evening the Washington papers of this morning. At all events, the operation will not be delayed beyond a day or two, at farthest. The distance from Washington to this city is 227 miles. Editors who approve of rubbing off the dust and cobwebs of olden time, and giving to the trans- mission of intelligence a little of the same energj' which is introduced into various other departments of business, will be good enough to notice this ar- rangement in their columns. HALE & HALLOCK. iN'EW York, J'H. 7, 1833. [Doc. No. 117.] . [No. 12.] Post Office Department, To James Rceside, Dr. For running the express between Philadelphia and New York, it being ninety miles each way, by special orders from the Postmaster General, from January 30th till 8th March, 1833, it being thirty-eight tripf^; that is to say, that two horses run each way every day till March 8th, 1833, making one hundred and fifty-two trips, at ninety miles each trip, at ^1 00 per mile for each horse .--.-- $13,680 00 Which, I believe, has been the customary price for merchants and business people for the last twenty-five years, to carr}' a letter or weight not to exceed two pounds, which it took se- venty-two horses to cover the road. And an account of the vveight from ten 1o one hundred pounds, and if you recollect the roads were very bad at that ' time, and the weather was very changeable; for a day or two it would be frozen to about half bear the horses, and perhaps the next day it would he frozen so hard and so rough that it jammed the horses' limbs all to pieces; and perhaps in two or three days it would thaw, and the mud would be ankle deep; and I found the horses were all breaking down, for it was impossible to keep up the time and carry the weight, and I was obliged to put on twenty-eight horses more, which, making one hundred horses in the whole, for which I have charged you - - - 2,500 00 $16, ISO 00 The loss on extra horses, and expenses, and keeping ihem till disposed of, and commission for selling, and my agents attending 299 C S6 ] to the same, that is to say? to place on horses where one would fail, so as not lo have any delay, so as to keep the express up. City or PniLADKLrniA. On the 12th day of December, 1833, before me, the subscriber, one of the aldermen of the city of Philadelphi'i, personally came William King, Thomas Cornwell, and Stephen Heartwell, who, on their solemn oath, do depose and say, that they have for several years, and are at this time engaged in running expresses, and business connected therewith; that they have examined the within account, and from their knowledge of the ser- vices perforined as therein slated, they consider the charges therei;^ as en- tirely fair and reasonable, and no more than a just remuneration for said services, and the necessary expenses connected tlierev>-ith. VVM. KING, THOS. <'ORN,WELL, STEPHEN HEARTVVELL. Sworn and subscribed bcloic uic, this 12th d.av of December, 18:53. "WM. MILNOR, ^Id. (No. 13.) [Doc. No. 118.] Philadelphia, December 12, 1833. This is to certify, tliat I have had charge of Mr. James Reeside's «'or.k of horses from January 1st, 1833, to the present time; and respecting the ex- tra stock which was put on the road between Philadelphia and New York, on the express, say from January 30th lo 8th Marcli, 1833, on account of weight which we had to carry; and hf^ was compelled to put on extra horses to keep it up in time that was required; he wished me to dispose of the stock to the best advantage to do justice to the department and himself, without loss or gain to either party. And according to the best of my judg- ment, with the expenses that was reasonably to be expectetl, ami the keep of horses and t!ie loss of stock, the charge which JMr. Reeside has made of Ivventy-five hundred dollars, is as right as n)y judgment will serve me, to dojusli(>cto both parties. Sworn and subscribed before me. STEPHEN HE ARTWELL. WILLIAM MILNOK, Jlld. [Doc. xNo. II 9. J (No. M.) PiiiladkIt-phia, December^ 1S33, This is to certify, that 1 wdl run the express from Philadelphia to Jersey city, so callcfl at the Hudson river, and carry weight not lo exceed twenty pounds to each horse, at one hundred dollars for each way, and the time not to exceed six hours, unless some unforeseen accident should take place. N. B. And in case this contract should be ma le, it i.s to :;ay it shall last for twenty days, and as much longer as the department pleases, at the rates as above described, and by giving five days' notice it will commence. I 8S ] 300 [Doc. No. 120. J [No. 15.] January 1, 1S34. Sir: 1 have long known Mr. Stephen Heartwell, now of Philadelphia. He is an intelligent, active man, quite competent to .'•uich employment as I understand 3011 are desirous of obtaining for him. I should be glad if you .should be able In bring about what he wishes in thi-s respect. With regard, Your obedient servant, DANL. WEBSTER. J AS. REKsiDi;, Esq. [Doc. No. 121.] DAVID HALE. December 22, 1834. David Hale, of New York, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories, to wit: Question I. Did you at any time run an express from Philadelphia or Port Deposite to New York; if so, state when, and how long. Answer ). Yes; ourexpress began to run between Philadelphia and New' York about 14th January, 1S33, and continued until 1st February following, during which time it ran through about fifteen trips. At this time the Government express was put on from Philadelphia to New York, and we withdrew ours, and placed it on the road from Washington to Phila- delphia We began to run here, Washington, about the 4th of February, and run four trips on this route. We ceased to run between Philadelphia and I;^evv H. ork, because the Government express was put on the same road, and carried the same matter which we had been carrying. After we ran the four trips from Washington to Philadelphia, anticipating the mail one day, and desired to send on our packages thus brought from Washington, the Govern- ernment express at Philadelptiia refused to receive and carry them on to N. York, and we were again compelled to resume our express from Philadelphia to New York, covering the whole distance from Washington. We conti- nued our express on the whole line from about the 12th February to Tues- day, the 5th March, on which 'day it brought us the inaugural address of the President, and all the important news of the final action of Congress on the land bill, ixc. The other express mail bringing the inaugural address and the proceedings of Congress on Saturday the 2d, did not arrive until more than twenty-four hours afterwards. We ran through from Washington to New York ten times: though our expref^ses, during the lime we had ihemon, lost one whole week, in consequence of incorrect information given to our corres- pondent at Washington. The expense, however, continued. Question 2. What was carried in your express? Answer 2. When we began to run from Philadelphia our correspondent addressed our packages and Washington newspapers, and the southern papers, to that place; the regular mail arrived from the south, at that place, about ten o'clock A. M., and did not leave till three or four P. M. We took out all packages, &.c, for us, and started so as to arrive m the night in time 301 [ ^6 ] to have the Congressional anci southern news inserted in our morning papers. The regular mail did not arrive nnlil after our morning j)apers were dis- tributed, so that we were one whole day ahead of the other morning papers; this was our first arrangement. After the Government express was put no and our horses were transferred to the road from Washington to Philadelphia, we still anticipated one day, because we started at four P. M., and carried the Congressional proceedings of the day into Philadelphia, so as to over- take the mail which had left Washington at two A. M. of the same day; but the Government express refusing to cany our packages from Philadel- phia, coinpelled us to run through the whole distance. Our express did not run both ways; but, of course, our expresses had tore- turn to their respective stations. Running both ways would have cost some- thing more, but nothing like double. No persons were concerned with me and my partner in running this ex- press. One of the editors in Philadelphia contributed a small sum for ac- commodating him while we ran through from Washington. We slopped because Congress had adjourned; and, of course, the interest to hear early news subsided. Question 3. Who carried this express for you? Answer 3. When we began to run between Philadelphia and New York we put on our own horses, nine or ten in number. We had at first to each horse a rider, who took care of him; and we were to board them and pay them about twelve dollars per month; they were good stout boys. The board of a horse and rider was about six dollars per week. We paid Murphy, who rode the whole distance I'rom Washington to Bal- timore during the whole time we ran, at the rate of ten dollars per week, and he found himself. After we resumed our ex])ress between Pliilndel- phia and New York, we contracted with Drake and McClintoch, of New- ark, New Jersey, to carry it through for fifty dollars a trip. For one week we paid Mr, Fuller, of Washington, twenty dollars a trip, from Washington to Baltimore, until ne was obliged to give up his contract, in consequence, as he informed me, of a note from one of the clerks of the Department. I saw the note, but do not recollect the name of the person who wrote it. We hired one horse-from Mr, King, a livery stable keeper, in Philadelphia, for one dollar and fifty cents per day, for thirt}' seven days; and also fiom Mr. Schank, at about the same price: wc paid their li- very. Mr. Schank's bill amounted to S143 50. Question 4. What did your whole expenses amount to.'^ Answer 4. Our actual expense, including hire of horses, loss on sales of horses, ferriages, salary of agent, travelling expenses to Was.hington and back, postages, and^eveiy incidental expense, was ^53,032 6^, which, with the sum paid by ]Mr. Chandler, of Philadelphia, would come to about $3,300. Question 5. Did you run ahead of the Government express after it be- gan, or not? Answer 5, The statements made in the Journal of Commerce at several times, and hereto appended, are true, according to the best of my know- lege, as to the time of our respective arrivals, 1 considered that the Go- vernment express accomplished hardly anything. Ours rlid everything we desired, and came through in good lime, except with the intei-ruptions as be- fore stated. Question G. Did you pay Mr. Schauk the full value of his service,'*? Answer 6. VJe paid him what he asked, and I have no doubt it w.is [ 86 ] 302 enough. Tiicre was no reason why ho shoiiM charge less than the full value of hiH service?; (lierc vv;is no fricndshiji in it ; nothing but a matter of business. From the Np.w York Journal of Commerce^ Monday morning, March 4. GoA'EKNMENT ExpuEss — 'The Goveminent express established in oppo- sition to our present arrangement, commenced running, if we recollect right, on Wednesday, February 20: Its achievements, liius far, may be stated a5 follows: On the night of Wednesday, Thursday: February 20, 21. Not in tilt all the mornin£ papers were worked off. Thursday, Friday: 21, 22. Not in till all the morning papers were worked off Friday, Saturday: 22, 23. Arrived about 3 o'clock at night. lirief sketch of pioceedings published in one of the morning papers. Saturdn}-, Sunday: 23, 24. No use; as no papers are published here on Sunday. Sunday, Monday: 24, 25. Arrived in season for the morning paper.>, bringing letters for two or three of the offices, containing the proceedings of Saturday. Monday, Tue-^day: 25, 2G. No use; as it brought no later proceedings than those of Satui-day, which had been already published. Tuesday, Wednesday: 2f), 27. Brought no Washington pa[)ers. Letters for two or three of the editors. Wednesvday, Tiiursday: 27, 28. Arrived soon after midniglit, with Washington papers of Wednesday. Thursday, Fi'iday: 28, March 1. Arrived about six o'clock A. M., after all the morning ])apers were worked off. Friday, Saturd.iv: 1, 2 Arrived about seven o'clock in the morning. Too late foi'lhe papers. Brought nothing from beyond Phihulelphia. Ri:CAriTULATioN. — Whole number of times run, previous to the date when wc write (Saturday, March 2,) ten. Failed of reaching here till loo late for the morning papers, four linries; brought no Washington papers, and letters for only two or three of the offices, two; no use, two; arrived so late that only oi:o of the papers availed itself of the news, one; succeeded well, one. Total, ten. \Ve understand that it costs the Government, every time the express is run, S500; which multiplied by ten, gives $5,000 as the total expense. Deducting those trijis (eiglu) in which the express fail- ed wholly, or in part, of its object, the average expense per trip appears to be •^2,500. If we also deduct the trip of Sunday, Monday, February 24, 25, when it bronglu only loiters, and those for but two or ll)rec of the of- fices, (there being no Washington papers printed,) the average cost per trip to Uncle Sam appears to be J55,000. Thus it is questionable, after all, whether it would not have been more economical to the Government, if the Postma-^ter General had persevered in his attempt to stop our ex[n'ess, instead of essaying to imitate ns. Had he seized our packages by force before they left Washington, we would have settled the matter for 55,000, without carrying it into court. 303 [ 56 3 From the Ntiv York Jonrncd of Commerce, Jl'ednefuluij 'monilng, March 6. At half pa?t eight o'clock 3'ostcr(iay moniing, oar express arrived in nineteen hours and a half iVoni Washington, bringing us the President's in- augural address, which was delivered at the Ca|)ifoI on Mondcy, twelve o'clock noo'n, together wilh ail the Washington papers of that day, con- taining the closing proceedings of the twenty-second Congress. Mr. Clay's land bill passed the House of Rej^resentatives on Friday even- ing, with an amendment, by a vote of i)0' to 40. It uas then sent back to the Senate, and the amendment concurred in: Yeas 25, Noes 5. Our cor- respondent informs us that the President has withheld Ms signature from this bi/I, wh.ch is equivalent to a veto. The two houses of Congress did not adjourn sine die until five o'clock on Sunday morning. Correspondence of the Journal of Commerce. TVushington, Monday, March Aih, half past twelve o^ clock. General Jackson is at this moment reading his inaugural address to a most brilliant assemblage which throngs the Hall of Representatives. Your courier will stai't with a copy the moment he has flnished. JJoth Houses of Congress adjourned at half past five o'clock on Monday morning. The President's refusal to sign the land bill creates almost univer- sal dissatisfaction. This is the only circumstance which, at this moment, disquiets the public mind. '1'he News. — It is a remarkable fact that at the time we are writing, (9 o'clock, Tuesday evening,) there are no accounts in the city from Wash- ington, except those brought by our own express, later than Saturday morn- ing, or strictly speaking, Friday evening; as the Washington paj)ers are put to press about 8 o'clock, P. M., and the mail for the north is closed at nine o'clock. So that, after all our efJbrts to reform the Post Office De- partment, the latest accounts from the Capitol, either by the mail or the government express, are full four days old! A report of Saf^irday's Congressional proceedings, which was put into the Washington Post Office on Saturday evening by our reporter, has not yet reached us, although by means of our own express we have been a long while in possession of the Washington papers of Monda}', and other accounts, to half past 12 M. of the same day. The demand for our extra yesterday extended to about twelve hundred copies; and would have been still greater, had we not divided the plunder, in sonje measure, with the evening papers. Wc shall now give our "little black poney" and his twenty-three compatriots their discharge for the pre- sent. We give up the Postmaster General as incurable. DAVID HALE. [Doc. No. 122.] Capitol, December S, 1S34, Abraham C. Schenck, being duly sworn, gave the following answers to the respective interrogatories: [ ] Cr. 1S2S, July 1 " 2 182S. Oct. 1 1829, Jan. 1 By Transporting mail, Cumberland to Westernport, Bedford to Cumber- ' land, Cumberland to Flint's Store SI 17 25 per quarter; Bedford to Laughlintown,& Hnncock to Frost- burgh, at $1,247 07 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city from January 1, 152S, at $2,725 peV quarter . . _ . Additional allowance from March 25, 1S28, at $625 per quarter - His share, Winchester to Boonsboro', $131 25 per quarter; Winchester to Hancock $48 75 per quarter; his share, Montgomery to Blountsville g924 G7 - Cash - . . . Drafts on sundry postmasters April 1, 1828, returned Balance Transporting mail, Cumberland to Westernport, Bedford to Cumber- land, Cumberland to Flint's Store, Si 17 25 per quarter; Bedford to Laughlintown, Hancock to Frost- ipurgh, at ^1,247 07 per quarter - Do Philadelphia to New York city and additional allowance per quarter His share, Winchester to Boonsborough •§131 25 per quarter; Winchester to Hancock S48 75 per quarter; his share, Montgomery to Blountsville at J^924 67 per quarter Balance Transporting mail, Cumberland to Westernport, Bedford to Cumber- land, and thence to Flint's Store, §117 25 per quarter; Bedford to Laughlintown, Hancock to Frost- burgh, at $1,247 07 per quarter - 81,364 32 5,450 00 48 07 1,104 67 288 03 250 15 2,255 21 10,760 45 1,364 32 3,350 00 1,104 67 3,307 55 9,126 54 1,364 32 [S6 ] i)R. 318 James lieestde's accovnt 1829, Jan. 10 March 4 «' 5 « 10 *< 25 1S29. April 1 3 6 IS To Cash Cash Cash paid B. Robinson, &e. Cash Cash Balance Drafts on quarter, Cash Cash Cash Cash sundry postmasters in first 1829 UjOOO 00 800 00 462 63 1,000 00 1,070 00 1,400 00 1,030 00 1,000 00 800 00 Si 1,603 49 15,550 04 6,619 94 367 50 4,230 00 11,217 44 319 -Continued. [86 ] C». 1829. Jan. 1 March 13 1S29. April 1 By Transporting mail, Philadelphia to New York city, and additional al- lowance, per quarter Do New York to Milford from Jan. 1, 1828, at $175 per quarter Daily mail to Paterson from do. at Sl2 50 per quarter His share, Winchester to Boonsboro', S131 25 per quarter; Winchester to Hancock S48 75 per quarter; his ' share, Montgomery to Blountsville, atg924 67 per quarter An additional allowance for expediting mail between New York and Phila- delphia 2i hours, by direction of the Postmaster General, per letter May 21,1828, for five months and twenty days - - - Balance Transporting mail, Winchester to Han- cock, at 848 75 per quarter; his part Winchester to Boonsboro', $131 25 and Montgomery to Blountsville, at $462 34 per quarter Do Cumberland to Westernport, Bedford to Cumberland, Cumber- land to Flint's Store, $117 25; Bed- ford to Laughlintown, Hancock to Frostburg, at gl,247 07 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city; and additional allowance, perquarter Do New York city to Milford, and a daily mail to Paterson, per quarter Short credit, July 1 , 1828, having been credited additional allowance, Phila- delphia to New York city, from March 25, 1828, at $48 07, instead of 8673 07 per quarter, difference Balance g3,350 00 700 00 '50 00 1,104 67 2,361 11 6,619 94 15,550 04 642 34 1,364 32 3,350 00 187 50 625 00 5,048 28 11,217 44 C 86 ] Dr. 320 James Reeside's account t.\..' 1829. July 1 <( <( «< 10 To Balance - - - " Drafts on sundry postmasters in Ihe second quarter 1829 Cash . _ - - Cash . - . - $6,000 00 200 00 1829. Oct. . 1 I " 3 « 9 u 17 Balance - ° ° ■ xu' Drafts on sundry postmasters in the third quarter, 1829 Cash . - - - Cash , . - - Cash - - = - 1,700 00 1,630 70 1,500 00 1830. Jan. To Balance Do Draft on Jane WiUon $5M8 28 446 75 6,200 00 11,695 03 6,041 87 419 44 4,830 70 11,292 01 $747 85 ' I 200 00 321 Continued. [86 ] 1829. July 1 Sept. 30 1829. Oct. 1 1830. Jan. I By Transporting mail, Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cumber- land; Cumberland to Flint's store, gll7 25; Bedford to Laughlintown; and Hancock to Frostburg; at ^1,247 07 per quarter . - , Do Philadelphia to New York city; and additional allowance, per quar- ter . - - . Do New York city to Milford; and a daily mail to Patterson; per quarter Do Winchester to Hancock, $48 75 per quarter; his part Winchester to Boonsboro' ^131 50; his part Mont- gomery to Blountsville, $462 34 per quarter . _ _ J. B. Mower's draft, October 1, 1828, returned - - . - Balance Expediting mail, Philadelphia to New York city, from Jan. 1 to July 1, 1829 . . . . Do Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cumberland, and Flint's store SlI7 25; Bedford to Laugh- lintown, and Hancock to Frostburg, Sl,247 07 . - . Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail - - - . Do New York to Milford, and a daily mail to Patterson; per quarter Do Winchester to Hancock §48 75; his part Winchester to Boonsboro' $131 25; his part Montgomery to Blountsville, at $462 34 per quarter Balance Transporting mail, Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cumber- 41 ^1,364 32 3,350 00 187 50 642 34 109 00 6,041 87 gll,695 03 3,000 00 1,364 32 5,350 00 187 50 642 34 747 85 gll,292 01 . Ir i S6 J Da. 322 James Reeside's account- To Cash Do do Do do S2,134 04 1,500 00 3,000 00 >,634 04 To Balance - Do Draft on Phineas Oeden Do Cash . . , Do do - Do do - Do do - To balance - ^ - - Do Drafts on sundry postmasters, in second quarter, 1830 Do Cash - - « . Do do > Do do - 656 00 900 00 3,559 84 2,000 00 $7,581 89 2,500 00 1,500 00 3,145 00 1,037 73 28 67 6,115 84 $7,182 24 528 67 768 36 7,145 00 ^8,443 03 Continued. 323 C 86 1 Cr. 1830. Jan. 1 1S30. April 1 June 8 1830. July ] land, and Flint's Store, $117 25; Bedford to Laughlintown, and Han- cock to Frostburg, §1,247 07 per quarter _ _ .. - Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail , - - . Do New York to Milford, and a daily mail to Patterson; per quarter Do Winchester to Hancock, $48 75; his part, Winchester to Boonsboro, Si 31 25; his part, Montgomery to Blountsville, $462 34 - ' - Balance Do Transporting mail, Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cum- berland ; Cumberland to Flint's store, 1^117 25; Bedford to Laughlintown; and Hancock to Frostburg; at gl,247 07 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail; per quarter - - - Do New York to Milford; and a daily mail to Paterson; per quarter Do Winchester to Hancock, S4S 75; his part, Winchester to Boonsboro', Si 31 25; his part, Montgomery to Blountsville, at §462 34 per quarter J. Whitehead's draft; July 1, 1829; returned unpaid - - - Balance Transporting mail, Winchester to Hancock; ^48 75 per quarter; his part, Winchester to Boonsboro'; 4^131 25; his part, Montgomery to Blountsville; at $462 34 per quarter Do Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cumberland; atid thence to Flint's store; jgll7 25 per quarter; Bedford to Laughlintown; and Hancock to Frostburg; at jRl, 247 07 per quarter gl,364 32 4,350 00 187 50 642 34 1,037 73 7,581 89 1,364 33 4,350 00 187 50 642 34 109 41 528 67 7,182 24 642 34 1.364 32 [86 ] Db. 324 James Reeside's account — 1830. Oct. 1 13 20 To amount brought forward • To Balance - - - - Do Drafts on sundry postmasters in third quarter 1880 Do Cash - . - - Do do " S8,442 03 8,442 03 ^5,000 00 2,281 29 437 87 1,022 00 7,281 29 8,741 16 625 Continued. [86 ] Cr. 1830. July 1 22 1830. Oct. 1 Dec. 31 By transporting mail Philadel{^ia to New York city; additional allowance and epediting; mail per quarter Do New York city to Milford; and a daily mail to Paterson ; per quarter Do Philadelphia to Pottsville; from April 1, 1830; at $25 per quarter - Double guards for the mail; Philadel- phia to N. York; both ways through, from December 7, 1829, to January 20, 1830, inclusive; forty-five days; at $60 each guard, igl20; two extra passages, forty-five days each, ma- king ninety passages, at S7 each, allowed half price, 8315 - Balance Transporting mail, Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cumber- land; and thence to Flint's store, 8117 25 per quarter; Bedford to Laughlintown; and Hancock to Frostburg; at $1,247 07 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail; per quarter - - . Do New York city to Milford; and a daily mail to Paterson; per quar- quarter - - - - Do Philadelphia to Pottsville; exten- sion from Port Carbon to Mauch Chunk; at S75 per quarter Do Winchester to^ Hancock S48 75; his part, Winchester to Boonsboro', $131 25; his part, Montgomery to JBlountsville, at $462 34 per quarter S. Kollock's draft, October 1, 1831, returned unpaid - - - Balance ),350 00 187 50 25 00 435 00 437 87 8,442 03 1,364 32 5,350 00 187 50 175 00 642 34 285 86 736 14 8,741 16 fSG ] 326 Dr. James Reeside's account- 1831. Jan. 1 (( 12 (( 13 Feb. 18 n 23 March 31 To Balance - - - - Do Drafts on sundry postmasters for fourth quarter 1830 Do Cash .... Do do - Do do - Do do - Do Failure of mail at Augusta, Ga., March 9, 1831 1831. To Balance' - April 1 Do Draft on Jane Wilson " 18 Do Cash - << 25 Do do - May 20 Do Draft on I. L. Grant " 27 Do Cash «( (( Do d© - glOOO 00 3,000 00 1,908 02 40 00 6,000 00 4,050 95 30 00 30 00 1,075 00 JS736 14 498 47 5,948 02 100 00 7,282 63 628 4f 200 00 10,080 95 1,105 00 12,014 42 327 t 86 3 Continued. Cr. By Transporting mail, Cumberland to Western Port; Bedford to Cumber- land; and thence to Flint^s store, Si 17 25 per quarter; Bedford to Laughlintown; and Hancock to Frostburg, at $1,247 07 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail, per quarter - - - Do New York city to Milford, and daily mail to Paterson, per quarter Do Philadelphia to Pottsville; exten- sion. Port Carbon to Mauch Chunk - Do Winchester to Hancock g48 75; his part, Winchester to Boonsboro' gl31 25; his part, Montgomery to Blountsville, at S462 34 per quar- ter . _ . , G. Aulabaugh's draft, October 1, 1830, returned unpaid - - _ Balance Transporting mail; Cumberland to Western port: Bedford to Cumber- land; and thence to Flint's store, at $620 83 per quarter; Hancock to Frostburg, at Si 17 25 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail, per quarter . - - Do New York city to Milford ; and daily mail to Paterson, per quarter Do Philadelphia to Pottsville; exten- sion. Port Carbon to Mauch Chunk Do Philadelphia to Easton, S400 per quarter; Chambersburgto Pittsburg, at $2,500 per quarter Porterage of Baltimore and New York mail to and from the steamboat, in 1830, $75; use of one extra team three months on New Haven line, from February 1 to May 1, 1831, at S200 per month, $600; eight ex- presses to connect New York to New Haven mail, in 1831 • $1,364 32 4,350 00 187 50 100 00 642 34 10 00 628 47 $7,382 63 738 OS 4,350 00 187 50 100 00 2,900 00 1,075 00 C 86] Dr. 328 James Reeside's account — 1831. July 1 " 18 " 23 To Balance Do Cash Do do To amount brought forward 1831. Oct. 1 <* 18 Nov. 9 Dec. 30 « 31 Balance To Drafts on sundry postmasters in third quarter, 1831 Do Cash . - . - Do do - Do do - Do Arriving at Chambersbnrg, July 11, 1831, without the western mail; and failure at Augusta, Ga., Aug. 1, 1831 , „ . - $12,014 42 ^5,000 00 5,000 00 10,000 00 5,196 24 4,000 00 S12,014 42 2,633 84 10,000 00 569 08 gl3,202 92 919 55 19,196 24 300 00 $20,415 79 329 C 86] Continued. May 20 1831. July 1 1831. Oct. 1 By H. Be van's draft, October 1, 1830, returned unpaid Balance Transporting mail, Augusta to Mil- Jedgevilie, from January 1, 1831, at $1,732 50 per quarter Do One third, Christiansburg to Wythe court house; thence to Blountsville; from January 1 to April, 1S31 Do Cumberland to Westernport; Bedford to Cumberland; and thence to Flint's Store, at $117 25 per quarter; Hancock to Frostburg, at $620 S3 per quarter, to date Do Philadelphia to New York city; additional allowance and expediting mail, per quarter - Do PhiladelphiatoEaston,and Potts- ville; extension from Port Carbon to Mauch Chunk, at per quarter, to date Do New York to Milford; a daily mail to Paterson, per quarter Do Chambersburg to Pittsburg, at per quarter - . _ Balance - - . - Transporting mail, Cumberland to Westernport; Bedford to Cum- berland; and thence to Flint's Store, $117 25; Hancock to Frostburg, at $620 83 per quarter Do Philadelphia to New York city, additional allowance and expediting mail - - . - Do Cross mail; Mount Pleasant to Stewartsville, from January 1, 1831, at $62 50 per quartei* 42 $30 00 2,633 84 12,014 42 $3,465 00 462 34 3,927 84 738 08 5,350 00 500 00 187 50 2,500 00 13,202 92 569 08 738 08 3,350 00 187 50 [ S6 ] 330 Dk, James Reeside^s dccouni — To amount brought forward 1832. Dec. 31 Jan. /1 3 « 18 Feb. 3 it 4 ♦« 6 To balance Do" Cash Do do Do do Do do Do do S5.000 00 3,000 00 566 66 2,920 00 600 00 S20,415 79 20,415 79 7,751 13 12,086 &6 $19,837 79 331 [86] Continued. Cr. 1831 L. Oct. 1. iC ti 000 entry is found, for the first time, by me under date of 1st January, 1833, in the middle journal, page 343. The $13,000 is found, for the first time, under same date and on th» fame page. ' / The iiSl,500 the same. The ^3,150 the same. The ;g3,520 is found, for the first time, under date of 27th February, 1833, in the same journal, page 356. The ^2,196 is found in the same journal, page 360, under date of 30th March, 1833. Question 4. Where, and under what dates do you first find the entries of Si, 000, jS428 57, $978 66, gl,455 86, $966 67, $6,250, $2,500, $13,680, and ^600 contained in the additional items in the quarterly ac- count ending 1st April, 1834,-* Answer 4. The 1,000 dollars is found in southern journal P, No. 3, page 142, under date of 1st April, 1834. Tho 428 dollars 57 cents in same journal, page 157, under date 30th June, 1834, omitted to be entered 1st April, 1834.* The 978 doUais 66 cents in journal P, No. 1, page 230, under date of 30th June, 1834. The 1,455 dollars 56 cents same journal and same date. The 966 dollars 67 cents do do. The 6,250 dollars do do. The 2,500 dollars do do. The 13,680 dollars do do. The 600 dollars is entered in day book north and east 0, under date of S3d of September, 1834. Question 5. Where, and under what date did you first find the item oi 6,000 dollars, credited 11th October, 1833, to James Reeside, as deposited in Western Bank of Philadelphia on 30th November, 1832? Answer 5. In cash book P, page 110, under date of 11th October, 1833. Question 6. What book keepers keep the journals, cash book, and day book to which you have referred for the several items stated in your ^bove answers? w * Answer 6. The middle journal and leger and day book are under charge of Mr. John F. Boone. The north and eastern journal and leger are under charge of Mr. James Wheeler, formerly of Mr. Baker Dyer. The south and west journal and leger are under charge of Mr. Rd. Dement. B. WHITE. [No. 9.] JOHN suTER. January 5, 1835. Question 1. Did you make the entry in the pay list which reads as fo» 355 . .[86 ] lows, in James Reeside's account: " Bedford to Washington, 1st January, 1832, S725;'* and if so, when did you make that entry? Answer 1. The entry was made in March or April, 1832. Question 2. Who made the entry in the journal, page 298, in Reeside's Account, as follows: <* Bedford to Washington, $752, 1st July, 1832," daily mail from 2st January, 1832, to 1st December, 1833, jg966 67 more — one month's extra? Answer 2. Mr. Boon, one of the book keepers from the pay list. , A similar, under date of 1st October, 1832, is also in the handwriting of Mr. Boone, and taken from the same list. Question 3. From what voucher did you make out your pay list in March or April, 1832, as respects Mr. Reeside? Answer 3. From a direction in the handwriting of Mr. 0. B. Brown, as follows: " Bedford to Washington, §2,900;" a full copy of whiph paper is as follows: 951, New York to Philadelphia, 19,000, i;500, *3,000= - $23,500 1.197, Mount Pleasant to Stewartsville - - . - 275 1.198, Bedford to Washington 2,900, 2,900, 966=: . . 6^766 1,231, Hagerstown to McUonnellsburg - - - _ 40 1,388, Baltimore to Chambersburg - . . . 3,495 1,031, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and Wheeling - - t27,000 1,033, Philadelphia to Easton - - - - - 1,900 Weaver's transfer for two years, per annum - - - 3,000 ^65,976 Philadelphia to Reading undetermined. Philadelphia to Bethlehem, &e., undetermined. Baltimore via Port Deposite undetermined. Question 4. At what time was the following entry, in red ink, 29th December, 1831. The contractor was "directed to carry the mail daily," made on the margin of the contract. No. 1,198, and in whose handwri- ting is the entry? Answer 4. I cannot say at what time, nor who made the entry. Question 5. At what time did Mr. Brown furnish you with the above memorandum? Answer 5. It must have been in March or April, 1832. Question 6. For what purpose was that memorandum furnished to ypu by Mr. Brown? Answer 6. It was given to me before the contracts were executed, to ihow me what compensation Mr. Reeside was to receive on his contracts. Question 7. Did you certify what was due to Mr. Reeside, pursuant to that memorandum? Answer 7. No. It was rather to regulate the acceptances of Reeside's drafts on the department. • $3, 150. t $12,500 of this to credit of S. Slaymaker. [ 86 ] 55G [No. 10.] November 17, 1834.' I ROBERT HARPER. Question 1. Were you at Washington in the fall of 1831 at the time of , the lettings; and did you hold such communication with the officers of the department and contractors as to know how the business was done? Answer 1. I was at Washington in the fall of 1831 as a bidder for con- tracts in the State of Ohio and Territory of JNIichigan. 1 had been a con-- tractor from 1828, and had been often in the office for my own account and as agent for others, and supposed I was acquainted with the routine of busi- ness in the office. In 1831 a company was' formed, composed of RufusS. Reed, Isaac Bird, George House, of Galiipolis, Henry J. Reese, John P. Converse, and myself; we lodged in the department our proposals for car- rying the mails on the principal routes in the State of Ohio. Question 2. Are any of those mail routes carried now on terms less fa- vorable than the terms of your bids? Answer 2. The route from Lower Sandusky to Detroit we bid to carry in four horse post coaches, daily, for four thousand four hundred dollars per annum. I was a third owner on that route prior to that time, three times a W/Cek. I think that route was accepted at the bid of a Mr. Hunt, or Mr. Hart, at three times a week, for fifteen or eighteen hundred dollars per an- num. Some few days after the letting I remained in Washington. I was told by the chief clerk, Mr. 0. B. Brown, that I could have the route at my bid of four thousand four hundred dollars, for a daily route. I declined the proposition, reserving to myself two days to give a final answer. I went to Baltimore, and while there 1 concluded not to take it, but advised Mr. Converse to go back and take it. Mr. ,Converse returned to Washington and entered into a contract, 1 think in his own name, for five thousand dol- lars for a daily line. The contract was taken for the benefit of Converse, Harper, and Reese. Mr. Converse returned, and he, Reese and myself, closed our contract in this way: they bore all expenses of our trip across the mountains, and I released all interest in the contract, and have had none since. Question 3. Who was this man Hunt, or Hart; was he a responsible man? Answer 3. He was not considered a responsible man in 1828; but an un- derbidder — a speculator. I Question 4. Was Mr. Converse known to the department as one of your company? Answer 4. Yes; our bid would show that. Question 5. Is there any other contract known to you on which you can give information? Answer 5. There is a route from Wheeling to Ashtabula, on which we bid for a daily mail for two thousand seven hundred or two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars at that time. It was accepted to a Mr. Dorhman, of Steubenville, I think, for twelve or fifteen hundred dollars. He carried it from 1st January to June, 1832. I returned to Washington in January, 1833, for the purpose of getting an arrangement to run that route with the company of Reese and Converse, knowing that Dorhman could not continue at the price he had bid it off at. I did not effect the arrangement. Mr. Converse sometime in the spring returned. Dorhman was in Washington, 357 L 86 3 ^nd then made an arrangement to take oat the contract in the names of Reese and Roberts for the benefit of Dorhman's assignee, (Mr. Roberts,) Watson, Van Gorder, and Harman; Harman having purchased a part of Dorhman's interest, for which I understood they were to receive two thousand seven hundred or two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, the amount of our original bid; and this arrangement was to go back to 1st January, 1832. I suppose about one-quarter of Dorhman's contract had run when Reese and Roberts's contract was made, and the department was to allow at the rate of our bid to Dorhman, as I understood. I at one time, as agent for Reese and Converse, offered Dorhman two hundred dollars for his acceptance of the contract. I did this for the pur- pose of having a forfeiture of Dorhman's contract, and obtaining thereby the contract according to our original bid. He refused to take it, stating that 0. B. Brown had assured him he should have three thousand dollars. There is one other route, from JVIeunt Vernon to Cleveland, w^hich we proposed to carry daily at a sum not recollected; I think it was eighteen hundred or two thousand dollars; which was struck off to the Ohio Stage Company, and to be carried tri-weekly. I only know from Mr. Wm . Neil, of Columbus, that they were to get eighteen hundred dollars for it. Also, another route, from Mount Vernon by Mansfield to Huron, which we wished to use as a feeder for one of our routes. Another from Columbus to Lower Sandusky, for which we bid daily. It was struck off on a tri- weekly bid. If these papers, showing our original bids, cannot be found in the department, I can furnish a copy of them. Question 6. Do you know any thing of a contract or contracts taken by George House on his own account, and the circumstances attending the taking of them? If )ou do, state all you know particularly. Answer 6, In the fall of 1831, Mr. House was in Washington at thejlet- tings, and had bid in his own name for certain routes, which were accepted by the department to another individual, a Mr. Ross, of Ohio. Some three or four days after the decision was made I was in company with Mr. House in the department, and before the chief clerk, Mr. Brown. Mr. House, in course of the conversation, accused Mr. Brown with having violated every guarantee which he had made to him in relation to that contract; that is, that it should have been accepted to Mr. House on some one of his improvements, which he had offered on his, Mr. Brown's suggestion. To which Mr. Brown said, it had escaped his recollection, but he would go before the Postmaster General with Mr. House and wohW see what could be done for him. The next day, I think, some arrangement was made, and Mr. House got the contract. I have no further information except what Mr. House told me. Question 7. Do you know of any route on which the mail is carried on the same terms as it was accepted at the lettings in the fall of 1831. Answer. I do not now recollect of any one. R. HARPER. [ No. 11. ] September 30, 1834. William H. Dundas, a clerk in the department, being first duly sworn^ made the following answers to the several interrogatories: t 86 ] 358 Question 1. Do you know the fact that this letter, marked , dated January 19, 1S33, was elicited from Mr. Savary by any letter written t© him by any officer of the department, or any person employed therein, io induce Mr. Asahel Savary to ask for an additional allowance on route No. 1,463? Answer 1. Dr. Temple, then a clerk in the department, told me he hadl written to Mr. Savary, finding from information he had received that the route was a much more expensive one than he had supposed, to induce Savary to ask for an increased or adequate allowance for carrying the mail; and, as well as I recollect, offered to show me the letter. Question 2. Is there any other letter from Savary containing the original bid, or in any way relative to the original bid, in the department within jour knowledge? Answer 2. Not within my knowledge. Question 3. Was or was not the original bid for that route made out by Dr. Temple, or by his instructions? Answer 3. 1 wrote it by request of Dr. Temple. This is the paper, and has heretofore been published in the report of committee, page 55. Mr. Savary had been an old contractor, and had got several contracts at the previous letting in the same fall. Dr. Temple had frequently mentioned to me that he had a desire to go to the west to establish himself in some other business; and, as I understood Dr. Temple, there v/as a probability of his joining Mr. Savary in his mail contracts. Dr. Temple informed me he was authorized by Mr. Savary to make any proposition for him which he might think proper. It is very customary for contractors, when they leave here, believing that there will be failures in the contracts, to say that they will take the contract at their own bids, and frequently at less. , Question 4. Was Mr. Savary here in the fall of 1832 at the general let- tings, and did he then brd for this route? Answer 4. Mr. Savarj' was here at the le) tings; but the route not having been advertised did not bid for it, as far as I knew. Question 5. Did you know before the leltings that'this route had not been advertised? Answer 5. i knew that it was not. Mr. Brown had been of opinion that the route was established from Detroit by Saganaw and Mackanaw to Green Bay, and so advertised it. It appeared on a subsequent examination that the route was established from Chicago to Green Bay. The first I heard of it was about the time they were deciding on the bids. Question 6. What paper had you and Mr. Brown before you when the advertisement was made? Answer 6. Mr. Brown had a copy of a bill. I do not know whether of the House or Senate. Whether it passed or not I do not know. My own impression is that it had not; that impression, however, is received front what Mr. Brown said before the committee, and not from my own recollec- tion. I only wrote what was dictated by Mr. Brown, and had no part !■ the examination or arrangement of the routes. Question 7. Did Mr. Brown say any thing particularly concerning thif .route at the time you assisted him in making out the advertisement? Answer 7. Not a word. Question 8. At what time did you first hear Dr. Temple speak ot taking « contract, or part in a contract, and going to the west? 359 [86 ] Answer 8. I have frequently, for some months before the letiings in 1S32, heard him express his anxiety to go to the west to engage in a more active life, his salary in the department not being sufficient to enable him to make any provision for his family. About the time the contractors came on, preparatory to the lettings, was the first, I think, of his mentioning any thing about becoming interested in a contract. Question 9 Do you know whether he was in the habit of consulting Mr. Brown or conversing witlihim on the subject of his proposedremoval to the west, and his contemplated contract? Answer 9. No, I do not. He mentioned to me himself, that he coa- versed with Mr. Brown on the subject; as to his habit I do not know. Question 10. About what time did he inform you that he had conversed with Mr. Brown on that subject? Answer 10. I do not precisely know; but it was some time before the Doctor left the department. Question 11. Do you know whether the letter from Dr. Temple to Savary, which elicited the letter from Savary of the 19th January, 1833, was written on consultation with Mr. Brown, or at his suggestion? Answer 11. 1 do not know. Question 12. Did you ever hear Mr. Brown say any tiling on the sub- ject of Dr. Temple's contract prior to bis removal to the west? Answer 12. 1 heard Mr. Brown and Dr. Temple conversing about it- prior to Temple's removal to the west, and after the contract had been made. Question 13, If any thing ^was said at that conversation material to the present inquiry, state it. Answer 13. I have no recollection of anything. Question 14. In whose handwriting is the paper in red ink, dated 21st February, 1833, on which the extra allowance of glOOO is entered? Answer 14. In the handwriting of Dr. Temple. Question 15. Was Asahal Savary in Washington at the date of that paper? Answer 15. I do not know that he was at the dale of that paper ; I think he was here sometime in the winter or spring of 1833. Question IG. I see on the margin of a letter from Dr. Temple to S. R. Hobbie, Assistant Postmaster General, dated at Chicago, 3d April, 1833, the following memorandum: ''Please ask Mr. Pundas to note the transfer of the route from Chicago to Green Bay; he knows the date, 28th February, 1833.'' Had that transfer been noted by you on the paper shown to you prior to the receipt of the letter containing that memorandum? Ansv/er 16. I did not note the transfer at all. At the tinfie oT the re- ceipt of the letter above referred to, I was not in charge of the business of that section. Question 17. Is the paper here presented, being the counterpart of a contract signed by Wm. T. Barry, Postmaster General, but not signed by Asahal Savery, the proper place to note a transfer? Answer 17. It may be the place to note transfers between contractors. I ani not acquainted with their practice. Question 18. Is this noting on the margin, in the following words, "I have transferred this route to Dr. J. T. Temple, from the 1st of April or commencement, provided the Postmaster General shall consent. Asahcl [86] 360 Savary. 28th February, 1833, approved by the Postmaster General. 0. B Brown, Superintendent of Mail Contracts'* — in the usual form of noting transfers of contracts? Answer 18. I do not know, as between contractors.^ Question 19. In whose handwriting are the words of the aforegoing^ transfer? Answer 19. The transfer is the handwriting of Dr. Temple. The sig- aature is the handwriting of A, Savery, as I believe, being acquainted with his signature. The approval is in the handwriting of 0. B. Brown. > Question 20. Here is a letter dated White Pigeon, Michigan, January I9j 1833, from Asahel Savery to the Postmaster General. Is the body of the letter, or the signature, in the handwriting of said Asahel Savery? Answer 20. I do not believe either of them is in his handwriting. Question 21, Look at the place and date of the letter, and at the post- mark thereon, and see if the date and place are not the same handwriting^ with the post-mark. Answer 21. They appear to me to be the same. Question 22. Is the direction of the letter in the same handwriting? Answer 22. 1 think not. It appears to be better. Question 23. When did Dr. Temple cease to be a clerk in the depart- ment? Answer 23. From information, he ceased to be a clerk about the last of March, 1833. Question 24. Had either the Postmaster General or Mr. Brown any knowledge of the letter written by Temple to Savery, of which you have spoken, and which was written prior to the 19th January, 1833, either be- fore or after the same was written? Answer 24. Not within ray knowledge. * Question 25. Have you any information from any source whatever which warrants a belief that this letter was not written by Savery, and mailed at White Pigeon? if you have, state it. Answer 25. 1 have no information on the subject. I believe, from its being regularly mailed, that it was written by his direction. Question 26. How do you know that it was regularly mailed? Answer 26. I only say so from its appearing to be so by the post mark. Question 27. What do you mean by the term Idtings; and explain the practice which prevails at that time? Answer 27. By the term httings, I mean the proclamation of the suc- cessful bidders. The practice prior to the proclamation, and after the bids arc recorded, is to carry the record book into the Postmaster General's room, when one commenced the decisions on the bids for the various routes that have been advertsed; at these decisions are present, the Post- master General and his assistants, the chief clerk, and a clerk. WM. H. DUNDAS. January 5, 1835. , AVM. DUNDAS. Question 1. Being shown the following entry on the margin of the con- tract. No. 1198, of James Reeside, "29th December, 1S3I, the contractor was directed to carry the mail daily," Whose handwriting is that entry? When was it made, and by whose direcctions? 361 ^ [ 86 ] Answer 1. The handwriting, is mine; it was made on that day, and a let- ter was written on the same day, as appears by the letter book, containing a letter of that date, ordering a daily mail on that route. I wrote the let- ter by directions of Mr. Brown, and made the entry on the margin as a matter of course. The letter was signed by the Postmaster General. [ No. 12.] Post Office Department, October 2, 1S34. Sir: In compliance with a call from the committee, I have the honor to enclose a statement from W, G. Eliot, chief examiner, And have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant, W. T. BARRY. Hon. Felix Grundt, Chairma7% of the Committee. Examiner's Office, October 2, 1834. The office of Hawesville, Kentucky, reported a balance due the Post Office Department for the quarter commencing 1st April, 1832, and ending 1st July, 1832, of - - - - - - $11 88 From 1st July to 1st October, 1832 - - - - 11 39 From 1st October to 31st December, 1832 - - _ 17 40 From 1st January to 1st April, 1833 - . - - 16 19 Total for one year - - . gse S6 The return from that office from 1st April to 1st July, 1833, exhibited a balance due the postmaster, by the department, of $S1 59, in consequence of his delivering from his office 5,066 free letters at two cents each, amount- ing to SlOl 32. WM- G ELIOT, Chief Examiner. Hon. W. T. Barry, Postmaster General. The folloivini^ is an extract from the transcript account of mails received from Hawesville, Kentucky, quarter ending \st July, 1833. " Free letters received and delivered to Hon. A. G. Hawes, without way bills, this quarter, 5,049." WM. EDINGTON, P. M. 46 [ 86 ] 362 Statement of the gross amount of the anmial receipts of tlie Post Office at New York, since the year 1S29; and also of the amount paid over, in each year, to the General Post office. From the 1st of Jaiiuary, 1829, to 1S30, Gross receipts - 8153,956 39 <' " <' Paid over - 135,123 87 From the 1st of January, 1S30, to 1831, Gross receipts - 157,550 22 «' " <' Paid over - 137,993 30 From the 1st of January, 1S31. to 1832, Gross receipts - 174,252 03 *< " " Paid over - 153,182 46 From the 1st of January, 1832, to 1833, Gross receipts - 201,609 40 <' '< " Paid over - 178,304 49 From the 1st of January, 1833, to 1834, Gross receipts - 213,382 25 <' " " Paid over - 186,624 99 SAMUEL L. GOUVERNEUR, P. M. [No. 13.] Lowell, 21th October, 1S34. rharles H. Locke, being first duly sworn, gave the following answers to the resp*'clive interrogatories, as follow; Question 1. Are you a resident in Lowell, the editor of a newspaper called the Lowell Journal; and have you had one or more conversations with Nathaniel Greene, the postmaster at Boston, respecting a supply of paper from the Pepperell paper mill, and when? Please to state the whole. Answer 1. I reside in Lowell, am the editor of the Lowell Journal, and have been so since February 10, 1834. On 31st March last 1 saw Nathaniel Greene. He asked me in relation to the paper which I was using for my newspaper, and told me he was returning from his paper mill at Pepperell; that he had for some time been part owner of that mill, but had not seen it before; that he had gone up then to see some new machinery at the mill, said to be uncommonly good, and to make paper very fast. He then said they were making large quantities of paper on Government contracts, and he could furnish me with paper cheaper than what 1 was now using. He examined the paper I was then using, and I told him the price. I told him I had contracted for a sufficient supply for the present, but that when I was out 1 would call on him. He mentioned that Mr. Emmerson was doing the business at Pepperell; and, as 1 understood him, a Mr. Burrell was to be his man of business in Boston. Subsequently, say about two months, I wrote Mr. Nathaniel Greene to know on what terms he could furnish paper. He referred me to Mr. Em- merson as being nearer my residence, and equally capable of making a con- tract. Soon after that I went to the paper mill at Pepperell. I had con- siderable conversation with Mr. Emmerson about the price and quality of paper, but concluded no contract. Mr. Emmerson [showed] me paper they were then making and had made for Government, particularly some such as is used for wrapping paper in the post office, which he said was of a superior quality. I cannot remember the language of Mr. Emmerson, but he con- veyed the idea that he was manufacturing paper for the Government, and was doing a profitable business at it. Afterwards, say about six weeks ago, I liad a conversation with Nathaniel Greene in Boaloa on the subject of furnishing me with paper. Mr. Greene 363 C 86 ] said he could do nothing in it, as he was going to dissolve partnership with Mr. Emmerson, and give up his share in the business. He said he would sell his share in the mill, or let it to Mr. Emmerson. He said, they are making a fuss about my owning a paper mill and furnishing paper to Government while I am postmaster; and also that Mr. Emmerson was not a man of busi- ness, and not to be relied on as to punctuality, and making good quality of paper. CHAS. H. LOCKE. [No. 14.] Lowell, 001.21, 1834. JOHN G. LOCKE. Question 1. Have you had a conversation with Mr. And Emmerson on the subject of his paper mill at Pepperell, and of the interest which Natha- niel Greene had in it? If so, please state all about it. Answer 1, In June, 1833, I happened in company \vi\h Mr. Emmerson. He was a stranger to me. We talked on different subjects, and finally we talked about paper, in consequence of his stopping to take some on the stage. He then told me he had lately dissolved with his former partner in the paper-making business, Mr. Bullard; and Mr. IJullard had sold out his inter- est to Mr. Greene, the postmaster at Boston; that the inducements for Mr. Greene coming into the partnership was, that he had contracts with the Go- vernment to furnish paper. They expected to have a large quantity to JOHN G. LOCKE, ^ [ Doc. No. 2. ] 393 PROCEEDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS THE FRENCH CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, On the subject of the treaty between France and the United States, ivhich ivas signed at Paris on the 4th of July, 1831, and the ratifications of which icere exchanged at Washington on the 2d of February, 1832/ from the first presentation of the treaty, on the 6th of April, 1833, to the refusal to carry it into effect, on the 2d of April, 1834. [Translated from the Paris Moniteur by order of the Secretary of State of the United States.] [Tlie reports of proceeding's in the French Legislature are occasionally defective, from the circumstance that ti>ey alv/a}s appear in the Moniteur on tlie morning after the meeting- in which they took place. Several passages occurred in the original of the fol- lowing report, which the translator has rendered faithfully in English, without venturing to give his own opinion as to tlieir intended meaning.] [The Chamber of Deputies, which was in session when the treaty was ratified, (February 2, 18,32,) adjourned on the 21st April following. It was again opened on the 19tii of No- vember, 183'2. The first proceedings on the treaty took place on the 6th of April, 1833.] Saturday, April 6, 1833. M. HuMANN, Minister of Finance. Gentlemen: At the opening of this session, the King informed you that he would lay before you the treaty between France and the United States of America, signed on the 4th of July, 1831 . We are now, by order of his Majesty, about to do so. The object and the result of this treaty have been to put an end to the differences which liave been embarrassing the relations between France and the United States. For more than twenty years the Federal Govern- ment has been demanding indemnification for the conftscations of American vessels under the decrees of Berlin, Milan, and Rambouillet, and also after their repeal. It likewise claimed remuneration for a certain num- ber of vessels burnt at sea by French squadrons, in order to conceal their movements from the enemy. Without relating here the history and dispositions of the decrees of Ber- lin, Milan, and Rambouillet, it will be sufficient to recall to mii>d that these acts, however rigoious and prejudicial to the navigation of neutrals they may have been, were only issued by way of retaliation for the orders of the British Council. It was also as reprisals against France and England, that the United States on their part ordered the confiscation of all French and English vessels which should enter their ports, and of all productions of either country which should he^ brought to America in vessels of any nation. The adoption of such measures, it must be acknowledged, totally changed the position of the United States with regard to the complaints which had been provoked by the said decrees ; and the Federal Govern- ment, by endeavoring to do itself justice, surrendered its right to bo in- demnified for confiscations n^ade in virtue of them. There are, however, some exceptions which equity requires should be 26 31)1 [ Doc. No. 2. J made : and while it was clear that Fiance was not obliged to satisfy all the claims inged in behalf of American commerce, still there was a cer- tain number which could not injustice be refused. Such for instance as those on account of — American vessels seized and confiscated in virtue of the Berlin, Milan, and Rambouillt't decrees, before the owners could have had notice of those acts; American vessels condemned after the repeal of those acts, on tlie 1st o'i November, 1810 ; American vessels burnt at sea by the French squadrons. The Imperial Government had itself admitted the justice of the princi- ples of these exceptions ; and a negotiation set on foot some time before its fall, gave reason to suppose that an arrangement was about to be con- cluded on bases analogous to that on which the Chamber is now called to deliberate. The Government of tlie Restoration, after having long repelled the American claims, by declining to be responsible for the acts which had occasioned them, had at length given up that ground. Like the Imperial Government, it admitted that a part of the claims were well founded, and appeared ready to accede to them, provided the United States on their part, would admit some just demands which France had to urge against them. In addition to pecuniary claims of several kinds preferred by French citizens against the Federal Governn^ent, France had yet to obtain satis- faction with regard to tlie 8th article of the treaty of cession of Loui- siana, concluded in 1803, which assured to our vessels foreA'er the treat- " m€nt of the most favored nations in the ports of that country'. The treaty concluded at Ghent, in 1814, between England and the United States, placed the English on the same footing with the Americans themselves, as to duties in the ports of the Union. The French Government, in virtue of the said 8th article of the treaty of cession, de- jtnanded the same equality for our vessels in the ports of Louisiana; but the Cabinet of Washington replied that the treaty did not admit of such an interpretation, and moreover contended that, as the constitution , pi the United States subjected all the States to the same regulations, it i ivas not at liberty to grant to our navigation advantages in the ports of Louisiana, the exclusive nature of which would have afforded to this State in. particular a sort of monopoly of French commerce. ; !j The United States Government, although it ahvays contested the prin- "ciple of our demands, at length offered us, by way of accommodation, an important reduction in the duty on importation of our w ines. Such was the state of the negotiation when the revolution of July in- ' terruptcd it ; it was soon resumed under the influence of the sympathies excited anew between the two nations by this great and memorable event. . The principal difftculty was in the amount to be paid by France to the , United States, which v.as estimated by the latter Government at no less than seventy-five millions of francs. _,^.j' In a word, the question was one in which the oldness of the claims, the differences as to the pretensions, and the difliculty, if not impossibility, of arriving at a precise and rigorous valuation, leave no other means of effect- ing a peaceable termination than by an arrangement or simple statement of accounts between the parties interested. Political considerations had great weight with both parties in the nego- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 395 tiation,and much influence in bringing about the result ; each being strong- ly impressed with the necessity of putting an end to discussions which had already lasted too long, and the existence of which was a bar to the increase of reciprocal relations. The claims of the American merchants, brought forward at every ses- sion of Congress, and necessarily alluded to in the annual messages of the President of the United. States, appear to have become rather a question of great political importance, than one of mere private interests; and if the Federal Government was obliged by every circumstance to urge these de- mands, the French Government was no less under the necessity of comply- ing with them as far as justice required, particularly as the United States expressed their readiness to give satisfaction for all our grievances. From these reciprocal considerations, and for the sake of the union which they gave reason to anticipate, the treaty of July 4, 1831 was concluded; it was ratified at Washington on the 2d of February, 1832. By it the amount of the American claims, reduced to one-third of that iirst demanded, is hxed at 25,000,000 francs, of which 1,500,000 francs are to be retained for the payment of the claims which French citizens may have upon the Federal Government. On the other hand, the United States, in compensation for the advantages which the 8th article of the treaty of 1803 provided for our navigation in the ports of Louisiana, have agreed to make a tariff of duties on French wines, of a nature so •favorable, that for the ten years after the 2d of February, 1832, they will be admitted into the ports of the Union at duties lower than those imposed on all other foreign wines. Finally, by an assimilation, which is to the interest of both countries, lang staple American cottons are subject to the same duties in France as short staple. These arc the principal stipulations of an agreement which had become indispensable; an agreement which, by removing out of the way of our relations with the United States, a question ever irritating, and likely to compromise them all, will give place to sentiments of amity, and to rela- tions of sympathy and union, which arose at an epoch glorious for both countries, and which so many causes of affinity so many natural reasons tend to strengthen. This treaty, gentlemen, it is true, adds another item to the budget; but it is to acquit a debt which, reduced to equitable terms, cannot be disavowed by us, which good faith should oblige us to accept, and the settlement of which was required by the exigencies of true policy. But, as we have seen before, this treaty is not exclusively to the advantage of the United States; the engagements taken in it are reciprocal, and the interests of our commerce, as well as the rights of French citizens, to whom the American Government is in debt, are thereby guarantied. Ever since the latiiication of the treaty, on the 2d of February, 1832, the United States have been faithfully complying with the stipulations relative to the reduction of duties on the wines of France; we, on our side, have begun to carry it into effect, by establishing an entire equality as to duties between tlie long and short staple cottons of the United States in our ports. The financial part of the treaty now remains to be executed, by paying, at the stated terms, of which the first falls on the second day of next month, the sums stipulated in favor of the American merchants and of French citizens, to whom the United States are in- 396 [ Doc. No 2. J debted. To this cfl'ect, we haA'e the honor of submitting to the delibera- tions of the Chamber the following projet de loi : BILL. Art. 1. In order to carry into effect the treaty between France and the United States, signed on the 4th of July, 1831, the ratifications of which were exchanged at Washington on the 2d of February, 1832, and by the terms of which the sum of twenty-five millions of francs are to be paid by France, in six annual instalments, with interest at four per cent, on the amount of each instalment paid, and of the others re- maining unpaid ; the Minister of Finance is authorized to place on the budgets of each year, from 1833 to 1838 inclusive, the sums necessary to provide for the payments stipulated by the 2d article of said treaty. Akt. 2. A credit is therefore opened for 1833, to the Minister of Fi- nance, for the sum of 5,1G6,6G6 francs 66 centimes, for the following purposes: 1. Four million one hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-six francs sixty-six centimes as the amount of the first sixth, due on the 2d of February, 1833. 2. One million of francs as interest, due at the same time. Art. 3. The sum of 1,500,000 francs, which the Government of the United States has engaged to pay to France, to exonerate itself from the claims of French citizens, shall be set down as received, in a special ar- ticle of the budget, at the rate of 250,000 francs per annum, with the interest thereon, according to the terms of the 3d and 4th articles of the said treaty; a credit for which sum, for 1833, is opened to the Minister of Finance, for the purpose of paying the claims of French citizens which may have been admitted. Copy of the treaty of July 4, 1831, between France and the United t^tates of Amej'ica. His Majesty the King of the French, and the United States of Ameri- ca, animated with an equal desire to adjust amicably, and in a manner conformable to equity, as well as to the relations of good intelligence and sincere friendship which unite the two countries, the reclamations formed hj the respective Governments, have, for this purpose, named for their plenipotentiaries, to Avit, his Majesty the King of the French, Count Horace Sebastiani, Lieutenant General of his Armies, his Minister Se- cretary of State for the Department of Foreign Affairs, &c., &c., and the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, William C. Rives, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States near his Majesty the King of the French, who, after having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles: Art. 1. The French Government, in order to liberate itself com- pletely from all the reclamations prelerred against it by citizens of the United States for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, confisca- tions, or destructions of their vessels, cargoes, or other property, engages to pay a sum of twenty-five millions of francs to the Government of the United States, who shall distribute it among those entitled, in the man- ner and according to the rules Avhich it shall determine. Art. 2. The sum of twenty-five millions of francs, above stipulated, shall be paid, at Paris, in six annual instalment?, of four million one hundred and sixty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-six francs sixty-six [ Doc. No. 2. ] 397 centimes each, into the hands of such person or persons as shall be au- thorized by the Government of the United States to receive it. The first instalment shall be paid at the expiration of one year next following the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and the others at successive intervals of a year, one after another, till the whole shall be paid. To the amount of each of the said instalments s^hall be added interest at four per cent, thereupon, as upon the other instalments then remaining unpaid : the said interest to be computed from tlie day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention. Art. 3. The Government of the United States, on its part, for the purpose of being liberated completely from all the reclamations presented by France on behalf of its citizens, or of the Royal Treasury, (either for ancient supplies or accounts, the liquidation of which had been reserved, or for unlawful seizures, captures, detentions, arrests, or destructions of French vessels, cargoes, or other property,) engages to pay to the Go- vernment of his Majest}- (which shall make distribution of the same in the manner and according to the rules to be determined by it) the sura of one million five hundred thousand francs. Art. 4. The sum of one million five hundred thousand fra^ics, stipu- lated in the preceding article, shall be paid in six annual instalments of two hundred and fifty thousand francs; and the payment of each of the said instalments shall be effected by a reservation of so much out of the annual sums which the French Government is bound, by the second ar- ticle above, to pay to the Government of the United States. To the amount of each of these instalments shall be added interest at four per cent, upon the instalment then paid, as well as upon those still due ; which payments of interest shall be effected by means of a reser- vation similar to that already indicated f\3r the payment of the principal. The said interest shall be computed froiu the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention. Art. 5. As to the reclamations of the French citizens against the Go- vernment of the United States, and the reclamations of citizens of the United States against the French Government, which are of a different nature from those which it is the ol)ject of the present convention to ad- just, it is understood that tlie citizens of the two nations may prosecute them in the respective countries, before the competent judicial or admin- istrative authorities,' in complying with the laws and regulations of the country, th« dispositions and benefit of which shall be applied to them in like manner as to native citizens. Art. 6. The French Government and the Government of the United States reciprocally engage to communicate to each other, by the interme- diary of the respective legations, the documents, titles, or other informa- tions proper to facilitate the examination and liquidation of the reclama- tions comprised in the stipulations of the present convention. Art. 7. The wines of France, from and aftei* the exchange of the rati- fications of the present convention, shall be admitted to consumption in the States of the Union at duties which shall not exceed the following rates by the gallon, (such as it is used at present for wines in the United States,) to wit, six cents for red wines in casks ; ten cents for white wines in casks ; and twenty-two cents for wines of all sorts in bottles. The pro- portion existing between the dtities on French wines thus reduced, and 398 [ Boc. No. 2. ] > the general rates of tariff which went into operation the 1st January, 1829, shall be maintained, in case the Government of the United States should think jHoper to diminish those general rates in a new tariff. In consideration of this stipulation, which shall be binding on the United States for ten years, the French Government abandons the recla- mations which it had formed in relation to the 8th article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana. It engages, moreover, to establish on the long staple cottons of the United States, which, after the exchange of the ra- tifications of the present convention, shall be brought directly thence to France by the vessels of the United States, or by French vessels, the same duties as on shoi't staple cottons. Art. 8. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications ' shall be exchanged at Washington, in the space of eight ^months, or sooner, if possible. In faith of which, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed these articles, and hereto set their seals. Done at Paris, the fourth day of the month of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one. The ratifications were exchanged at Washington, on the 2d February, 1832. The President or the Chamber. The bill is received ; it will be presented and referred to the Bureaux. [Tlie session of the French Legislature closed on the 25th April, 1833, without any further action upon the subject. The next session be- gan on the succeeding day.] Tuesday, June 11, 1833. M. HuMAXN, Minister of Finance* Gentlemen : On the 6th of April last, we had the honor to submit to you a bill {projet de loi) for carrying into execution the financial part of the treaty between France and the United States signed on the 4th of July, 1831. The bill not having been discussed during the last session, the King has ordered us to present it to you agahi, it being the duty of his Government to be faithful to the engagements contracted in the name of France. We have nothing to add to the general considerations presented in our first exposition, and we shall therefore merely explain in a few w^ords,, the alterations made in the bill. By its first article, the Minister of Finance was to be authorized to place on the budgets of each year from 1833 to 1838 inclusive, the sum necessary for paying the annual instalments, as by the terms of the treaty. But, as the budget of 1832 has been voted without giving any place to the American claim, you should, if you admit the debt, authorize the payment in a more general manner. The second article refe'rred to the sums payable in 1833, on account of the first sixth of the capital, and of the interest, calculated up to the 2d of February last. Now, as the law^ was not passed, the payment of the first instalment was of course refused when it became due ; and it is im- possible to calculate exactly the amount of interest which will be due on the day of payment : in this point also, the terms of the.bill were too re- strictive. We have suppressed the third article of the bill, for these [ Doc. No. 2. ] 399 ' reasons : The mode prescribed by it for the acquittal of the sums due by the United States to French citizens, was entirely at variance with the plan hitherto observed in such settlements, which is simply to place the sums apart for those who may have a right to tliem. How would it have been possible to submit to the annual vote of the Chambers that which was merely deposited with the King, by a foreign Government, for a spe- cial purpose ? Kow should we call on the Chambers to vote on an an- nual appropriation, which they can neither increase nor diminish, and which is intended to satisfy an obligation, not of the French, but of the American Treasury ? The sums which tTie United States may pay to French citizens, are evidently the property of the lawful claimants en- tirely, and should be of right keptonly for their use, and interest allowed on them from the moment of their payment. Besides, what difficulties may not arise from the delays within which the laws of the Ihiances limit the application of credits ? Is it not wrong too to give the claimants a right to call directly on the French Treasury ? These considerations have induced us to suppress the third article, in order to effect the settlement in, the usual manner, as lately adopted with regard to the Tunisian and Tripolitan indemnifications. The bill, as altered, will read thus : BILL. Art. 1. In order to carry into execution the treaty between France and the United States, signed on the 4t!i of July, ISSi, t!ic ratifications of which were exchanged at Washington on the 2(1 of February, 1832, and, by the terms of wliich the sum of 25,000,000 francs is ti) be paid by France, in six annual instalments, wiili interest at 4 per cent, on each instalment paid, and on all tlie others remaining due, tlie Minii-iter of Finance is authorized to pay the sums stipulated in t!;e 2d article of said treaty, as they become due. Art. 2. In consequence, a credit to the amount of tlie sum to he paid in 1833 is opened to the Minister of Finance, viz. 1st. For 4,166,666 francs 66 centimes, the amount of tlie Hrst sixth, due on the 2d of Februa- ry, 1833,; and 2d. The stun refpiisite for the payment of the interest now due, and of that whicli will have become due on the day of payjuent of the first instalment. The PiiEsiDEXT of the Chamber. The bill presented by the Minister of Finance is received: it will be piinted, and referred to the Bureaux. The Chamber is aware that this treaty requires the most serious exam- ination. All the documents whicli prccceled it, and the reports of the several commissions, should bo investigated — those which were unfavor- able to its dispositions, as well as those recounnemliiig them, as by such comparison alone can we arrive at the truth. Nothing now can be dono but lay the bill on tiie table : t!ie Bureaux may call for it if they please. THURsr)AY, Jane 13, 1833. General Lafayette. Gentlemen : The rapidity with which our labors arc now conducted, and feelings of duty, oblige me to make some observations on the order of the day. A treaty witli rlie United States was proposed and presented to 400 [ Doc. No. 2. J you by the King in liis speech at the coniniciiccinent oi" the last session. I shall make no observations as to the delays, of various sorts, Avhicli have occuire;!, and shall coiiiinc myself entirely lu what was the other day sub- mitted by the Minister of Finance. I shall not enlarge upon the senti- mejits of justice, national honor, and j)ro{)riety, with regard to a nation which alone refused to unite with our enemies in 1814 and 1815; I may observe ho\\evcr, that if it had done so, its claims would have been long since settled, just as those of the other hostile Powers were. I will add, that if it had consciitcd to charge a third Power, England for example, %vith this affair, it would have been adjusted also. But the United States would not present themselves as an enemy ; they chose rather to wait until tliey could come foruaid with their claims in a!j amicable manner. Nor will I dwell on one of our great interests, the greatest of our maii- time interests — the liberty of the seas ; and as we cannot ])lace much confi- dence in such a coalition as was formed during the American war between the squadrons of Russia, Spain, Holland and France, I think that a union of our navy with that of the United States offers the only chance, under present circumstances, of having that liberty assured. I will confine my- self to one of our most importatit commercial interests. I regret that our colleague, M. Fulchiron, is not here, as he could rei)eat the calculations which he made for me the other day. Tlse city of Lyons alone (I w ill cite but one example) carried on a trade with tiie United States to the value of 55,000,000. Since the ti-eaty, to which the United States have agi'eed, was made, this trade has ai-isen to 80,000,000, and will be 100,000,000 by the 1st of next January. I could also recall what has been written by the Chainber of Commerce of Havre to one of our colleagues ; I could speak of our wine-growing districts ; but I w ill merely make one observation, which is, that unless tlie question of the treaty be terminated during this scssioji, it is much to be feared that the American Congress, when it meets in December next, will take measure- to restore tilings to the state in which they were pre- vious to the treaty, in consequciice of \\\t neglect of the subject during two of our sessions. 1 leave you to judge how injurious this would be to our commerce. After these short observations, and under the idea that the Minister of Foreign Afiairs would sujjport nic in what I have said — and lie has just told me that he would — I shall conclude by answering, beforehand, one ob- jection which maybe raised. It will be said that, in this affair, I am a good American. Gentlemen, 1 am j)rou;l of tiiat title ; it is dear to my heart; but 1 think no one will say I have ever been other than a good Frenchman. 1 therefoi-e inove that tliis qucslioii be placed in the order of the day as .soon as possible, in order that you may take it up before the end of the session ; and my recommendation, if I may use the term, is, that, after a proj)er examination, the gi-eat interests which I have cited may not be forgotten. The Pp.esidkxt. I must observe to General Lafayette that there will be a meeting of the Bureaux to-morr(»w, for the purpose of examining the law of which he speaks. M. Odier. I second the motion of Geiieral Lafayette, on account of the interests of [ Doc. No. 2. ] 401 French industry. About the treaty itself I say jiothing : but I hope the Chamber will take it up as soon as possible after the report on the bill has been presented. Tuesday, June 18, 1833. M. Be-Vjamiv Delessert. Gentlemen : The committee charge;l by you to examine the bill re- lative to the treaty concluded on the 4th of July, 1831, between France and the United States, has demanded a number of documents and repoi'ts, which must be examined, in order to obtain a com})lete knowledge of so im- portant a transaction. Tho committee was soon convinced that a conscientious examination of these papers would lequire much time: and that, at so advanced a period of the session, its la!)ors would have no definitive result. It regrets that, from motives which tlie Government only can ex])!ain, the bill was not pre- sented eai'lier to tiic Chamber for discussion. It regrets this the more,,, as it is convince(i of the importance of a treaty which essentially interests our rnai'itime cotumerce, our agriculture, and our juanufactures. Several chambers of commeixe, j)arlicularly tliose of Paris and Lyons, have manifested an ardent desire that the business should be speedily terminated. Tiie committee would be satisfied if, after a deeper study of the question, it could enlighten the Chamber with regard to the justice of the claims al- leged by eacli of the parties to the treaty, and which form the basis of it ; but as time does not allow a definitive report to be made on the subject, it considers itselt' as the organ of the Chamber, in expressing the wish that this treaty be communicated at tiie o])e!iing of the next session ; and that its result may be such as to strengthen tiic bonds of friendship wiiich must ever exist between two nations so long united by common interest and sympathy. Geneuai. L.vfayltte- Gentlemen : Tlie committee named on the day before yesterday con- ceived that it should not delay for a single instant the communication you have just heard. I shall not my.self enter into a question on which my opinion and sentiments ai'e well known to you. I had the honor to repeat them t!ie other day to the Chamber; it will however, permit me to pro- claim here once more my dcej) personal regret, and my intimate convic- tion, that as soon as the Cliamber is enabled to do what dej)ends on it, iii this imj)ortant and urgent affair, it will acknowledge as fully as I do, not only the perfect justice, but also the extensive bearing whicii it has upon our manufactures and oui- policy. The Mtnisteu of Forbigx Affairs. Tiie Govei'ument has already expressed, th.rough me, the great import- ance which it altaches to the discussion of this law. It has twice pre- sented it CO this Chamber, and its greatest desire was to have had it de- bated during (his session. The i-eproach cast uj)on us of having presented the treaty too late, is, I think, unmerited. 'J'he Government found great difficulties at first; it had reason to be appi-ehensive respecting tlie fate of the law, and endeavored to ovcicome the difficulties, by assembling all the documents calculated to throw light upon the question. 402 [ Doc. No. 2. ] It did not, for its own part, need any of these documents to be convinced that the treaty was good, useful and just ; hut al! the documents had been demanded, and it was necessary to obtain some from America; nor are all yet collected, which are calculated to throw light on the question. The facts occurred twenty years ago, and much trouble was required to collect the papers we have already; and tlie motive which iiifitienced the Govern- ment in delaying the presentation of the treaty was precisely its desire to give the Chamber ample information. Count Jaubeiit. I am well aware, gentlemen, of the caution with which so delicate a sub- ject should be handled ; particularly as it is a treaty concluded, one in whicli the word of the French Gavernment is engaged, and wanting only tiie sanc- tion of the Chamber, which is always necessary when payments are to be made. Nevertheless, I should be sorry if the session should end under the impression likely to be produced by the report you have heard, and the speech of our honorable colleague, General Lafayette. I am not so far under the influence of sympathetic feelings as that hon- orable gentleman. I do not intend to enter into the discussion, but I think that the public should know, and the United States should not be ignorant, that serious objections have arisen ag:-iinst the treaty in question — objec- tions which render a minute examination necessary. For wo are not dis- posed to vote away such an enormous sum as twenty-five millions, without examining the treaty in all its bearings. We should be abandoning all the rights of the Chamber, if we did not make an express reservation in this case. Let me here observe that, some few years since, under the Restoration,. a negotiation was entered into on the subject ; and if I am rightly informed, instead of twenty-five millions, we could have got off much cheaper.. ( Laughter. J) I should not wish to have it thought that we had settled the matter; a trs^aty may be modified with the consent of botli parties; and perhaps, in this case, it may be proper to see if this should not be done. I think we should take into consideration the circumstance, that at a for- mer period we could have arranged the affair with the United States on much lower terms. It would be singular if the Government of July should be worse treated by them, than that of the Restoration : our sympathy would be rather burdensome to us. The President. I think that the discussion should go no further, as we cannot now enter into the merits of the question. The right of the Chamber is clearly es- tablished ; no treaty of the sort now presented to us is perfect, or can be carried into execution in any of its i)arts, until t!ie Chamber has given the Government the means of executing it. Nothing can be considered as de- finitive which is subject to the vote of the Chamber. The foreigner, wha enters into contract with our Government, knows that well ; for every one must know the capacity of the party with whom he enters into engage- ments ; and our constitution is not oidy a rule for ourselves, but also serves to warn those who treat with us. This principle is understood by all. The Minister of Foreign Affairs acknowledges that the vote of the Chamber ought to be preceded by the presentation of every document which can inform the members relative to the treaty, as he is occupied in obtaining them, and engages to submit [ Doc. No. 2. ] 408 them to the Chamber at the opening of its next session. They will then be examined yvith the most serious attention. [J\'o further notice was taken of the tieatij during this session, which ended on the 26th of June. The next session began on the 23d of Vecembet'-, 1833.] Monday, January 13, 1834. M. HuMAX.v, Minister of Finance. Gentlemen : We last year had the honor to present to you a bili {projet de loi) relative to the execution of tiie treaty bctsveen France and the' United States, signed on the 4th of July, 1831. The labors of a double session* not having allowed you to take up the subject, we now again submit it to yon, and ask your sanction to the arrangements therein made. We consider it superfluous to repeat the exposition of the facts and considerations which have led to the convention in question : tliey have already been laid before you, with all the explanations calculated to de- monstrate the necessity as well as the propriety of an act, the object of which was to put an end to diflerences injurious to botii countries, and em- barrassing their political and commercial relations. It is sutHcient to remind you that it imposes a new charge upon France, which is not, however, w ithout compensation, as, independently of the sum of 1,500,000 francs, which the United States engages to pay on account of the claims urged by France in behalf of its citizens, important advan- tages have been secured for our trade in wines, which are to enter the United States at reduced duties during the space often years. You will,, we have i-eason to liope, see that as our commercial iiiterests and the rights of French citizens to whom the United States are indebted, are thus secur- ed by this convention, the Kitig's Government has fairly reconciled the sacrifice demanded by the Treasury, with powerful conside»'ations of equity and policy. It is however the duty of tiic Minister of Foreign Aft'airs to give the Chamber all the explanations which it may desire on the subject. The object of the bill is to give the Minister of Finance the necessary powers to fulfil the engagements contracted in the name of France, by the treaty of July 4, 1834! BILL. Art. 1. The Minister of Finance is authorized to take the nc:essary measures for carrying into eftect the first and second articles of the treaty signed on the 4th of July, 1831, between the King of the French and the United States of America, tiic ratifications of which were exchanged at Washington on the 2d of February, 1832, and by the terms of which the sum of twenty-five millions of francs is to be paid by France. Art. 2. The Minister of Finance shall provide for the execution of the dispositions resulting from the third and fourth articles of the said treaty, by which the Government of tlie United States engages to pay to France one million five hundred thousand francs, in order to free itself from claims presented in behalf of Frencli citizens and of tlie public Treasury. The receipts upon this sum of one million five hundred thousand francs,. • The Chambers were assembled In 1833, immediately after their prorogation. 404 [ Doc. No. 2. ] and the employment of tlie same, shall be the object of a special account of receipts and exi)cnses in the budgets of the State. Done at I'aris, at the palace of theTuillcries, on the 2d day of January, 1834. LOUIS PHILIPPE. By the King : Humann, Minister of Finance. The President of the Chamber. The bill is received, and ordered to be printed ; to be referred to the Bureaux. ^ The committee charged with examining the bill consisted of the follow- ing nine Deputies, being one from each Bureau: Count Jaubert, M. Bes- siercs, M. Jay, M. Realier Dumas, M. Berigny, M. Ganneron, M. Pisca- tory, Baron Bignon, and M. Odier. On the 10th of March M. Jay presented, on behalf of the committee, the following REPORT: Tlie committee charged by you witli examining the treaty concluded on the 4th of July, 1831, between France and tlie United States, fully compre- hended the importance of the objects with which it has been entrusted, and proceeded in tisis investigation witli that conscientious attention and me- thodical application which the nature of its duties required. Your com- mittee has conferred witli the Minister of Foreign Affairs ; it has ob- tained all the documents calculated to enlighten its judgment, which could be collected, and their authenticity and exactness were determined by two of its members. Finally, it has taken into consideration the ne- gotiations relative to the claims of the United States, which have been suspended and recommenced several times since 1812. Tiiese are the elements of the work of which I am now, in the name of your committee, to present you the details and results. Before entering on the examination of the treaty of 1831, we have thought proper to give a sketch of the incidents which preceded that trans- action. The facts go back to a period distant in point of time, and render- ed still more ancierit by the multiplicity and the greatness of events, which seem to have thrown back the limits of ordinary life for those who were theii- contemporaries. x\fter a simple analysis, w^e shall come as rapidly as possible to the priiicipal questions whicii we have to discuss and resolve. From the 18th of Brumairc, (Nov. 8, 1799,) France enjoyed the bene- fits of a regular administration, and beyond its limits victory had proved the power of our arms. It was at this time tiiat the First Consul resolved to enforce the principle of fi-ee navigation, and to introduce the ordinary rules of national right into the maritime code of nations. This idea, at once liberal, grand, and politic, was applied in the convention signed on the 8th of Brumaire, in the year 9, (October 30, 1800,) between France and the United States; the right of blockade, and its conditions, the right of search, and its regulations, are there settled in a maimer conformable with morality, with the just interests of the belligerent Pouers, and with re- spect for private jiroperty. The treaty is only indeed a summary ex- position of the fundamental princijde that •' the flag covers the property ;** a principle to which France has always looked in her treaties, and which, thanks to the progress of general civilization, will one day eflect the free- dom of neutral flags, and the liberty of the seas. One only difficulty Avas from the beginning adverse to the conclusion of [ Doc. No. 2. ] 405 the treaty of 1800. The American njinister claimed iiulemnification for losses sustained by several citizens of the United States, under tlie govern- ment of the Directory, as well as for other cases of legal condemnation. By the second and fifth articles of this ti-eaty, the question was adjoui-ned to a more convenient time ; it was settled by a convention whirli is a comple- ment to the treaty of cession of Louisiana of the 11th Floreal, year Xf, (30th April, 1803,) and which was signed on the same day. The amicable relations which had subsisted between France and the United States since the convention of 1800, continued, to the i-eciprocal satisfaction of both nations', up to the moment when the British Govcriunent, then under the influence of the aristocratic party, took advantage ot its naval superiority and its insular position, to arrogate to itself ti»e exclusive dominion over the seas. Such a pretension, followed up by acts, would give to naval warfare a character of irritation and vengeance hitherto unknown. The Emperor Napoleon, for his own dcfciice, was forced to make just repri- sals, and to exercise a right which is paramount over all others — the su- preme right of necessity. It was but a short time after the rupture of the peace of Amiens that England first introduced tiiese measures, equally repugnant to justice and to the laws of nations. A first order in coinicil, of June 24, 1803, forbade the indirect commerce of neutrals between pai-ent countries and their colo- nics. This system received a still greater extension by other orders in council, especially by those of the 9th of August, 1804, of the 8tli of April, and of the 16th of May, 180G, which declared the French coasts from Dieppe to Ostcnd, and from the Elbe to Brest, in a state of blockade. The evident intention of tlic British ministry was to deprive France of all commercial communication witli other nations, and of all assistance which it might otherwise receive in time of scarcit}'. Already, in 1805, had an order from tiie Cabinet of St. James' authorized the arrest of every Ame- rican vessel laden with goods or merchandise not the product of the United States. The Government of the Union passed an energetic act in Decem- ber, 1805, in reply to these hostile proceedings : it relaied to the impress- ment of seamen, numbers of whom had been carried off, although under the protection of the United States. *'This act of the American Govei'nment," says one of our colleagues, in a distinguished historical work, '' [jleases the imagination and the judg- ment, as it presents an instance of a nation, which, notwithstanding the extreme inferiority of its forces, preserves its dignity towards a jjowerful State." — {Bignon^s Ilislonj of France.) Such was the situation of England with regard to France and the neu- tral Powers, when Napoleon, whom victory had leower and commerce. From this period, the ad\ance of our maiuifactures may be dated. The aim of the Emperor was to free Euroj>e from its sidijcction to the industry of England. He gave the isnpulse, and that impulse has created capitals, and caused certain branches of tnanufacture to, be carried to such a degree of perfection, that competition being no longer dieaded, those barriers which prevent I'eciprocal interchange among nations, and which carry into a period of entiie peace the restrictive combinations adapted to a state of war, may now be removed. 406 [ Boc. No. 2. I By liic decree of Beiliti, the Em])eror declared the British islands in a state "'/ blockade ; all Eiiglisli proiliictioiis, withont exception, were good prize : and no vessel coming from an English poit could be received in a French pnrt. The pride of Britain was wounded by this act of retaliation, and exiiibitcd itself in the order in council of November 11, 1807. By this order, all the ports of France and its allies are declared to be blockaded ; all communication is interdicted to neut^'als, as if those ports were effect- ively blockaded. Finally, articles, the produce of the United States or the colonies, exported to Europe by America, must be unloaded in Eng- land, and subject to the regulations and duties of re-exportation. The same measures were to apjdy to all vessels of other neutral Powers, and the English cruisers were ordered to search and conduct them to England. Tiie Emperor replied to these acts of violence, by the decrees of Milan of the 23d November and irth December, 1807; the one ordering the seizure and confiscation of every vessel which, after having touched in Eng- land, should enter a port of France; the other declaring that every vessel uhich should pay any duty whatever to the British Government, should forfeit its national character. In examining the progress of this new maritime code, it is evident that France did not provoke its dispositions, but received them ready made from England. The strongest proof of this is the opinion of the Emperor him- self on the deciees, as expressed in his message communicating to the Se- nate the extraordinary measures he had adopted. He says: *'lt is with great pain that we have thus made the interests of individuals dependent upon the quarrels of Kings, and have been obliged to return, after so many years of civilization, /o the principles which characteri'xe the barbarism of 1the earliest ages. But we have been constrained, fi>r the good of our peo- ple and of our allies, to oppose to the commonenemy the same arms which lie wields against us. Tliese resolutions are the result of a just sentiment of recijirocity. and have been inspired neither by passion nor by hatred." Having defined the charactci* of these violent legislative proceedings, we will now examine their efTects on the United States, whose flag, at that period, covered every sea. A great number of American vessels were seized in obedience to the decrees of Berlin and Milan, either in the ports ' of France, or in jdaces occupied by its troops, or by those of its allies. '' Other American vessels wci-e also seized by virtue of the British orders in council : but so extensive was the commerce of the United States at that ■ period, that those losses, frequent as they were, were' more than covered by the profits. The Federal Government issued a resolution on the 22(1 of December, 1807, the object of which v»as to preserve Americans from the conse- quences of these measures against neutrals. It established an embargo in all the ports of the Union ; no American vessel could sail for any foreign ■ destination, nor even go from one j)ort to another of the United States, without previously giving security to the amount of double the value of tlierself and cargo. 'Jhis resolution, which may be regarded not as an act 'of hostility, but as a means of preservation, did not answer the views of ^' the American Government. The greater part of tlie American captains remained in Europe, and became the commercial agents of other nations. Tliis circumstance made tlie French Government more severe; and the decrees of Beilin and Milan were most I'igidiy enforced. Tl'.e American GovciTimciit, on its part, perceived the insufficiency of its [ Doc. No. 2. ] 407 embargo, ami replaced it by the non-intercourse act, apj)l}ing only to Englantl and France. All vessels under the flag of either of those nations were forhi(hien from entering the waters or ports of ti»c United States, from the 20th of May following; that is to say, from the eightieth day after its passage, every vessel violating this act should be seized and con- demned : no product of the soil or industry of France or England conid be introduced into the United States, and all which was attempted to be in- troduced was to be seized and confiscated. It is to be remarked, to the honor of tiie United States, that vessels driven in by storm were not sub- ject to the consequences set f(>rth in the act — an exception worthy of a free people. The non-intercourse act was undoubtedly a legitimate means of reprisal, but it must equally be admitted that it altered the position of the United States, and cff-.^cted their neutrality. Tl»e misunderstanding already ex- Hsting was augmented by it; and it brought on the decree of llambouill^t of Mai'ch 23, 18 10. declaring t!iat every vessel under the flag of the United States, which should, after the 20th of May, 1810, enter a poit of France, or its colonies, or asiy country occupied by its armies, should be confis- cated, and the proceeds of the sale placed in the sinking fund, [caisse d'amortissement.'j Anolher decree, of August 5, ISIO, ordered that all sums existing in the said fund should be transferred, to tlie public Treasury. This decree con- ditionally revoked those of Berlin and Milan, which ^>ere to cease to have effect from the 1st of the following November, in case the British Go- vernment should recall its orders of blockade, and those subjecting neu- tral vessels to its regulations ; or the United States should cause their in- dependence to be respected. The way was thus ojjened for a reconcilia- tion, and we shall see what were the results. Here ends the series of repressive measures between France and tlie United States. It was socfn observed that such a situation was injurious to the interests of both parties; and the necessity of an understanding be- came evident. The United States iiad declared that their nan -intercourse act would cease to apply to the nation which should first revoke its decrees affecting tliemsclves. The French Govei'nment met these oveitures favorably, and informed the minister plenipotentiary of the Uni.ed States that the de- crees of Berlin and Milan would, after the 1st of November, 1810, be re- garded as if they had never existed {comme non-avenus) with respect to Americans. The Federal Government, on being informed of this decision, declared, by a proclamation of November 2, 1810, that the non-intercourse act would cease to apply to Fi-ance and its colonies : at the same time it was ordered that the act, the term of which was on the ])oint of expiring, should again be enforced from the 10th of February, 1811, if, within that period, the English Government should not also have revoked its orders. England resolved to persist in this system, a!id the American Congress again ajiplied its non-inlercourse net, 'J'his i-esistance to the orders of the British coimcil decided the Emperor to declare, by decree of 28th April, IS II, that the prohibitive deci-ees were definitively revoked with regard to the Americans, from tl'.e 1st of November, 1810. As there had been no war, thei'c \\ as no treaty of ])eace, and ainicable relations wci'C renewed between the two nations, will>.out any positive convention ; a most^xtra- 408 [ Doc. No. 2. J ordinary situation, indeed, and one of which history offers no other exani- ple. To he sure, at tiiat period, every thing w as out of the common rules. The struggle between France and England had become so violent, so much interwoven witii passion, that reconciliation seemed impossible. Tiie complicated diama, of which Europe, or rather the whole world, was the theatre, could only be cojicluded by one of those acts of fate which strike Jiations with stupoi', and impose upon them new conditions of existence which they can neither accept nor refuse. Destiny, however, had not yet pronounced iisjiaf. The first care of the American Government was to demand indemnifi- cation for the seizures which it insisted had been illegally made. Mr. Barlow, minister plenipotentiary of the United States, was ordered to pre- sent and urge these claims on the Fiencli Government; but the military events which so rapidly succeeded, lendered his negotiations slow ; he, however, obtained favor for future relations. His oiHcial correspondence even shows that he consideied himself on the point of concluding a tt'eaty of commerce. He went, in 18'1£, to Wilna, on the invitation of the Duke ofBassano, Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the hope of terminating this arrangement; all was, however, frustrated by the disasters of our army, and the American negotiator himself died in a little village in Poland, leaving his work unfinished. We shall now proceed to an analytical examination of the negotiations which follow ed those of Mr. Barlov/, from 1812 to the conclusion of the treaty of 1831. The first document in chronological order is an extract from a report presented to the Emperor on the 1 itii of Januaiy, 1814, by the Duke of Vicenza, Minister of Foreign AITairs. The minister declared that no in- demnification ought to be granted for vessels seized in virtue of the Berlin and Milan decrees. " But," he adds, •< these observations cannot apply to vessels seized since the 1st of Noven'ibcr, 18iO, at which time these decrees were revoked in favor of the Americans ; nor to tlje vessels against which they were enforced, ailiiougii they jsad no knowledge of tliem before their arrival in our poits : nor to those vessels wiiicli iiad been destroyed at sea by vessels of the State ; nor, finally, to those seized at St. Sebastian, which tlicy had entered under the persuasion that the ports of Biscay were open to them. , The indemnifications amownted — For the first class, to - . - 1,800,000 francs. For the second ... 1,700,000 For the tliird - - - £,200,000 For the fourth ... 7,300,000 Total, - - 13.000,000 <» These estimates," says the minister, << were made from the lists of the vessels and sales furnished by the Department of Commerce ; but as it may- be admitted that the prices were generally below the real value, and that these lists are not yet complete, it may be supposed that the indemnifica- tion to be granted will surpass this sum, and may be stated at about eighteen millions of francs." The United States were tlien carrying on a difficult aiid glorious war with Great Britain, Under this point of view, Napoleon's policy had [ Doc. No. 2. ] '409 been effectual, and it is natural to iningiiic that, by receiving tlio claims of the Auiei'icans favorably, he wished, at tlie same tiine, to do an act oi' justiro, and to encourai^e them in their elforts. But he had not tinie : i!ie hoiii" was come. The Empire, rendei-ed illustrious to the h'>st niomeut hy genius and glory, but weakejied by the general desire foriepose,and esjvc- cially by the absence of liberty, tottered and fell under the weiglit of all •Europe. The Restoi-ation arose mournfully iij)on these vast ruins ; and a Jiew ei-a began for France ar,d for iii'.rope. The Restoration could have but little sympathy with a republic founded on the principle of national sovereignty, and which had arisen wiili great- ness asid distinction from a revolution. vSo it is easy to })erceive. in the policy (jfthe various ministers id' the Rcstoiation witii regard to the claims incessantly urged by the United States, the manifest desire to evade them by Q.\ei'y means which circumstances and the interpretation of former trea- ties could suggest. We shall see them in the following reasonir)gs, while admitting the justice of certain claims, endeavoring t(5 escape the conse- «juences of such atlmission. 1. Tin; S'.h article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, concluded in IjSOS, declares that French vessels shall be ti-eated on the footing of the )!!ost favored nation, in the ports of Unit country. But, by the ti-caty of Ghent of 1814, the English received advantages in those veiy ports which the French have not ; France has, therefore, a riglit to indemnification for tiie damages which its commerce may have sustained I'rom this infraction. Tlie imlemnifications demanded on either side are to be weighed against t-ach other; the questions are of tlie same ciiaracter, au date of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, as far as they affecteif Americans. It attacked the seizures made before this period, whcu they had not been conducted according to legal forms : thus every thing, which did not result from a condemnation by the Prize Council, every thing which had been done before the Americans coiild receive notirc of 4l2 [ Doc. No. 2. ] tlic proliiijitive dccjccs, all seizures ninde in ports out of France, sac?;- a3 t!i(»He i-;t St. Sebastian, wei'c considered by the United States as iUcgUi- mate, and requiring con;jvensation. Tiicy also demanded reparation for tlicSossol'a certain number ot" American vessi-ls, which having bcesi met aS sea by French vessels, were burnt or sunk by them, in order eo conceal their movements irom the enemy. It was upon these claims only that discussions were carried on. ftYoui- committee began by layifsg aside the principles of nt)n-responsib!lity ibr the acts of the Imperial Government, which had been termed a usurping overnmc!ot by tiic Restoration. Such an exception was untenable. A Governme}it is to other nations only the representative of that whose exterior relations it conducts. The acts of the Emper!)r were the acts of a most legitimate power. The justice of certain American claims has been admitted in principle; negotiations had been begun, and were on the point of being .concluded. Tliis ])o]ilical proceeding of the Imperial Government was to be considered as the act of that which succeeded it, and which, on entering irjto power, took upon itself its burdens and its advantages. Tliere may be an interruption in tl;e existence of a Govern- ment ; there can be none in that of a ])eople, Governments, whatever be their pretensions, being only representatives : if the reproach of usurpatioi'j had been founded on justice (and it certainly was not) it coald not pre- vail against those maxims of public law which guaranty the rights and reciprocal duties of nations. This point beii.'g established, your committee took up the demands of Mr. Rives, the American minister, in 1831. They were prcser»ted under niiic heads or classes, ar.d he proposed to have tliem discussed by a joint commission, to be composed of commissioners from each country. The Jieads, or classes, [categories,] were as follows: 1. Vessels not iiefjiiiiively condemned by the Prize Council. 2. Vessels destroyed at sea. 3. Sums dnc for articles furnished, 4. Condemnations made contrary to tlie convention of 1800. 5. Condemnations made since November 1, 1310. 6. Condemnations made by incompetent tribunals. 7. Condemnations made without the ordinary forms of procedui'c. 8. Condemnations made by a retrospective application of the decrees. 9. All seizures for wiiich the joint commission may agree that indem- nification should be allowed. According to the opinion of the commission of 1831, it v. as decided, Ist. That there should be no mixed commission. 2d. That we showiil treat for a fixed sum, the distribution of which should be abandoned to the United States, according to general principles agreed upon between the tw'o Go- vernments. Sd. That tise Iseads, or classes, proposed by Mr. Rives, should be simplified, and reduced to the four whicii had been adopted in 1814, viz. 1. Vessels seized before the decrees of Berlin and Milan were known ; that is to say, within eighty days after their publication. 2. Vessels seized after the 1st of November, ISIO, the date of the re- peal of those decrees. •3. Vessels seized in Spain, and sold at Eayonne. 4. Vessels sunk or burnt by the French squadrons. It is the unanimous opinion of your committee that the Gover}i- f Doc. No. 2. J 413 mtm has acted justly In admitting the American claims embraced within tlj(»sc limits as tiie basis of a dcfiuitivG arrangemeTit Nvith ti-c UisKed States. The Government acted justly ; for, by the {)rit!ci[dcs of the laws of na- tions, if it be necessary to destroy neutral vessels in time of war for our own security, indemnification should be ni^de for the injury. As to the seizures at St, Sebastian, several circuPiistances, among otiiers, a lettci- published by General Thouvenot, commatider of the military divi^iion of Ouipuscoa. may have induced the Americans ta believe that they might safely enter tlie port of that city, particularly as one American vessel had actually been allowed to unload and dispose of its cargo without molesta- tion. Our national honor was interested in the admission of the claims under tiiis head. V/itli respect to the seizures made after the repeal of the .prohibitive decrees, it must be granted that this retrosjKJCtive proceeding was unjustiSable, especially as the United States were at the vary time com- snencing a war with Great Britain, in vindication of their neutrality. Final- ly, it is conformable with propriety, and with equity, that no j)rohii)itory measure should be carried into execution, until after a period suflicient to give the parties whom it would affect, s.n opportunity of kiunving it. Eighty days were allowed for this purpose, in reciprocation of the same period granted to French vessels by the American non-intercourse act. *• Having admitted the justice of the American claims, we took up tiie se- cond (question, to wit: Whether the sum of 25,000,000 francs could have t)een reduced ; or, in other words, whetlier the Government could not liave concluded a treaty v.'ith the United States on less onerous terms. On tiiis point opinions were divided. Some of the committee insisted that the American claims had by changing hands, become much deprcciat- «d ; that the present holders would have considered themselves \ ery fortu- nate in being able to surrender tiiem at a price far less tiian the sum allowed tliera; and that^ if the Government had urged this, it might have obtained better conditions. Your committee know no fact, and had no rule by whicU those assertions could be weighed. In justice, the payment is due, upon proof of the debt, 'to the person who may be the Insider of tlie claim. Let the public funds be ever so low, the capital is not the less justly due. The Govcnnnent did not inquire into whose hands the claims liad passed, but whether the sum of twenty-five millions did not exceed their value. We will, therefore, without longer dwelling upon this consideration, which is foreign to the matter in question, proceed to examine the grounds, on wiiich the above estimate was founded. The documents presented were : Scvei*al oHicial lists furnished by the administration of the custom-hmiscs, sljowing the vessels which were seized in Spain — those seized in Holland and sold at Antwerp — and those seized by the French authorities and sold in the same port; an oiiicial list, found in the archives of the Prize Council, of the American vessels condemned between the 1st of January, 1807, and the ist of November, 1810 ; together with eleven lists drawn up under the Em- pire, from otScial sources, but incomplete. Among tliese we shall notice, 1st. A list of American vessels which had entered the ports of France before Taaving knowledge of the Bei-lin decree of November 21, 1806, or the jSIi- lan decrees of November 23 and December 17, 1807. 2d. A list of the American vessels seized in France since the 1st of November, 1810. ?d. The officiallist, furnished by the Minister of Marine, of the American 414 [ Doc. No. 2. J v>cssels biinil or sunk at sea by vessels f>f tlie Freitcii navy. 4th, ScTers'l .suj)|)leinentary lists i'rom llie archives «)i" tlie Council of State. Aftci- an attentive examination of tiiesc various docmnents, tlie five fol- lowing statements vvei-e made out, on wliich the estintate was founded :. Statement J — Destroyed at sea by French vessels^ without any othe?* ni.otivc tlian llic interests «)f our navy, 31 ve.ssels — -allow 31 vessels and 31^ cargoes, oi' which 4 were vaUjed by the liochefort commission, to wit : Francs. Cent The Hart - - . - . 80,205 27 The Two Friends ----- 177,078 05 The Alpha - - - - ' - 105,119 32 The Minerva - - , - - - 264,525 85 Total - - ... . 626,928 49 Statement B. — Seized and c(xndemMed by \\\& Prize Council, or by Im- perial decisions, in virtue of the Berlin and Milan decrees, before the expi- i-ation of eighty days from tlieir publication, 42 vessels ; from which are to be deducted^ — the Jngusta, restored with her cargo ; the Jimerica, wliich had lost Iter nationality, having been previously captured by an English brig» and carried into Portsmouth ; and the cargoes o-ftlic Speculator, the Charles- ton., "hti Hibernia, and the Thomas Jefferson^ which vessels were in ballast when raptured. There remain, then, 40 vessels and 36 cargoes. Statement C. — Seized in Spain, 'and carried into Bayoime, 36 vessels ? from which are to be deorts of Louisiana, France was entitled to receive the same. Thus, when England obtained, by the Ghent treaty in 1815, the same privileges 418 > [ Doc. No. 2. ] for Iter vessel*! in the ports of the United States, which were eiijoyed by American vessels, France considered herself justified in demanding that her vessels should receive the same favor in the ports of Louisiana. Two abjections were made to this claim. The United States urged that the concession made to England was not gratuitous ; that they merely granted the same advantages wiiich their own vessels enjoyed in the ports of the Englisli colonies ; and that, if they should receive from France the same favors, they would treat her in like manner. IJut this objection is controverted by the preceding observations. France had already paid the price of the privilege demanded, and that privilege had been granted to her without the exaction of any other conditions. The second objection raised by the United States was, tijat they had no right, by their legislation, to grant sp^ecial privileges in one part of tlie fede- ral territory, which were not enjoyed by all other parts ; and that therefore foreigners cannot be received in the ports of Louisiana in a manner differ- ent from that in wiiich they ai-e received in other ports of the Union. To this objection, it is sufficient to reply, that it was not urged when the Unit- ed States reserved for France these special advantages in the ports of Louisiana, by the treaty of 1803, which was ratified by Congress accord- ing to the terms required by the constitution ; yet the system of legislation .was then the same as at present. Besides, the intercourse between nations is not legulatcd by the legislation of any one, but by treaties. The com- mercial privileges claimed by France were founded on express stipulations in a treaty formally made; and if that treaty were to be modified, such modificaiion could only be made with the consent of both the parties to it. It is therefore evident that France had a right to demand reparation of the injury sustained by its commerce, in consequence of the proceedings of the Federal Government. The difficulty consisted in finding some way in which this reparation could be conveniently made. Generally, when repa- ration or compensation is demanded, ^ome material loss has been sustained, some object has been destroyed. But here the case is different. The loss sustained by the French merchants was of the opportunity of trading advan- tageously with Louisiana ; and that which is to be estimated is an eventual benefit, which there is no ])ositive mode of appreciating. The United States, in order to resolve tljis difficulty, consented ta a considerable reduc- tion in the duties on French wines in all their ports for the ensuing ten years — a concession which has already proved highly advantageous to the exportation of our wines. The reparatioiv is of the same character with the daniage sustained ; profits are to be made in compensation for those wiiich have not been made. The transaction is favorable to our foreign commerce, which only wants opportunity of extension, to become flourish- ing. The United States now offer the most advantageous market for the products of our soil and industry. We have one last observation to make on this important head. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has told us that, from the researches he lias made, the duties paid by Freuch commerce exceed by 400,000 francs the sum which would have been paid had France been treated on the footing of the most favored nation in the ports of Louisiana. On the other hand, the commerce of France, in consequence of the reduction in the duties on our wines, allowed since the treaty of 1831, has gained 1,200,000 francs. So the loss of which France complained, has already been well compen- sated. [ Doc. No. 2. ] 419 Of the 25,000,000 francs allowed as indemnification, 1,500,000 francs remain in the hands of the French Government. This sum is destined lo satisfy the claims presented hy France, in favor of its citizens, or of the pub- lic Ticasury, either for articles supplied long since, and accounts the set- tlement of which had been reserved, or for seizures, captures, detention and illegal destruction of vessels, cargoes, or other Frencli propei-ty. It Is left to the Government to examine the demands for indemniiication made by Frenchmen, some of which have been officially communicated to your committee. We doubt not tliat all claims fournled in justice will be ad- mitted ; such is the duty of the administration, and its honor and justness are interested in performing it. You have submitted to your committee a petition, addressed to you in the name of the members of the Legion of Luxembourg, by Mr. Briot, their attorney. They declaie the United States indebted to them for old services, and that they have on different occasions made fruitless endeavors to obtain a settlement of their claims. They i»ow propose that you should insert an amendment into the law, in their favor. Your committee could not enter upon the examination of this claim, which is accompanied by no document. As to tlie amendment j)roposed, it should not be taken into consideration ; by adding any clause whatever to a treaty, the Chamber would go beyond its constitutional limits. Tliis right be- longs only to the Executive. The Chamber has the light to refuse the appropriations necessary for carrying into effect a treaty which may appear to endanger the dignity and interest of France, or to graiit sucli a|)pro])riations if the treaty be evidently concluded according lo the rules of justice, and for the real advantage of the country. We have now to examine the main question in its most important cha- racter, that is, in its political and commercial points of view. The treaty of 1831 has effaced the last traces of misunderstanding between two free nations, the Governments of which have the same origin, which have no rivalship as to their respective interests, and wiiich should be united by the same jwlitical views. This good understanding will be productive of hapj)y results for both nations, at present and in future. Tliey stand in need of each other, and the natural alliance of nations is principally found- ed on community of feelings and interests. The United States are not in a situation tocan-y on manufiictureSy so as to compete with those of Europe, and especially of France. The high price of labor, tiie want of proj)er habits for such pui'suits, and the ease with which they may obtain the products of a fertile soil of almost unlimit- ed extent, must long prevent them from submitting to the irksome and steady labors of maimfacturers. They will long continue to seek in agri- culture and foreign trade that wealth and that power which are at pre- sent the most undoubted tests of the welfare of societies, and the strength of States. On the other hand, the Americans, without being artists, are fond of the aits; and, without being manufacturers, sock for the more beautiful pro- ducts of industry. Bronzes, marbles, the costly furniture of our Parisian workshops, our jewelry, carpets, porcelain, silks, &c. find in the United States a daily increasing mai-ket. The Americans consume our wines and brandies ; they adopt our fashions, and dress in our stuffs. The city of Lyons alone sent them last year silks to the value of fifty millions 420 [ Doc. No. 2. ] of fi-aiics. And we, in return, receive the raw material which we want, and which, after having been worked up, again crosses the ocean ; and thus is a constant interchange maintained, to tiic great advantage of bot!i countries. Scarcely had the ratifications of the treaty of 1831 been exchanged, wlien the American Government carried into effect the clause relating to the reduction of duty on our wines ; it granted free entry to French silks, by keeping up a discriminating duty of ten per cent, on those inij)orted from China, atid has ever since that j)eriod manifested, on all occasions, the intention of establishing the most intimate commercial relations wit!i France. The utility ofthe.se relations is generally appreciated in our manufacturing cities and maritime ports. Since 1830, the exportation of wines and manufactures has considerably increased ; a fact interesting to our agriculture and industry, which has had considerable effect on the de- Hberations'of your committee. The Americans undoubtedly participate in the advantages of this increase of trade, but that very circumstance is sufficient to ensure its extension and long duration. There is nothing left at present, which can give rise to mistrust or jealousy betueen France and the United States. The two nations, whose fraternal flags have waved in triumph over the same battle-field, for the same cause, should look on the progress of each other with satisfaction, and advance hand in hand in the way to social jjcrfection. Such is the only rivalship which should exist be- tween them. From the considerations, whicii I have successively indicated, and which are submitted for your impartial examination, your committee pro- pose the adoption of the following BILL. Art. 1. The Minister of Finance is authorized to take the necessary measures for carrying into effect the first and second articles of the trea- ty signed on the 4th of July, 1831, between the King of the French and the United States of America, the ratifications whereof were exchanged at Washington on the 2d of February, 1832, according to which the snm of twenty-five millions of francs is to be paid by France. Art. 2. The Minister of Finance shall provide for the execution of the arrangements resulting from the third and fourth articles of said treaty, by which the United States engage to pay to France 1,500.000 francs, in or- der to free themselves from all the claims of French citizens or of the pub- lic Treasury. The disposal and distribution of the above sum shall be the object of a special account of debtor and creditor in the budgets of the State. DEBATES. Friday, March 28, 1834. ' The President of the Chamber of Deputies. Gentlemen : The order of the day is the discussion of the projet de loi, for carrying into execution the treaty of July 4, 1831, between France and the United States. [ Doc. No. 2. ] 421 M. EoissY d'Anglas. GentlLMTien : If tlie treaty subniiticd to tis offered any real advan- tages for France, if it were established on |;rincij>lcs of justice and reci- procity, I should not oppose the bill now before you ; but as I find in it none of tliose charactcis, I think that we should not agree to the payment of an enormous sum, which Ihc uiifortimatc situation of oi;r iinanees does not allow us to part with gratuitously. The resistance made by the Restoration to these claims sliould I'endei* us extrenu'ly cautious with respect to ti)em : if the late Government, sub- mitting as it did to the other immense demands made by foreigners, always refused to allow^ those of the United States, how can we accept a chas'ge of which even it would never acknowledge the justice ? Tlirec times, as you, gentlemen, all know, has the Government proposed to you the bill wliicli we arc now discussing ; and 1 frankly avow that the reasons advanced in its favor by the Minister of Finance, on the 6th of April, 18S3, instead of convincing me of the propriety of the treaty, have demonstrated the contrary to my satisfaction. It is only by the report of our honorable colleague, M. Jay. that v.e can learn tlic true state of the question ; 1 render all justice to the labors of the committee, and to the luminous explarsations which it has made : but I think that conclusions may be drawn from them of a nature entirely contrary to those which it has adopted. The Ministei- of Finance, in his reasons for adopting the bill, expressly acknowledges *• that however rigorous the decrees ui!let deci'ces ; and the Federal Government," adds the Min- ister of Fiiiance, '< by endeavoring to do ilself justice, had lost its right to indemnification for seizuscs made in virtue of these decreees." Your committee, gentlemen, has formally recognised this same pi'inciplc : its report says, '* Napoleon, for his own (iefence, was forced to mak« just i-eprisals, and to exercise a rigiit paramount ovei' all others — the supi-emc right of necessity." And again : " In examining tiiC ])rogre5>s oftliis new maritime code, it is evident that Fi-ance did not pi-ovoke its dispositions, but received them ready made from England." So ytuj see tliut, after such a recognition of the ''igorous rights of war, France was foi'ced to employ reprisals wlwch had been ])rovoke(! by its enemies, and imposed by necessity. NYe may well as!i, after tliis, how our Government could iiavc siibjected itself to t!ic payment of twenty-fivo millions to the United States, xvhich confiscated our vessels, and the productions of our soil and industry in vessels of whatsoever nation tfieij may have been introduced into -.Imerica. Other natiojis at war with France made use of measures with j-cgard to the United States no less rigorous than tliose prescribed by the said decrees, and 422 [ Doc. No. 2. ] no less projudicial to their commerce, and in like manner confiscated llicir vessels and cai-goes, by way of reprisals. From tliesc nations tlie Federal Government lias demanded nothing, because it recognised, witli respect to them, the principles and consequences of a mutual com|)ensation. Why should we not claim tlie same right, since the Restoration so successfully used it in repelling unjust exactions ? If our Government be destined to submit to injustice from a nation which owes its very existence to the genei'osity of the French ; if we have not in- voked a sacred right, which the Federal Government has respected in others ; if we arc to be under the necessity of again passing, as in 1815, under the fnrcai cmulings of all nations, a treaty based upon the most rigorous justice can at most oblige us to pay only the excess of the injury received from us by this nation, wiiich forgets that its independence was bought by the blood and treasui-e of France. It is only after an exact com- parison of tlieir losses with tliose which we have sustained from tliem, that it can be known whether or not we ai'e their debtors. The Government should Iiave made such a comparison befoi-e it subscribed to a losing tj'cafy. Your committee was aware of tlj« force of this objection ; its repoi-ter has informed us of the investigations into which it entered; and we seetJiat, in order to determine tlie United States to declare war against England, and to encourage them in their endeavors to support it. the Em- peror Napo!e(m did attend to the claims advanced by the Federal Govei-n- nient, and that negotiations wei-e begun in 1812 witli his Minister of Fo- reign Aflaij'S. But that wliich was then the effect of his far-reaching policy, and after- wards the result of the sad necessity in which lie had been placed by his dreadful reverses, carmot now be alleged as a reason for paying a sum twice as great as then admitted, wilhotit taking into account the losses suffered by us, and for which we have on our part to demand satisfaction. The re[)oi"t presented to the Empert)r Napoleon by the Minister of Fo- reign Affairs, on the 11th of January, 1814, (recollect the date and the disasters of that period,) declai-es that nothing is due on account of vessels seized in virtue of the 15erlin and Milan decrees, and that the indemnifi- cations for vessels seized after their revocation may amount lo lliirteeu millions. It is true, the minister admitted that, making a higher estimate of the values of the vessels and cargoes, tiiis sum might be raised to eighteen millions. Tlie Ciiambcr will not be deceived as to the real motive whicli, in 1814. induced this minister to piopose such a sacrifice to Napoleon, in order to engage the United States in a war with Great Britain : he yielded to the dire necessity in which his disasters had placed him, for, as the reporter observes, the last hour was come: but it would be a great mistake to con- clude, from this, tliat the Imperial Government renounced the principle of compensation, to which the right of I'eprisal had given origin. This is proved by the fact that nothing was said at the time about alleging, in op- position, the claims of French merchants, on account of the confiscations or destruction of their vessels, made by virtue of the resolution of the Federal Government, or by its infraction of the treaty of 1803. I acknowledge with the committee, that if the Government «f the- Re- storation had opposed the demands of the United States on no other grounds than that they were not called upon to repair injuries caused by the acts of the Emperor, it would have been in the wrong ; but its re- sistance was based on legitimate motives, the justice of which w^s admit- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 423 ted in part by tlie plenipotentiary of tlic Federal Government, as the reporter informs you — I mean tlie infraction of (lie 8th article of the Louisiana tri'aty. If to this be added the amount of losses sustained by our commerce, in conse- quence of the political measures of the United States, I could prove tliat the treaty of 1831 cannot receive your assent: for this 1 need not recur to the acts and protocols of the Govcrnn»ent of the Restoration ; I have only to repeat the words of the Minister of Finance, in his reasons already cited. He says, "that, besides its just claims on account of losses, and the pecuniary demands of various soi'ts, njade by Fiench citizens, on the Federal Go- vcriiment, France had yet to obtain satisfaction respecting tiie 8th article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, which secured to our navigation in thci)orts oC-that part of the Union the treatn)ent of the most favored nation ; of which advantage it was deprived by the refusal to give the same privileges which were, by the treaty of 1814, assigned to the English." Tims, gentlemen, although we may believe that we cannot require that mutual c(nnpetisation, "vvhich tlie state of hostility has legitimated ; altliongli we may admit the basis wiiicii tiie Imperial Government ajipcarcd willing to acknowledge, when near its downfall, in order to j)reservc the support of the United States against England, yet must we allow t.'iat from these thirteen mil- lions are to be deducted the losses of Fi'cnch vessels, and the damages i-e- sulting from the infraction of the treaty of 1803. Those are rights, gentlemen, which establish the most just demands ; rights which should have formed the basis of the negotiations, and which we are now precluded fi'om advancing, by tlic intervention of the treaty. In my opinion, the claims founded on them would exceed those of the United States ; and wer-e the latter even just, their amount cannot be placed in competition with the loss of the advantages of the 8th article of the tixaty of 1803. The Federal Government demanded fi-om France indemnification for American vessels seized, confiscated, or bui-nt at sea, (hn'ing the war of the revolution. Your committee acknowledges that the Im|)erial Govern- ment had adopted measures as violent as the laws of war j-cqiiii-ed, In re- taliation fiir those adopted by the er.iemy. If the United States believed they had a right to indemnification by France, they should have participated, in 1815, in those disgraceful trea- ties which Europe imposed uj)om her : they would then have obtained their part of the thousand millions which her enemies appropriated to them- selves. They did not do so, because they saw, even at that sad jicriod, that such a claim was unfounded. In fact, gentlemen, you have seen, in the re[»ort of your committee, that an in;pei-ial decree of the 5lh of August, 1810, rev(dved conditionally those of Berlin and Milan, and was to have eftect from the 1st of No- vember following, if the British Government repealed its orders of block- ade, or if the United States should have caused tlicir indejjendence to be respected. Tliat event happened, and ])Ut an end to reciprocal acts of hostility. If the Federal Government believed their I'ight to indemnifica- tion just, it should have made it the condition of a retui-ti to reciproc;'.l relations of good intelligence ; by not doing so, it imposed on itself the obligation to demand nothing in future. After an acknowledgment, which I regard as formal, of their abandon- ment of evei*y demand, ic is to be believed that, if the United States had not forgotten the immense sacrifices made by France to secure their independence, they would remember the misfortunes which she drew upon 424 t Doc. No. 2. ] herself by taking up arms to defend the American insurrection : they would have recollected that eveiits long past had been jri-oductive jof losses to those whom they affected, and they would have endeavored to make us ibrget those sacrifices and niislbrtunes which are beyond indemni- fication. If, laying aside such weighty considerations, we arc foi-ccd to con- fine ourselves to tlic treaty which is submitted to us, v, hat, gentlemen, do we inid there ? Twenty-five millions to pay ; the loss of the advantages oi' the treaty of 1803 ; and a diminution in the duties on long staple cottons. What do they offer in remuneration ? 1 ,500,000 francs, as an indem- nification for pecuniary claims, and a diminution of import duty upon our wines for ten years. Can any one discover, in such stipulations, that reciprocity of advan- tages which the Government announces? Certainly not, gentlemen. In the first place, our pecuniaiy claims, which I consider as important as the value of American ships lost, are fixed at so low a rate, compared with their real importance, that it appears to rae shameful to accept it. Upon what basis was it settled ? Upon what documents was it deter- mined ? The Government communicated to your committee those rela- tive to the claims of the United States ; but they did not communicate a statement of the losses sustained by our commerce. This 1,60Q,000 op- posed to 25,000,000 to pay, is of trifling importance. Under what as- pect must it be considered, when it appears certain to me that the losses sustained by our commerce Avould equal those of the Americans ? If to this, you add the amount of the damage for the time we have been de- prived of the advantages which were secured to us by tke treaty of 1803, you will find that France gives 25 millions for nothing. In the second place, gentlemen, what is the diminution during ten years only upon the duties of our wines, when compared with the aban- donment forever of the advantages w'hieh the treaty of 1803 secured to us, added to that from the diminution in the duties paid in -France upon long staple cottons ? I hope to be deceived, gentlemen ; but if you accept the proposed law", the diminution of duties upon the entry of our wines will soon suffer the same fate with the stipulation in the treaty of libera- tion with Hayti, which was withdrawn the day after it was promised. I do not count upon a sincere execution of that promise, which in one or two years will be to us what the treaty of 1803 has proved. Thus you see, gentlemen, the consequence of the abandonment of that treaty ; it deprives us, w'ithout return, of the illimitable advantages which were secured to our navigation in Louisiana, and assures them to Eng- land. In other w^ords, it deprives us of all commerce with a vast country, vrhich entertains for us the precious remembrance of ancient patronage, whose inhabitants have the same customs and wants with ourselves ; whilst it will be impossible for us to compete with England, which vill enjoy the favors renounced by us. Those advantages for our commerce were to have been unlimited and perpetual ; henceforward, they will be limited to an inconsiderable consumption of one of our products. By the treaty of 1803, France had secured to herself a market for all her productions in competition with England. By that which is now submitted to you, you lose this advantage, and you renounce forever the establishment of any other commerce, except that of wines for a limited time, in a vast country, which is French in its manners and inclinations. Can you discover in this trifling preference, granted to one of your pro- ductions, and during a short period, a just indemnification for so many [ Doc. No. 2. ] . 425 losses ? And, moreover, we are made to pay twenty-five millions for it, -besides a diminution oi" duty upon the introduction of lotig staple cottons. . I have hazarded nothing, gentlemen, v.hen 1 asserted that the treaty -which is submitted to you does not olFer the reciprocity of advantages which the Minister of Finance pretended. 1 go further, and assure you that the introduction of the products of our vineyards, upon which those advantages are estimated, is an illusion ; that, if it continues with the same results as down to the present time, it will become, on the contrary, an onerous charge. You have seen that the 7th article of the treaty of 1831 stipulates for this introduction upon a tariff of reduced duties ; but it stipu- lates, also, that France shall establish the same duty upon the long staple cottons of the United States, as upon tiie short staple. ; In reading the report of your committee, I observed Ihat they assert that the diminution of the duties of importation upon wines will be an advantage to the French commerce of 1,20C,000 francs. An authentic document, which is your own work, goes to demonstrate not only that the French commerce cannot count on this brilliant advan- tage, but that the difference of duties paid on the introduction of long staple cottons absorbs and exceeds it. It results from the report made by my honorable friend and colleague, M. Pelet de la Lozere, in the name of the Committee on Supplementary Credits, that the Government has demanded, and you have granted, a sum of 80,000 francs, to reimburse the United States for the extra duties paid on long staple cottons, since the ratification of the new treaty, more than had been returned on our wines. Permit me to read this part of the report of my honorable colleague. '' This article is connected with the treaty with the United States of the 4th July, 1831. Stipulations have been made in this treaty, inde- pendent of the indemnification of 25 millions to the credit of the United States, from which are to be dedncted 1,600,000 francs to the benefit of France, for the reciprocal advantage of the commerce of the two countries. The United States had engaged to reduce the duties on the wines of France ; and France had engaged not to exact a higher duty upon long staple cottons than upon short staple. The treaty was to take effect upon the exchange of ratifictitions, which exchange took place at Washington the 2d February, 1832. But between the date of the ratilication of the treaty and the time when it became known in the ports of the two countries, the duties were collected both on wines and cottons according to the old tariff. The Government of the United States has made a deduction of tbe difference upon the wines of France since the ratification, and caused the same to be restored. They ask the same restitution for their cottons in favor of their commerce. It appears to be but just. It is to cover this expenditure that the sum of 80,000 francs is demanded. " The committee proposes to allow this credit ; but with the under- standing that nothing is to be considered as thereby predetermined (pre- juge) with regard to the treaty. This treaty consists of two parts en- tirely distinct; one relates to indemnification claimed by the United States for injuries done to their commerce by the execution of the de- crees of Berlin and Mih\n ; the other relates to the custom-house duties collected in the two countries. 28 426 [ Doc. No. 2. J "The latter part is of the nature of a commercial treaty ; and its execu^ tion is commenced, whilst the other is in suspense. The treaty as a whole, instead of taking effect from the date of its ratifications, can only do so from the date of tlie law ^^hich maybe passed by the Chamber. "On this occasion, the nature of our Government and of the constitu- tion seems to liave been forgotten. And we are ])resented with the anomaly of a ti'eaty, part of which is being executed, while the remainder is under discussion." Thus, gentlemen, by the anticipated and perhaps illegal execution of a treaty, which, if properly considered, is at variance with the interests of France, the difference of the respective duties upon wines and long staple cottons is 80,000 francs to our loss. How can it be supported after this authentic fact, that France should promise herself any great advantage from the introduction of wines in the United States, when tiie diminution of the duties ui)on the long staple cottons of that country hr.d made so great a difference to our disadvantage during the last year, and one which will increase in future fiom the activity of our manufactories ? How has the committee discovered an advantage of 1,200,000 francs, when we have had to pay 80,000 francs to the United States ? Gentlemen, I wish to believe that, when performing their labor, they were not aware of the conscientious report of our honorable colleague, for if they had known it, they would not have presented to us hopes which your vote upon the required appropriation of 80,000 francs has annihilated. However, gentlemen, do not apprehend that you have bound yourselves by the restitution you have decreed. The Committee of Supj)lementary Credits has wisely protested against the induction that might be drawn from this execution of the treaty ; and you have declared by your organ that it was well understood that it was not to be considered as predetermin- ing any thing connected with this treaty. ^yithout doubt, gentlemen, we ought to avoid alienating the affections of the American Government ; but to the sacrifices of every kind which France has made to secure her existence, shall we add an enormous sum, which the disordered state of our finances does not permit us to give gratuitously ? Shall we take from our citizens the price of their labors, to pay a demand from which justice absolves us ? Shall we add to the loaiis which we have already unfortunately authorized, a new loan more burdensome still ? No, gentlemen, we cannot, we ought not to do it, for we are here to defend the finances of the country. Wc should invoke the principles of justice, under these circumstances, and follow the example of the Restoration, which re- fused to yield to the demands of the Americans, when it shamefully sub- mitted to those of all the petty princes of Europe. To ourselves, we should have reason to fear that France may i^epeat the too well founded reproach, made the last year on account of the Greek loan, of our distributing, without necessity and without justice, millions to foreigners, wlio are not even grateful for it. I shall vote against the bill which is now before you. General Horace Sebastiaivi, [late Minister of Foreign affairs.] Gentlemen : If it were enough that the weighty question you are aUout to decide had been neatly p! opcunded, accurately studied, all its details thoroughly investigated, and all its doubtful points illustrated, after the ample and ^ell drawn report read to you in the name of your committee, I ought to be silent J but when stipulations ^^hich 1 have signed, when en- f Doc. No. 2. J 427 gagements wlilch I have not feared to subscribe in the name of the country, are submitted for your examination, I consider myself as fulfilling a duty to the Chamber, to the administration I have had the honor to direct, and perhaps to myself, in laying before you, at the commencement of your de- liberations, a succinct statement of the principles as well as of the facts which have governed my conduct, and which 1 trust will secure for it your assent and sanction. The author of the report, in expatiating, as he has, upon the origin of our disputes with the United States, has also saved me from the most arduous and the most important part of my task ; for the mere history of the difficulties which have for so long a period embarrassed the relations of France with the Government of the Union, is at once the plainest and best justification of the act by which those embarrassments have been removed. You have heard that narrative, and it is not my purpose to weary yoit by relating wliat is well known. The Cliamber is aware that the claims of the United States date back more tlian twenty years ; tiiat they originat- ed at that period of universal conflict w hich cost the people of Europe so much blood and treasure : the Chamber is aware with what blameable and violent measures those claims are connected, and how those measures were characterized by the very power which oidered them; that at the moment when the quarrel of which the Continent had until then been the scene, was also extended to the ocean, commerce was suddenly expelled to give place to battles, and our ally, an inoffensive third party, suddenly sur- prised between two lines of hostilities and reprisals, received blows whicli were not aimed at her; in fine, the Chamber is aware that a more regular state of things had scarcely permitted the Cabinets of Paris and Washing- ton to restore their relations to their former footing, w hen the latter, pro- testing against the acts which had marked the late struggle, commenced its demands for indemnification, and the Imperial Government, acknow* ledging the justice of the comj)laints i)referrcd against it, proceeded to decide upon them, and to negotiate for their payment. I will not revert to those facts, the correctness of which the author of the report has settled, and the consequences and bearing of which he has unfolded while examin- ing them. Before speaking of the negotiations continued by the King's Government, I will say a few^ words as to the state in which I found them. The Imperial Government — I have just reminded you, gentlemen, and it is material that you should not forget it, for that opinion has served as our point of departure, and the guaranty of our cstimateof the American claims — the Imperial Government had recognised their justice at least in part ; and the report of iM. de Caulaincourt shows that from fifteen to eighteen millions were to have been offered to the Government of the Union as indemnification. But the Emperor was then engaged in the last efforts of his terrible strug- gle, and the offer was not followed up, because of his increasing disasters; he fell, leaving to the country the debts incurred by tlie war. You know> gentlemen, whether France lias paid them dearly or not : but in the midst of the gloomy reminiscences of that disastrous period, there is one of a dif- ferent character, to which it is proper I should advert ; namely, that when all the allied Powers were exacting from us at once indemnifications and contributions to so great an amount, the United States alone refused to apply for their claims through these Powers, and to unite their pecuniary demands with those of the European Coalition. 428 [ Doc. No. 2. J As soon as the sforin was in a measure calmed, the Cabinet of "Washing- ton renewed to llie lloyal Government its (Jcmaniis for indemnification The first note of the American minister to M. dc Richelieu is dated in JiSiOvem'ocr, 1816. JM. de E,ichelieu liien intimated, that, ctjnsidei-ing tlie exhausted state of the Frcjich finances, a lacit poslponemeut was the only way to reserve the rights of the United States ; and when that minister asked tiie Chambers lor an appropriation of seven hundred millions, lie stated that it was fur the purpose cf settling the accounts of France with iJie European Pavers only. This was in pi-inciple acknowledging and expiessly reserving the American claims. JNo minister has since dared to retract that recognition, although more than one may have discussed its extent, and may have denied the entire accountability of the legitimate royalty for the procecdiisgs of what was thesi called the usurpation. No minister has dared explicitly to deny the debt ; but its amount remained unascertained. Tlicrc were, besides, other grievances to be redressed, other claims to be satisfred. Such, gentlemeii, were the conllicting pre- tensions on both sides, sucli the multiplicity of incidental matters raised and debated, that, after fifteen years of active, continuous, and pressing negotiations, pursued with ardor by three successive American plenipoten- tiaries at Paris, the basis of a settlement could not, ostensibly at least, be agreed upon. You do not expect, gentlemen, that I should trace back the phases and tlie intricacies of those abortive negotiations; that I should acfjuaint you under what personal pi'e[)ossessions, parliamentary difficulties, and finan- cial embarrassments, each of the ministers of the Restoration treated the American question ; that I should mention which of them sought only for plausible pi-etexts to jjoHtjjoue it, and to leave i!s burden to their succes- sors ; wiiich of them met it in a njore candid spirit, and with a desire to close it ; by what means, and at what pi-ice, they might have done so, or -what were tiie difficulties which impeded them. This is not the place for such details, and those who may be curious respecting them may find them in the diplomatic ])apers published by the Government of the Union. Sut I can, and it is my duty to say, that, during those fifteen yeais of delays and procrastination, the question had made such ])rogress in the United States, it had excited in so marked a manner the solicitude of Con- gress, it had become so much a national and a political question, the in- structions of the Cabinet at Washington to its plenipotentiai-y Isad become so firm and so strenuous, that the last administration of the fallen dynasty, foreseeing the ])ossible consejjuences of a longer delay, and of a denial of acknowledged justice, began seriously to inquire how those difficulties might be terminated, and it was upon the point of an arrangement with the American minister at the moment of its overthrow. Whatever may have been the intentions of that administration, nothing 3iad been decided at the period of its overthrow, and it left to that which succeeded the painful inlieritancc of the Imperial Government, aggra- vated too by the embarrassments and even by the increased pecuniary burden which such delays may have occasioned. Such, then, gentlemen, was the state of the American affairs when the ^King's Government was called upon to take them up. On the one iiand, a pecuniary claim to be divided into two parts, the lirst, being unquestionable, constituted against us a debt which had never been controverted in principle ; the second, liable to discussion, offered [ Doc. No. 2. J 42& five or six principal classes of questionable claims, which amounteil to about sixty niillioMS. Om tlieotliei' hand, two States, notiiral allies, by tlieir posi- tion and mutual wants, which the great event wiiicii Iiad just occurred in France tended to draw nearer to eacli other, were kept in an attitude of sus- pense and upon the eve of a rupture. That is to say, gentlemen, we have on the one hand a question of money, in which the loyalty and the economy of the Government were at once interested, since they related to a debt recognised in ])art ; and, on tlie otiier hand, a national question, iu whicii the interests of our commerce and of our policy were concerned. Sucli is at least tiic double aspect under which the negotiation with the United States has, from the begiiuiing, presented itself to the King's Go- vernment; sucli is the double solicitude under tisc influence of which thai. Government has uniformly conducted tiie negotiation. To those who may nevertheless be of opinion that the claims of the Americans should be denied, who would !*epudiate our liability for the acts of the Imperial Government, and on the day after a revolution efTected in the name of the law, maintain, in contemi)t of national morality, tliat to release itself from its debts, a State has only to change its sovereign j even to tiiose who may think that, without formally pronouncing this, it was expedient to proti-act indermitcly a discussion of the claims \\hich had been carried on for fifteen years — to such persons, gentlemen, I do not deem it incumbent upon me to reply ; and the Chamber will attribute my silence to projier motives. AVith respect to those who think that it is to the interest and dignity of the country, as v.ell as the duty of the Goveriimcnt, to ascertain and set- tle the debt, and who w(nild only investigate the manner in which that duty has been performed, they have hoard tlje conclusions of the commit- tee, and the amj)le discussions on which they were founded. I have promised not to retisrn to this ground, gentlemen, and I only wish here to revert to a single result, at whicli the Governsnent has arrived in the course of its researches ; namely, that the strictest calculations allowed by the nature of tiie subject, calculations based upon a collection of data the most disadvantageous to the United States, here alTordcd, as the amount of the indcmniiication closely reckoned, a sum exceeding by several mil- lions that which has been stipulated. Once enlightened as to the basis and the extent of the debt, the King's Government proposed to that of the Union an arrangement analogous to those which usually terminate differences of this soi't between nations — an arrangement by which the amount (ivx in strict justice gives place to an equitable compromise ; that is to say, a compromise for a certain sum, be the claims for more or less, in consideration of wliich France should be at once and forever rc\ie\ei\ from all demands preferred against her by American citizens. An indemnification of tsventy-five millions was of- fered ; and after rather a protracted resistance on thejjart of the American plenipotentiary, who refused to allow the pretensiojis he had at first raised to be so much reduced, this sum was accepted, and was inserted in the treaty which is this day submitted for your approval. I will not inquire, as some have, whether this sum is, or is not, the very lowest with which we could have satisfied creditors tired with twenty yeai-s of often desperate solicitation ; it would be rejnignant to my sense of honor to- follow upon that ground certain insinuations not remarkable for their de- licacy. I shall content myself with saying that I am convinced we were- bound in equity tj offer that sum. 430 [ Doc. No. 2. ] I do not scruple to proclaim aloud from this (ribunc, gentlemen, tliat after France had acknowledged the justice of a debt, it was unworlhy of lier to reduce it at the expense of good failii, and, like a dishonest debtor, to endeavor, by chicanery, to lessen its just amount. [Mui'ks of approbation.] I have believed, and I still believe, that if it behoves a great nation to be frugal in its expenditures, it behoves it still more to be jealous of its honor; and that in a matter of public policy, as well as in private business, a minis- ter of the King should conduct himself like an honest man. [Marks of ap- •probation.] I have also believed, that having, at a period of difficulty and •distress, paid so liberally our debts to all the nations of Europe, we should not, immediately after those days which have elevated our country to so liigh a stand, reject an old debt to a nation, which had right on its side, which our misfoitunes only prevented from being incessant in the pursuit of that right, and of the noble forbcaratice of which i-egenerated France ought not to be unmindful. I thought that 1815 should be remembered in 1830. My conviction, moreover, upon all these points, was perfectly in concurrence with that of the man who then presided over the King's coun- cil ; and I received fiom him the firmest support on the occasion. 1 ought not to speak of a transaction in which he took an active pai-t, without ren- dering this testimony to his memory. But, gentlemen, we were not actuated solely by justice and loyalty ; we liad on our side grievances of long standing to be redressed, and rights to vindicate ; the discharge of the American debt was only the condition of an analogous discharge, by the United States, of claims prefiented by us ; it was only the first clause of a treaty, in which we were to have inserted important stipulations, and which, as a whole, and in its result, was to serve at once the interests of commerce and the policy of France. It should not be forgotten, gentlemen, that at the period when this treaty %vas signed, which, in putting an end to all the differences between the United States and us, placed our relations thenceforward upon the footing of the most perfect good understanding, a year had not elapsed since a revolution which m.ade it perhaps necessary, or at least prudent, for us to secure powerful allies and faithful friends. [Signs of approbation.] With regard to this second part of the treaty of the 4th July, 1831, that 'is to say, to those clauses which regulate French interests, I refer you, for their details, to the report of your committee, and will only speak of their tenor. As to private interests, they secure an indemnification of 1,500,000 francs to French subjects, whose demands the United States had held in suspense, as a reprisal ; and I ought to mention that this sum is far from being absorbed by the claims recognised as valid. With respect to general interests, in return for the abandonment made foyus of our claims, from the construction of certain articles of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, in which the United States persist, they stipulate for a considerable reduction of the duties levied, in the ports of the Union, «pon our wines and silks, and henceforth make the United States the most advantageous market for the two most important products of our soil and industry ; that is to say, gentlemen, according to the just observation of the author of your report, they place hereafter the commercial relations of the two nations under the best guaranty of their prospeiity and their duration, to wit, the very nature of their interests and their reciprocal wants. [ Doc. No. 2. ] 431 I shall conclude with recapitulating, gentlemen, that when the adminis- tration, of which I had forsome time the honorto direct the foreign relations, took charge of the aftairs of the country, it found them burdened with a pecuniary claim, the amount of which had not been ascertained ; and upon this point a difference iiad arisen upon such grounds, and in such a way that it seemed impossible to come to a determination. Witiitliis difficulty were connected several questions, more or less important, to some of which recent events had imparted a weight and a bearing altogetiicr novel. That administration was of opinion, that immediately after a revolution, which tended to strengtlien the bonds connecting us wilii free nations, it was necessary to alter our course, to recognise our rights and those of others, and, having done so, to consecrate them by a loyal arrange- ment. That act now awaits your decision. You will decide whether he who has signed it, charged at once with the precious deposite of the interests of the Treasury, as well as with the honor and policy of France, has sacrificed the one to the other, or whether he has reconciled, as far as was in his power, the dignity of the country with economy of the pub- *5ic funds. M. BiGNON. Gentlemen: Whatever may be the determination of the Chamber, the question now before it should be well examined ; tlie Chaniber should know whether, in sanctioning tlie financial stipulations of the treaty of July 4tli, 1831, it is really paying a just debt, or, by acquiescing in a condition, the justice of which is not demonstrated, it is making a sacrifice to its internal • or to its external policy, or to both together; or, finally, whether, by ac- ceding to a charge, to say the least, much too heavy, it is not paying a forced tribute to the convenience of tlie ministry, which has deferred the communication of a clause easily modified at first, but now rendered much more difficult to be changed. It is only now, that is to say, two years after the signing of this treaty, that the bill for carrying it into execution is first presented to you. This presentation, besides being very late, was also incomplete, because the speech accompanying it, in this session, as in the last, had left the Chamber in the most absolute ignorance as to what was most important for it to know. In truth, an immense mass of documents have been laid before the com- mittee, out of which it had to make its choice. Among these documents is one which seems to me specially worthy of serious attention ; it is a memoir, drawn up in 1831, by the connnission appointed by the Govern- ment of that time. Tiiis commission was divided unetpially in opinion. The majority, consisting of four members, considered tliat twelve millions of francs would be a reasonable and just satisfaction for all the American claims. The minority of two members thought the indemnification due on those claims was at least thirty millions. There was an immense differ- ence between these two estimates. The ministry, by adopting twenty-live millions, gave the preference to the advice of the minority. Un what mo- tive? Certainly it should have told us, but it has not. vSome previous examination is necessary in all arrangements for a round sum, but here we can find no trace of any. You may suppose what was the embarrassment of your committee, on finding that the materials in support of the amount agreed upon were so inconclusive. It had to do of itself that which should have been done beforehand, and of which it should have been only required to ascertain 432 [ Doc. No. 2. ] the correctness. Various statements have been drawn up by the Minister of Foreign AfTaii's. Many plans for fornjing estimates have been pro- posed, hy which mean valuations have been found ; and from these, as tiie reporter of the cotunHttee has dechired, tiie sum of twenty-live millions has been exactly calculated. For my own jiait, gentlemen, I must avow that I am by no means convinced, and I consider it my duty to state my doubts to the Chamber. If the matter in dispute between France and tlie United States had been of a nature to depend entirely on an appreciation of losses alleged to have been sustained by the Americans, on the validity or non-validity of the seizures, on their date, and upon those of the trials or imperial decisions which pronounced tiicir confiscation, or npon arithmetical calculations, independently of all other jioiiticai considerations, the Government should, in my opinion, have been guided by the rejiort of the majority of the com- mission of 1831. The minister of the United States had presented a statement of losses, divided nnder nine heads or classes, in wliich the amount due by France was placed at seventy millions. We shall hereafter see that this estimate had been, in 1812, abandoned hy the Federal Government. Bringing it up again thus, twenty years after, was nothing more than one of those com- mon ex[)edients, of exaggerating a demand beyond ail measure at first, in order to obtain more in the end. The honorable commission of 1831 soon set aside these unfounded pretensions. It was discovered that, among the documents furnished by the American plenipotentiary, were duplicates, incorrect papers, and claims either entirely destitute of foundation, or raised above all admissible value. Here the minority agreed with the majority. The nine heads were reduced to four, and it was declared that they could not go beyond them. It was for the claims comprehended under these four iieads, tliat the commission of 1831 declai-ed twelve millions to be a fair compensation. Admitting even that the question was to be determined only in reference to these data, I shosiid consiciei* this sum of twelve millions as the utmost concession which our Government ought to make; but the question is not to be kept within such narrow limits, and wc must, at least in my opinion, enter into another order of ideas and events before coming to a conclusion. There are some most important circumstances which appear to have escaped the commission of 1831, and which, had they been considered by it, would certainly have decided it to reduce the sum admitted still further. And it seems to me tijat the ministry, whose inadvertence is not to be excused, has by no means used ali its advantages, and brought forward all the arguments whic/i it might have urged. The report of the piesent committee proposes three questions. The first; is, whether any indemnification be due to the Americans ? For myself, I answer plainly, yes; and shall not, in order to support the contrary, have I'ecourse to the stt-angc arguments of the Restoration. Others might be adduced against the admission, more specious at least, if not more decisive, than those alleged by the Restoration. Among the four classes, 1 agree that there is at least one which cannot be contested. I mean that of American vessels burnt or sunk at sea, for the purpose of concealing the movements of French squadrons. For this species of losses indemnification is clearly, and by every reason, due. The second question presented by the committee is — whether, admitting L ^^oc- ^^' 2. ] 433 the principle of tlie indemnification, the sum of twenty-five millions is greater than that justly due ? On this point, as I have already declared, my opinion is contrary to that of tlie committee. Among the other three heads or classes of seizures and confiscations, there is not one which docs not admit of doubts, oi* does not afford matter for discussion as regards the facts. Moreover, as it is easy to show that the Americans, in the course of the war and favoicd by the war, have obtained, under various forms, more than compensation for their losses, it follows that the amount miglit have been reduced to a very moderate sura, in a convention founded on good will and good faith. In order to demonstrate this, I shall be under the necessity of giving you a sketch of the events from whiclj tiiese claims originate, according to my views of them;. and I must ask your indidgence in doing so, after the history which the reporter of the committee has with so much talent laid before you. There will not only be some difference in the light under which I shall place tlie facts already brought forward, but 1 shall also have .gome to })roduce, which have been as yet either omitted or neglected, and whicli may give an entirely diffei-ent complexion to the question. The war of the French revolution, begun as a war of principles, was, for our adversaries, only a war of pov;er. After having fought for the purpose of subduing France, and sharing it among themselves, liie conti- nental States, often conquered and despoiled, had been reduced to fight for the ])reservation of the remainder of their possessions and of their inde- pendence. England, alone and untouched, had never abandoned one of her pretensions ; but in 1814 and 1815, when, by a strange turn of fortune, the Goverimients in coalition remained, ciiiefly through the aid of that Pdwci-, in possession of the field, it was not England that reaped the prin- cipal fruits of victory. The continental Powers made immense acquisitions in territory and in population; England only preserved what could not be taken from her, ajid in certain respects has lost a great deal. Although Napoleon has fallen, yet men of Ijis chai'acter, in passing through the world, givy it an impulse which continues long after their disappearance; the man indeed ceai:es to exist, but the eflects of his passage remain, and are often not known until after lie himself is gone. At the moment in which England, by the overtlirow of France, seemed to have reached the highest point of greatness, the order of the political world ceased to be the same. The empire of the seas does indeed aj)i)ear to have become irrevocably hers; but this empire, now apparent and nominal, is no longer suscep- tible of the same applications. The nature of the last war, the con- troversies to which it gave rise, the unheard-T)f measures adopted during its continuance, have given a new face to maritime questions; and the dominion of the seas, so long held by England, has escaped IVom her, especially in this, that England herself would have no interest in re- suming it, ujider its foraicr character and conditions. What Govern- ment has profited, and will profit, the most by this great change r The Government of the United States, certainly. What nation has contributed the most to produce it ? P'rance. This imj)ortant result of the war of our revolution ought not, I think, to be disregarded in estimating the American claims. We can, with honest pride, say that France has always, in prosperity as well as in a'lversify, professed the most generous and liberal doctrines with regard to the neutrality of the seas. We do not, by this, cast any 434 I Doc. J^o. 2. J reflection on those nations which have supported other ideas. Every nation, on finding itself not tlie strongest at sea, must be anxious for the existence of a system of maritime law, fixed, permanent, and common to all, as its own safeguard and protection. On t!ie otiicr hand, the nation which con- siders itself stronger at sea tiian all the others, either separate or united, will naturally admit nothing but conventional law, subject to variation, and depending uj)on special treaties, by which means it can impose upon each nation separately, such conditions as it may judge most favorable to its own interests. This is all perfectly natural ; and we sec, in the late wars, on one side, England alone, on the other, all the remaining commer- cial nations, among which France occupies an important position. Fortu- nately, in this instance, France supports the cause of justice and humanity. This inheritance from the old monarchy was too precious to be neglected by the First Consul, who, as soon as he came into power, concluded the treaty of 1800 with the United States, based upon the principle of free navigation, the principal stipulations of which have been accurately laid before you by the reporter of the committee and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It v.'as in the same spirit that the First Consul favored the quacT- ruple alliance of the North, formed by the Emperor Paul of Russia, for carrying into execution the principles of 1780. This alliance was soon dissolved by the death of Paul, but the attach- ment to the principles of 1780, which had been revived at Berlin, Stock- holm, and especially at Copenhagen, subsisted even after the defection of Russia. It was likewise in the same spirit, and with the same views, that the First Consul, in 1803, ceded to the United States the important pos- session of Louisiana. These two treaties were expressly intended to bind each of the parties not to bear any attack upon these essential rights, without which there can be no maritime neutrality. Which of the two countries was the first to break its engagements ? Facts answer the ques- tion. The reporter of the committee has given you a detailed account oE the British orders in council, which, from 1803 to 1805, were openly vio- lating all the rights of neutrals ; seizures, the right of searcli supported by violence, ports interdicted wliich were not actually blockaded, all these were suffered and submitted to by the Americans, because their commerce, notwithstanding the numerous spoliations undergone, still gave enormous, though disgraceful profits. At this time, the increase of their exports, together with the carrying trade to Europe in their vessels, was valued at one hundred millions of dollars a, year. In revenge for these orders in council, particularly that of May l6th, 1806, by which all the ports be- tween Brest and the mouth of the Elbe were declared in a state of block- ade, was issued the celebrated decree of Berlin, of November 21st, 1806, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade. Then commenced the seizures and confiscations which gave rise to the American claims. Gentlemen, the conflict thus carried on for twelve years between two gigantic Powers, offered an imposing, a terrific specta- cle ; all maritime nations were affected by it. From 1805 and 1806, Eng- land began to make known her intention, claiming it too as her right to establish a blockade not enforced by squadrons, or even single ships, as the law of nations had hitherto always required, but by a simple decla- I'ation of her will to that effect. Against this system of factitious, o( paper blockade. Napoleon arose with more energy, and, it must be allowed, with more justice. The Berlin decree gave a heavy blow to England ; the [ Doc. No. 2. ] 435 consequences of the Fi-ench reprisals were so mucii the heavier, as victory was every day enlarging the territory over which the power of France extended. To the Berlin decree England opposed its orders in council of Novem- ber 11, 1807, of wiiich the substance and objects have been detailed in the report; you have also been shown there how Napoleon, who was not the man to recede in the bold and violent system begun by England, replied by a decree of Novembei' 23, 1807, and afterwards by that of December 13tb, of the same year ; the latter, as you know, declaring that every sieutral vessel which should have submitted to the requisitions of England, %vas to be considered as having lost its nationality, f denationalise. ) There was a time when, even in b'rance, men devoid of patriotism, and as careless of the honor of their country as of trutii, thought it clever to say that Napoleon, in order to justify his acts of violence against England, had been obliged to commit violence against our language, and to create new^ terms for new acts of injustice. No one ventures now to speak in this manner; prejudices have vanished, and the day of impartiality is come; the principle on which Napoleon rested, is, that all nations are under obligation to maintain the independence of their flag. His principle is just ; its support is required by the interests of the whole iiuman race. A Goverimient n)ay, if it pleases, bear with injuries as long as they only af- fect itself: but when they rebound upon other nations, they have a iv'ghtto do all in their power to preserve themselves. "When a neutral Govern- ment is placed between two belligerent parties, unless it makes its flag respected by one, it has Jio right to require that i-espect from the other. Napoleon said to the Americans, you admit all the pretensions of England; you suffer her cruisers to search your vessels, and to carry them into her portf^, or you enter them yourselves in obedience to her orders, and there pay a dnty on your cargoes. Thus you make yourselves the vassals, the subjects of England, and thenceforward you are in my eyes no longer Americans; your vessels are English vessels, your cargoes are English cargoes ; in a word, your vessels have lost their national character, {sont denationalises.) The expression was as just as the penalty enforced. Allow me, gentlemen, to make another short digression. Some of you, perhaps, on hearing me thus defending the right of Napoleon's proceedings en the question of maritime neutrality, may consider it imprudent to recall occurrences, of a natui'e to affect the susceptibilities of the English nation, with which we ai'e most anxious to maintain and to strengthen the bonds of good understanding. So far from ejitertaining any sucli fears, I think we should be glad of the o])portunity now offer-cd to have these old points of difference examined, with a view to prevent their recurrence. We must, besides, recollect, that from 1793 to 1814, it was mucii less the English nation than the English aiistocracy which favored a war of exter- mination against France ; as if both nations could not, at the same time, have prospered and been free : as if the prosperity of France was necessa- rily to bring on the ruin of the British nation. Ever since that period, there have existed in both Houses of Parliament generous men, who, ris- ing above the selfish views of that aristocracy to which they belonged by their birth, openly blamed the extravagant and iniquitous pretensions of their Cabinet. The present British administration comprises many of these noble spirits, who have gone in advance of the age : who, while duly appreciating the interests of their own country, and coming forward ho- 436 I Doc. No. 2. ] iiorably in support of reform, have liad the happiness to witness its peace- able completion, and by that circumstance alone, have levelled the barriers which have so long intervened between the two nations. The policy of Napoleon is no more to be observed at the present day by France towards England, than t!ie ptdicy of Pitt and Castlereagh is to be the guide for England with respect to Fi-ance. The two countries will, I hope, in future, have no important differences; the cabinets on botli sides of the channel will not undoubtedly forget that, in the agitations of the human race, they arc engaged in the same cause, and that they w ill long have opposed to them the same antijjathics, and the same resistance ; but even admitting that disputes may arise between the cabinets, which the nations will probably not enter into, admitting even the possibility of a war, the same jnaritime question which once excited the minds of all, will probably not fui'nish motives in future for the slightest conflict. England, perhaps, instead of reviving pretensions, the effect of which can be no longer the same, will find more advantage in a fieedom of navigation, of which she w ill be the first to jirofit, and the most skilful in doing so, than in acts of rigor as fatal to herself as to other Powers. The forms of war will necessarily change. Are not the forms of peace already altered ? What is the aspect of the European Contitient at this moment ? Napoleon, in order to defeat the manufacturing power of Great Britain, by enabling other countries to do without its productions, raised up other manufacto- ries against it. He created sources of wealth on the Continent, w hich had never yet existed. What have those Powers done who succeeded through the aid of England to the supremacy of Napoleon ? They have adopted his system, and are every day extending its applications. The only differ- ence is, that what he did by war, they arc continuing by their custom- house laws. Services are forgotten, and gi'atitude has disappeared. Of all the continental States, France, tiie old enemy of England, in conse- quence of greater progress in the true principles of political economy, and, above all, iVom an increasing sympathy between the two nations, is to be the first to come to a better understanding w itii England, for an increase of relations and exchanges. Thus, gentlemien, let us have no fear of openly examining the events of a past, to which the present has so little resemblance. The English nation of 1834 is as far as we from the pas- sions of 1 807 ; and we may now speak of our late w ars as posterity w ill speak of them a century hence. However ligorous were the decrees of Napoleon, they were eluded by the connivance of tlie Americans and the Englisli. Thus, for instance, American vessels carried the productions of tiieir soil to Madeira, where they received in exchange Englisli articles, which they took to the ports of Europe. Otliei' vessels contrived to get taken by English vessels and carried into English ports, where they ])aid the duties required ; they then came to the poits of France, or those of lier allies, w ith certificates showing that they had been by force compelled to touch in England. All the pre- cautions of the French were nearly useless, and for one vessel seized and confiscated on account of fraud, there were twenty which escaped un- punished. Nevertheless the hostilities committed by the Evglish ships of war against the American nation, the impressment of their seamen under pre- tence of their being English deserters, the attacks upon several publrc vessels, particularly upon the frigate Chesapeake on the very waters of [ Doc. No. 2. ] 437 the United States, liad excited in the n>iiui.s of aii an indignation which apj)cated at one moment ready to break forth. Tiiese were certainly most legitimate causes of war. President JeiiVr.son demanded of the-English Go- vernment signal satisfaction ; but the American peojjledid not long sustain their Chief Magistrate. Resentment was soon calmed; the spirit of speculation rarely sacrifices an actual gain to the future prosperity, much less to the dignity of a country. The voice of private interest prevails over that of national hon.-)r. The head of the Government, finding it impossible to take the energetic stand which lie desired, endeavoied at least to preserve 'his nation from the attacks every where directed against its independence; he cut off its communication with Europe. On the 2-2.(1 of December, 1807, five days after Napoleon had sigised the Milan decree, Jefferson laid an embargo on Ameiican vessels in all the poi'ls of the Union. This measure could only in part be carried into effect. In vain did tiie Federal Government recall all American vessels from Europe ; in vain did it issue threats of rigorous punishment against those which should not return. Its voice was not listened to. An immense American colony remained in the seas of Eu- rope ; a ijoating and adventurous colony, co\ejing every coast, and en- deavoring to penetrate into every port at the risk of an occasional confis- cation, which was amply compensated by the greatness of the profits. It has been truly said, the American flag was every where, ilmerican commerce no where. American ships, carrying on the trade of all countries, were pailicularly engaged in transj)orting English j)roductions wherever they could be sold. Fi'om the date of the embargo, at the end of 180r, all tlie exceptions made by the French Government in favor of the Americans arose from kindness and j)ure liberaiity ; it might, without any great injustice, have refused to admit of any, such was the difficulty in many cases in distinguishing the true from the false, and so evident and manifest was the fraud in others. In pioof of the latter, I will cite some facts wisich cannot be denied, and wliich will certainly have weight with you. About the end of 1808, of twelve or fifteen vessels under the American flag seized at Rochefort and Uochelle, an American consul himself ac- knowledged that the j)apers of one-half the number had been fabricated at LondoJ!, and he considered it very probable that the others were only Englisli vessels with old American papers. American vessels, at that time, were in the habit of coming to Spanish ports, as tliey pretended fi-om foieign countries, yet bringing a great number of English passengers. Also, at tiie same j)erin.'J, a number of these American or pretended American vessels used to sail under British escort for Gibraltar, whence thej were dispersed over the whole Meditei-ranean. As the ports of Italy, and even Austria, were closed against the British flag, that of the United States took its place. Vessels sailed from Trieste in tiie end of January, 1808, and returned thither with fresh cargoes in the following May. Their voyage was not long ; they went from Malta to Trieste, and from Trieste to Malta. So, during the subsistence of the embargo, when the American flag should not have been found in Europe, no other was to be seen there. In the Baltic, as in the Mediterranean, it was under the American flag that English goods were carried to the great commercial entrejiots, whence they were distributed at every point which 438 [ Doc. No. 2. ] offered them a suitable entry. If Austria i)a(l not, in 1809, declared war against France, and if she had proceeded to the full length against the Amei'ican vessels which she had seized, the Federal Government would perhaps have had to demand from her twenty millions as indemnification, supposing it to act towards that Power as it has acted towards France; although, in those seizures made in Austria, there was never more than the vessel itself American, and often nothing but the flag. In place of the embargo, which, at the expense of the American nation, enriched only the adventurous class of speculators who were occu- pied in Europe iii the service of England, the Federal Government sub- stituted, as you have been told, a non-intercourse act, forbidding all com- munication with Great Britian and France, but re- establishing it with other countries. The latter part of the act was illusory. At the moment when it was issued, the wiiole European continent was sub- ject to the French decrees; there was but a single momentary excep- tion to this universal application of them — that which produced the war between Austria and France; a war begun on the 9th April, and termi- nated on the 14th October, 1809. Every vessel under the American flag, which presented itself in the ports of a nation dependent on France, or which had embraced its political system, voluntarily ran risk of confis- cation ; and indeed the French Government might then have declared all vessels calling themselves American, which by any way fell into its hands, to be lawful prize. The non-intercourse act might have been considered as a complete rup- ture, if the French Government had chosen to view it in that light; but it did not choose to do so : and during tiie whole of 1809, it abstained from every measure which could wound thi3 Americans, and manifested towards them no other sentiments than those of constant good will. The English ministry, on the other hand, whether from pride or dis- dain on its own part, or want of address on that of its agents, over- whelmed the Federal Government with insults and ill treatment. A Bri- tish agent, Mr. Erskine, had announced to the I'l-csident that the orders in council would cease to have effect on the lOtii of June : this excited the utmost joy in the United States; and the new President, Mr. Madison, took credit to himself, on the brilliant success witli which his administra- tion had commenced :/eifs were in preparation to celebrate the renewal of commercial relations between the two countries. All on a sudden, by a new order in council, of the 24th of May, it appeared that the British Government refused to ratify the engagements entered into by Mr. Er- skine. Tiie English Cabinet pretended that its minister had acted not only without authorisation, but even in direct opposition to his instruc- tions. There was but one thing to be done; the non-intercourse act was maintained, with regard to England, in all its rigor. However, in order to lessen the discontent of the Federal Government, a new English plenipotentiary was sent out. The patience of this Govern- ment was to be put to still stronger trials ; the new ])lenipotrntiary, Mr. Jackson, did not spare it; he began by declaring that his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, had acted tvithout powers. So far, there was no offence^ but he added that the President knew it while treating with him. And he carried the insult still further; for, on the 23d of October, he repeated, in writing, that which he had announced verbally. No relations could be kept up with a man capable of such conduct; all communication with him was suspended, and he returned to England. This took place in 1 809. [ Doc. No. 2. ] 439 In proportion as the British Government threw difficulties in the way of reconciliation with the United States, Napoleon appeared to be actuated by contrary feelings. Wliile the Federal Government was publishing its non-intercourse act, of March 1st, Napoleon was authorizing American vessels to return to the United States, by his act of February 25. Several vessels took advantage of this authorization, and it was not revoked until after the new adoption of the non-intercourse act. Some months later, in the midst of the operations of tlie Austrian cam- paign, Napoleon, as soon as he heard of the engagements entered into by Mr. Erskine witii the Federal Government, ordered, by a letter dated Vienna, June 13th, that the relations of France with the United States should be replaced on the footing on which they stood before the Milan decree. But as the orders in council were not really revoked, the order of Napoleon was not carried into effect. Shortly after, on the 22d of August, Napoleon, having conquered at Wagram, wrote from Altenburg, that if the orders in council of No- vember 11th, 1807, were revoked, the Milan decree would cease of itself to have effect. Six months more liaving passed, without the Federal Go- vernment adopting any measure to have its neutrality respected by Eng- land, the French Government began, and not before 1810, its reprisals in return for the n on -inter course act, which had already been subsisting eleven months. On the 10th of February, the Emperor ordered that American vessels, seized at St. Sebastian, should be carried to Bayonne and sold. On the 23d of March, by a decree, dated from llambouillet, he ordered, as repri- sals still, tiiat every American vessel wliich, after the 20th of the succeed- ing May, should enter or have entered into a port of France, or its colo- nies, or the countries occupied by his arms, should be seized, and the product of the sale transferred to the sinking fund. By a decree of Augast 5, he declared the sales which had been made to be definitive; and as Mr. Jay has observed in the report, the same decree co!itained an additional repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. It was not until after long discussions with England that the Federal Go- varnment did at length respond to the amicable appeal of France. A pro- clamation by the President, dated November 2, 1810, aholished the non- intercourse act as it res])ccted France, and gave a term to England for the witlidrawal of her orders in council; wliich withdrawal not having been made, the non-intercourse act was continued with regard to her. This con- tinuation the Emperor considered as a resistance to the British orders in council, and in consequence, by a decree of April 28th, 1811, he declared those of Berlin and Milan to be definitively revoked with respect to the United States, from the 1st of November, 1810. The imperial decree of August 5tli, rendering definitive the sales al- ready made, was only a measure of just reciprocity : for the non-intercourse act declared that the confiscations of French vessels should have effect, even though commercial relations should be renewed with France. That which the United States had declared their intention to do for French vessels, Na- poleon applied to the Americans. Nothing could certainly be more just. Your committee, however, thought otherwise; thus it admits as due to the Americans the value of twelve vessels in statement E, amounting to 2, 269, 306 francs. These vessels were seized before November 1st, 1810; but their 440 r Doc. No. 2. ] condemnation had not been pronounced nniil after tlie 28th of March, 1811, the date of tlic official rcjical of the decrees. Tlie seizures were law- ful ; according to t!ie principles adopted by the Federal Government towards us, we had a right to make them ; the date of the condemnation was of little consequence. Your committee, in admitting the value of these twelve vessels into the indemnification, have done an act of pure munificence, not one of justice. Although 1 do not found my opinion on details of this nature, yet 1 have thought proper to notice this fact, in order that tiie Chamber may see Innv indulgently the claims of the Americans have been treated. For many years France a!id the Federal Government had been hinting to each oilier the propriety of negotiations for a new treaty founded on the great pi'inci{)le of maritime neutrality, by w hich the union of the two coun- tries might be rendered stronger. In 1811 and 1812, the negotiation began in reality. A prnjet was presented by the American minister, Mr. Barlow; its articles were debated between Mr. Barlow and a French plenipotentiary ; and we have here to notice an important fact, which is, that the same claims which were raised to seventy millions in 1831, had been, at the cominencemcnt of Mr. Barlow's negotiation, esti- mated at the same sum, but were in tiie course of it reduced first to forty millions, then to thirty millions. It is moreover to be observ^l, that in 1812 easy terms were^ offered to the Imperial Government. A proposition was niade to free it from all de- mands, provided eighty licenses were granted to the American commerce, 1o import from any country or place, either in America or in Europe, into French ports, certain colonial or other American productions : in exchange, the Americans were to export from France or Italy articles to the value of those introduced by virtue of the licenses. ^\'hen tlie American minister offered France such a method of payment, with such an obligation too at- tached on his side, is it not clearly proved that his estimates, even the lowest, were rated above the just value ? We may also add, that among the vessels seized, for wiiich indemnification was demanded, there were some which wouiil have been seizable even by the American laws them- selves ; and the Federal Government indeed admitted that we had received what they should have taken themselves. This is not all, gentlemen ; other expedients had been thought of for freeing the French Government, without subjecting it to any actual jiay- ment. One of tiiem was to give, by a new convention, a greater exten- sion to the limits of Louisiana, which had. never been correctly defined. Another service which the Federal Government was at one period ready to accept in lieu of indemnification, was the concurrence of France in ob- taining for it possession of the Floridas ; but as circumstances afterwards permitted the American Government to take provisional possession of those jiroviiices without our intervention, it determined to treat in future only with Sjiain. That Government, as we see, neglects none of the chances offered by fortune ; this remark is matle to Its honor, and we should be glad to hear it made respecting ourselves. In the midst of these discussions, the United States declared war against Great Britain. Napoleon, then in Russia, invited Mr. Barlow to come to Wilna, in order to put th« seal to a treaty, which would have been a real alliance between the two nations. Every one is but t(io well acquainted with the events which then changed the appearance of the world. The [ Doc. No. 2. ] 441 American minister fell a victim himself to the fatality which pursued us : he set off sick from Paris, and died at a sliort distance from Warsaw. Tiie negotiation was necessarily interrupted. When it was resumed in 3 813, the Federal Government, in order to give its claims on Napoleon a better ciiance of heing settled, hinted that the continuance of the war in which it was engaged with England might depend upon the manner in which the Americans were treated. The Emperor, viewing tiie question in this light, ordered the Duke of Yicenza to draw up the report of January 11th, 1814, wliich has heen cited to you, for his own information, and to serve as a basis for discussion ; this report acknowledged a debt of thir- teen millions, which it considered might be raised to eighteen. In order to form an estimate of the character of tliis report, we need only look at its date. Was Napoleon about to i)ay a debt ? He was only giving tlie American Government encouragement to persevere with addi- tional vigor in the struggle in whicij oin* common interests were at stake. We may only wonder that he did not oRer more. Debts from one nation to another do not increase in value by age. Time lessens, and at length extinguishes them. Whenever a Government to which another is in debt-, concludes a new arrangement with the latter, without obtaining the payment to which it lays claim, the reservations made on the occasion are nothing but empty pieces of formality. Every fresh reserve is only another sponge passed over the debt^ and if, in the end, any satisfaction be obtained by mutual consent, it is never more than a small portion of the original sum. Unfortuuately, in our case, exactly the opposite course has. been jiursued. There are, in trutli, cii'cumstances in wiiicli all claims are good, as, for instajice, when there has been a war, and the battle is lost ; but such is not our position with regard to the Ame- ricans. Tiiere is really more than liberality in paying twenty-five millions in 1854, when, in January, 1814, a year in which France had so strong a>i interest in conciliating the United States, Napoleon only ailmitted a debt of thirteen millions, which might perhaps, at furthest, be raised to eighteen. Let us look back again to 1814. Napoleon fell : Louis XVIII replaced him, and France was laid under contribution by the other Powers. We are told that tiie Amei-icans had been generous in not joining tiiose Powers. There is a great inadvertency in this assertion. In 1814, when our territory was first occupied, the Americans could not join our enemies, because tliey were themselves then at war with Great Britain : they did not, indeed, make peace until the 24tli December following. At tlie beginning of that year, instead of being among our enemies, they were, on the contrary, in fact, our allies, since they had a comm>on enemy with us. But there is another most important circumstance respecting this period of 1814, which no one seems willing to notice. The Americans at first asked nothing from tiie Royal Govern- ment ; this I believe, and good reason they had for abstaining. .If they had asked indemnification at that time, tlieir demand would have been too easily repelled. The late negotiations were too fresh in the memory of all. For eighty licenses they had offered to absolve France from all their de- mands. When Napoleon had fallen, it was not eighty ships only that were admitted into our ports ; they came there by hundreds, and under no con- ditions, the cou7itrij whence they came not being regarded. Remark, gen- tlemen, in what a singular state things were. England, in coalition with the Continent, conquered France j and immediately the Americans, thoup-u 29 442 f Doc. No. 2. J at war with the English, tiike aihantage of the victory gained over us by thein. Our disasters give tliem opportiuiities of making immense profits. When the Americatis, thanks to the triumph of the coalition over their friend France, had thus paid themselves, and more than paid themselves, the amount of their claims against her, they then addressed the Royal Go\ei nment, declaring it their debtor, as the successor of the Imj)erial Government. Under one point of view, we agree with them. The Resto- ration succeeded to the debts of Napoleon's Government ; agreed : but it also inherited its rights. Now, if Napoleon, though vanquished, had not been overthrown in 1814, he would either not have allowed American ves- sels to enter our ports, or he would have said to the Federal Government — ynu consented to receive eighty licenses in lieu of your claims, now I admit ail your vessels, without exception ; you have been amply indemni- iicd ; we are quits ; otherwise England would have been trium};hi!ig for you, while you are even yet at war with her. What could the Federal Government have objected to this ? This most decisive reply, which the Government of the Restoration might have made to the pretensions of the Americans, ^Yas by it neglected. In truth, it at first did not need it. The American claims were considered of no importance until 1818. Lei us admit another hypothesis. Suppose that, in 1830, the Imperial Government iiad been re-established, could it not, by this simple reason- ing, have been authorized in rejecting all tlie clainss of the Americans ? Vf'hat the Imperiai Government could have done, the Government which sprung from the revolution of July had a right to do. Many other con- siderations might have been urged in opposition to the claims of the Ame- ricans, by tiie Imperial Government, which subsist yet in all their force and solidity for us. From the long exposition which I have made of the events in question, the positions of the Federal Government and of France, with regai d to each other, seem to be these : France and the Federal Government united, in 1800, for the guaranty of the rigiits of neutrals. What did this treaty of 18C0 really signify ? Was it not a species of alliance, for giving efffect to the principles which it set foi'th ? In order still further to engage the United States in this, France, in 1805, ceded Louisiana to them; from 1805 to 1814, France has been certainly fighting in a cause which is more their own than ours. It was not until after ten years of outrages, borne by the United States with a degree of patience which proved most inju- rious to us, that the United States came at length to a declaration of war. Here we must give them great credit for valor and perseverance. They withstood tiic invasion of a foreign foe most nobly ; the struggle, though not long, was honorable for them ; and, from this eighteen months* strug- gle, they came forth with their strength gloriously proved, v.ith the cer- tainty that in future wars these principles of neutrality, so energetically defended by France, atul so essential to themselves, would not be liable to great infractions : in a word, they came out of tlie war stronger, more ])owerful, and more sure of their independence than when they began it ; they came out of it with a great augmentation of territory, possessing Louisiana, and, as a natural consequence, the Fioridas. Which of the two nations, France or the United States, had, injustice, the strongest claim to indemnification from the other ? And, while the United States, after the w ar, found themselves in the situation above mentioned, what was the con- dition of France ? [ Doc. No. 2. ] 443 And it is in 1818, ulicn France, reduced to its liiniis of 1789. laboring under severe wounds, needs all its blood for its recovery, tliat tiie Federal Government comes to renew its demand for indemnincation for losses sustained in a war wliicb has ended so profitably for itself; for indemni- fication already richly made by the admission of its vessels into our ports, from tlic moment after the fail of Napoicon. And this American Govern- ment, which v,'as content with the misci-able reasons urged against it by the Government of the Restoration, whicli bent under the Restoration be- cause it acted firmly, which negotiated and concluded conventions with it, "without obtaining any thing, merely inserting vain reservations, tiie value of which is well linown : this Government comes, directly after the revo- lution of July, summoning «s, with rare pertinacity, to satisfy claims al- ready rejected by the Restoration. A most admirable effect this is indeed of sympathy between the pi'inciples of Governments. I do not blame, gen- tlemen ; I only relate. If blame is to fail o»i any, it is not surely on the Federal Goverrsment ; Ihe opportunity appeared favorable ; it believed you to be in an embarrassed situation, of which it took advantage. Generosity is no more a virtue of cabinets in the new Morld, than in the old ; in re- publics than in monarchies. Far from blaming the Americans, I shoukl be inclined to say — go on, you are in the riglit track, and will prosper ; you deserve it for your address. But is the same eulogium to be bestowed on the ministry wliich, in 1831, submitted to conditior.s wliich the Restoration had resisted for fifteen years ? Did it fear that the Federal Government might not acknowledge our nev/ dynasty ? Of what impoi'taiice is such an acknowledgment to us ? France exists of itself, and cares little for foreign sanction. But such an apprehension would have been ridicuhnis ^ the American Government acknowledges Don Miguel to-day, Donna Maria to-morrow ; it knows nothing but de facto, and \cvy properly ridicules our quarrels about legi- timacy. Supj)osing its claims to have been ever so just, the time of nego- tiation was badly chosen for us. Tiie French ministry should have told the Federal Government, that, after it had waited so long and patiently un- der the Restoration, it should at least give us four or five years of respite ; it sliould have sliown that Government that such a convention, concluded so shortly after t!ic revolution of 1830, would be as little creditable to France as to the United States ; as we should appear to be bu}ing their friendship, and they to be selling it. Do you think, gentlemen, that if the ts'eaty of 1831 were again to be concluded, there could be now found a minister who would dare subscribe the whole of its stipulations ? In a state of things such as I have exposed, what signify all the arith- metical calculations of the miinstry, and of the committee, those old and new statements, those bases of valuation, and all the other means employed to come at just twenty-five millions ? The art of arranging figures no doubt has its merits, but it is not in this wfsy that such a question should have been determined. I now come to the third question proposed by the committee : May the commercial advantages granted by the Americans be considered as sutfi- cJent compensation for the loss sustained by French commerce in conse- quence of the non-compliance with tho terms of the eighth article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana ? On this question, too, the American Government has amply demonstrated its skill in negotiation. I do certain- ly rejoice as much as any one in the advantages which wc have obtained 444 f Doc. No. 2. J by the introduction of the produce t)f our soil and industry into the United States ; but I must confess that, in examining the matter closely, I find that tliose of the advantages from which we expect most at present, might have been obtained independently of the financial stipulation in the treaty of 1831. A single glance will convince us of this. See with how much address the Federal Government proceeds ; it owes B'rance incontestably indemnification on account of the eighth article of the Louisiana treaty. Does it acknowledge this from the first ? No, it denies it, raises objec- tions, brings foiward miserable reasons, reasons which it knows to be miserable, and does not yield until after a long discussion. Then it ap- pears to resolve upon a great concession, which is in reality no concession at all, because the measure is not adopted in consideration of our interests. The Federal Government promises a reduction of duties on our wines ; and since the treaty was signed, it has likewise abolished all duty on our silks. These are the facts. Now let us examine their value and bearing. The American Government is the only one in existencei whici), being out of debt, and having revenues more than sufficient for its expenses, can afford to make considerable reduction in its taxes. Now, in the United States, the most productive tax, and the only one which is at all felt, is that levied through the custom-houses ; therefore any diminution of the contri- butions paid by the people should begin in the custom-house; and of all the articles imported into the United States, is there one on which a re- duction of duties could be made more suitably than on French wines? Are they not almost among the necessaries of life for the people of that coun- try ? In making this reduction, the Federal Government has consulted its own interests entirely, and not ours; and we can only admire the talent with which they have induced us to receive as a favor that which they only did in reality for their own advantage. The same may be said of the duty on silks ; the reduction was made there also on their own account, as it is not stipulated in tiie treaty ; yet it is vaunted as one of the consequences of the treaty. On this subject, too, I hear the name of Lyons mentioned every where : **Take care," it is said, <'if we refuse to sanction the treaty of 1831, Lyons will be un- employed immediately ; and what will become of that city ?'* Gentlemen, do not be afraid. The American Government, in extinguishing the duty on French silks, thought no more about France than about China ; than about China, gentlemen. There was a duty of SO per cent, on Chinese silks, and of 20 upon French silks, previous to the late change. The duty on our silks has been extinguished, and the duty on Chinese silks has been reduced to 10 per cent. ; so the proportion remains just as it was. Per- haps there may have been some 8th article, on which the United States had to give satisfaction to the Chinese Government. If the reduction of the duties in question are to be considered as a real concession on the part of the Americans, we should have, in like manner, allowed them to consider in the same light the assimilation as to duties made by us between the long and short staple cottons of the United States : but, so far from doing this, and indeed with a view to relieve the Ameri- cans from all gratitude on the subject, our Cabinet has taken pains to de- clare that it was a measure which had been already long contemplated for our own private advantage. The Americans are not so candid and yielding as we are. Whatever may have been the motives which induced the Federal Go- I Doc. ISO. 2. J 440 vernment to adopt these resolutions, I do not value them the less ; but do not allow the threats which have been held out to affect you. These reso- lutions, which are undoubtedly favorable to us, were taken with a view to its own interests, and, for the same reasons, it will maintain them. Itshowa but little knowledge of that wise Government ; it is, indeed, an alTront to it, to suppose that a few millions of francs will induce it to relincjuish measures adopted after mature deliberation — not in favor of us, but en- tirely for their own benefit. The Government of the United States knows better than any other, that, in a representative Governmetjt, no political convention containing a stipu- lation for any payment whatever can be considered definitive, until the con- sent of the body which has the right of voting the appropriation has been obtained to that particular stipulation. It also well knows that there are circumstances in which public interest commands the rejection of an en- gagement, altliough it has been signed by plenipotentiaries. Thus, in 1807, President Jefferson refused to give his sanction to a treaty concluded at London by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, and Congress ap|)rove'J his refusal. Tlie dignity of the Cabinet with whicli the iiegotiation was car- ried on, is by no means compromised by such a refusal ; and certainly it i.s never less a question of honor than when the difficulty is of a pecuniary nature. The honor of the American nation cannot be interested in having the French I'reasury delivered as a prey to a few sjjcculators, who are proba- bly not all Americans ; in requiring that France should surrender 25,000- 000 francs, to be divided among tliese speculators, for doubtful claims, bought at the lowest price by the actual holders. Not only is the sum stipulated a heavy charge on our Treasury, but there is in such conven- tions something more afflicting, more deplorable, than the actual loss of money ; it is, that, after having been pillaged by our enemies, we have not been spared by our friends ; it is, that always in our discussions witii Governments, whether free or despotic, they come off" well in the End, and we never. Gentlemen, my own conviction is that the question of our debt to the United States should have been determined upon principles different from those adopted by the ministry. I am convinced that, according to the principles not only of political equity, but of natural equity, France is not bound to indemnify the Ame- ricans for the accidental losses which they suffered in a long contest, un- dertaken for the defence of common riglits, the triumph of which has con- solidated their power, and secured to them immense advantages in future ; w hilst France is left mutilated and exhausted, having lost all but her honor. I am convinced, that even proceeding upon the principles adopted by the ministry, as the numerous frauds practised by the Americans, with the connivance of the English, must render it impossible to ascertain that all the confiscated vessels were really American proj)erty, the debt of France might have been, without any injustice, reduced to a moderate amount ; particularly, as the Americans had been recompensed more than a hun- dred fold for the losses sustained during the war., by the greatness of their profits, and, still more, by the admission of their vessels into our ports, in consequence of the victories of our enemies. I am convinced that an arrangement by which the indemnification would have amounted only to twelve millions of francs, would have given 446 I Doc. No. 2 J cojisldcrablc profits to the holders of the claims, whether good or bad, which arc to be satisfied. But, gentlemen, if you consent to pay the sum stipulated by the treaty of 1831, let it lie at least with a full knowledge of all the circumstances attending it; let it pi'oceed from motives more noble and more just than those whicli have been set forth. Do not consent to this payment from the fear that a refusal, whicli on your part sliould only betoken a wisli to have the amount reduced, rnigiit alter the friendly relations between us and the United States. Your relations with that Government would be of little value, indeed, if they depended on a few millions of francs. Do not consent from the fear that tlie American Government will re-establish its former duties on our wines ; the reduction made in those duties was with a view to their own interests much more than ours ; and I do not blame them for it. As to the silks, it has treated us as it treated China. If you consent, do so from considerations more worthy of yourselves and of the American Government. Three years have passed without the Chamber having had an oppoi-tunity of expressing itself on the financial stipulation of 183!. This delay is not to be attributed to us. The min- istry committed the fault j and, unluckily, the nation will have to suffer for it. It must be allowed that when a treaty has been ratified three years, the Government which is to benefit by it should naturally consider its rights to such advantages as acknowledged. This is in fact the case with the Federal Government at present ; and it would have a right to complain not of us, but of our Cabinet, for having left it so long under the persua- sion that the stipulations of 1831 would be fulfilled. If you can deter- mine to make a sacrifice under these circumstances, it is important that tise Federal Government should be convinced of your doing so, purely fron^. sentiments of delicacy and generosity. It would be ridiculous and shameful to appear blind or duped ; to ac- knowledge and pay as justly due a debt so doubtful and contestable. The loss of moHey is of little consequence, in such cases, compared with the loss of dignity ; dignity sliould be preserved above all things. Besides, whatever we do should be done with an entire knowledge of circumstan- ces. Thus, geritlemcn, if, instead of paying some millions which may be justly due, you submit to a payment of twenty-five millions, which are not justly ilna, it is because you cannot decently refuse in 1834 what you would have refused without hesitation in 1831 ; it is because you act in obedience to a certain sense of propriety ; you yield to a sort of moral vio- lence, which in your opinion does not allow you to recall an engagement entered into three years ago with a nation whose friendship is so dear and precious to us. Pay the twenty-five millions then, if you think proper; but, while paying them, take care to declare that you do not owe them. As for myself, gentlemen, although the consideration of propriety is the only one which could have any weight w ith me, it is impossible for me to admit that an obligation of that sort, arising purely from a ministerial neglect of duty, ouglit to prevail so fiir in a case of such importance to the public Treasury. It is because I honor highly the Federal Government,' because I take great pleasure in rendering signal homage to its wisdom and straight-forwardness ; because I have faith in its knowledge, in its spirit of justice, in its practical acquaintance with the riglits and duties o I Doc. No. 2. ] 447 a representative Government ; because a nation so much enlightened as the United States, and which knows so well liow to defend its own intciests, could oiily esteem us more highly for defending our own, that I act with regard to tliis concession, wliich I considerunreasonablylieavy, just aslain certain that the Congress of the United States would act under similar circumstances. I vote against the bill. [Tliis speech tons heard with attention, and appeared to make agreat im- pression on the Chamber. The orator^ in descending from the tribune, re- ceived the felicitations of a number of members. Jifter some interruptions ^1 The Duke de Broglie, [Minister of Foreign affairs.] Allow me, gentlemen, to rectify a mistake at once. The honorable member who addressed you last, accuses the French Go- vernment of having voluntarily delayed presenting the law now bcfoi'c you so long, that, in his opinion, we cannot possibly retract, and that the Cliam- berisno longer at the same liberty at which it would have been, had the law been presented at a more early date. Gentlemen, the treaty was ratified on the 22d of February, 1832, and the law was presented at the first session after that ratification ; it was pre- sented again at each of the two following sessions. You see, gentlemen, that the Government could not have presented the law earlier than in the session immediately following the ratification of the ti-eaty. M. Jay. It cannot be expected that I should follow the orator who has addressed you so much at length; through all the points of liis opinio;). I have neither the means nor the time to do so at present. I only ask ti;c attention of the Ciiamber for a few minutes. The illustrious General Lafayette, who has been prevented from attend- ing to-day, has sent me som.e notes, which, being relations of facts, sliould be laid before the Chamber. He says : *' But there are facts whicli I can assert, as having been myself a witness to them ; and which I submit to my honorable colleague, tlie reporter of the committee, oc. No. . J Monday, March 31, 1B34. M. Realier Dumas. Gentlemen: The honor and the interests of France, on the one hand, and the friendly ties which connect us with tlie United States on the other, combine to render the question now under consideration one of no little delicacy and embarrassment, whenever made the subject of debate in this Assembly, For which reason, your committee were anxious to foresee, and, clearly to define beforehand, the difficulties which might arise during the discussion. Our worthy colleague, M. Jay, has set forth, in a report, which does him no less honor as a man than as a writer, tiie principles upon which these difficulties might have been removed. As a member of this committee, I have deemed it my duty to step forth in defence and sup- port of the conclusions therein embraced, convinced that they aie founded upon the principles of national and universal right, on justice, and on the true interests of our commercial relations with the United States. Our honorable colleague, M. Bignon, may rest assured it is not a mere act of generosity, much less a sacrifice to cabinet policy, but an ace of justice, which the committee demand, in presenting for your sanction this treaty between France and the United States. It is now twenty years since the Federal Government first claimed indemnification for vessels seized and confiscated, not only under tiie Berlin, Milan and Rambouill6t decrees, but after the repeal of tliose decrees. It is also demanded for the destruc- tion of vessels burnt at sea by French squadrons, whose object it was, in this way, to conceal from the enemy the secrets of their expeditions. Mean- wliile, France had, on her part, to make good pretensions which are not without their share of importance. Long negotiations were held at the close of the empire and under the Restoration, but without any result. They were only resumed at the period of our glorious revolution. On the 4th of July, 1831, was signed the convention which defines and fixes the rights of the two contracting parties, subject however to the concurrence of the Chambers, which concurrence it this day demands, in the execution of the financial part of the treaty. This treaty embraces two things en- tirely distinct : the one relates to the confiscation of American vessels du- ring the continental blockade ; the other, to the non-execution of the treaty for the cession of Louisiana, the 8th article of which secures to the com- merce of France the benefits since rendered null by the treaty of Ghent, concludedjbetween England and the United States. Touching the first question, the French Governn^ent engages to pay the United States twenty-five millions of francs for seizures, confiscations, and other losses sustained by citizens of the United States, of which, how- ever, 1,500,000 francs are retained to indemnify French citizens, to whom the United States are indebted, and whose claims are of the same nature with tiiose of the Federal Government. With respect to the second question, the French Government renounces, absolutely and explicitly, all pretensions basedonthe non-execution of the treaty for the cession of Louisiana. It reduces, in favor of American com- merce', the duty on long staijle cottons to the same standard as that on sJiort staple. In return for these advantages, the American Government consents to a reduction, for ten years, of the duties on French wiiles imported for consumption in the United States. The committee, to enable themselves fully to explain their views of the [ Doc. No. 2. ] 455 bill which has been submitted to you, were bound to make, and have made, the most cai-eful and minute examination of all the facts, all the claims, and all the negotiations commenced, suspended and resumed, from 1812 to tlKj date of the signature of the treaty. As it is necessary, in order fully to comprehend the great question now before you, thoroughly to understand and a])preciatc these facts, these demands, and the negotiations respecting them, I shall end'^avor briefly to define and elucidate them. England had taken advantage of the first wars of our revolution to seize upon the com- merce of the wh(de of Europe. Between the 24th of June, 1803, and the 18th of May, 1806, she placed in a state of blockade not only all the ports of France, but all those situated on the Ems, the Wescr, the Elbe, and the Trave. The empire of the sea was wholly hers. It was then that Napoleon conceived a project as vast as was his genius — a project which would have been less the subject of invective, had it been tVom the first properly understood. I allude to the continental system. On the 21st of November, 1806, he issued a decree at Berlin, which declared the British islands to be in a state of blockade, and enjoined the scizui'c of all vessels belonging to England and her colonies. This decree was followed by the two orders of the English Admiralty, of the rth of January and 11th of November, 1807. The former forbade all commerce between the United States of America and the ports of Europe, which were in a state of war- fare w ith Great Britain. The latter declared that American vessels should be boarded at sea, their cargoes conveyed to and landed in England, and sub- jected to the regulation and laws of re-exportation ; whereupon, the decrees of the 29th of November and ITth of December, 1807, were issued by Na- poleon at Milan. The first ordered the seizure and confiscation of all vessels which, after touching in England, should enter the ports of France. 'I'he second de- clared all vessels which should undergo a visit from an English vessel, and pay any duty whatever to the British Government, to have lost their nationality fdenationalisc.J Napoleon should have waited till t!ie United States had caused their neutrality to be respected by England, lie did not. An immense number of American vessels were seized either in the ports of Fiajice, or in those in possession of her troops or of her allies. The Federal Government restricted itself to the passing of a law on the 22d of December, 1807, by which an embargo was laid on all the ports of the Union. No American vessel was permitted to sail fop a foreign port. This law, which was meant not as an act hostile to France, but merely as a means of self-preservation, failed to produce its proposed effects, because American captains remained in Europe, became agents for the commerce of other nations, and thus were rendered subject to the effects of the Berliu and Milan decrees. On the 1st of March, 1809, for the embargo acl was sub- stituted the non-inicrcourse ad, which extended only to England and France. This law ordered the seizure of all Fi-ench vessels, and, more- over, declared that the confiscations which might be made should not cease to have effect, even though amicable relations should be re-established be- tween the two countries. This act, which was equivalent to a hostile proceeding against France, induced the Emperor to make reprisals. On the 10th of February, IS 10, he caused to be-issued a secret order to seize at St. Sebastian, and carry to Bayonnc, to be there sold, the several American vessels which, be it remem- bered, would not have entered the ports of Biscay but for the promise of 456 [ Doc. No. 2. ] the French authorities that tlieir -property should he respected. He did more. lie issued, on the £3d of March, 1809, a decree at Ramhouillet, which declared that all vessels sailing under the flag of the United States should be seized, and that tlie proceeds accruing from their sale should go into the sinking fund. These violent proceedings on both sides tended to stir up feelings of strife between two nations which ought really to have been confederated. A community of interests, an absence of all political rivalry, should, it would seem, have ensured to them the most amicable relations, the most perfect mutual understanding. Advances were first made by America to France at a time when France had not so much as thought of making them to America. On tlie 1st of May, 1810, a law was passed by the United States, sus- pending the prior enactments relative to non-intercourse, and giving France and England till the 1st of March, 1811, to repeal their respect- ive decrees. This law was communicated by Mr. Armstrong, the i-e- presentative of the United States, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who, in his note to him of the 5th of August, 1810, stated that the decrees of Milan and Berlin were revoked, and that they would cease to have effect from the 1st of November, 1810, should the English have then withdrawn their orders in council, or the Americans have forced them to lespect the neutrality of the Union. It is painful to mention that it was on tliis very 5th of August, 1810, at the moment when a reconciliation was about to take place between the two countries, that the Emperor issued a decree order- ing that the proceeds accruing from the sale of American merchandise, and previously deposited in the caisse d''amortissement, should be transferred to till! public Treasury. It is well to mark the effect which the note of the 5th of August, 1810, had on the Government of the United States. On the 29th of November, the President announced by proclamation the repeal of the French decrees, and summoned England to retract her admiralty or- ders. This the British Government having refused to do, the President of the United States, on the £d of March, 1811, revoked the suspension of the non-intercourse act with respect to England. Nevertheless, and I say it with regret, the condemnations of American vessels continued, not only after the note of the 5th of August, but subsequently even to the 1st of No- vember, 1810. Besides, it was not till the 10th of May, 1812, that Mr. Barlow, the minister of the United States, received the decree of the 28th of August, 1811, which repealed the decrees of Milan and Ramhouillet, the repeal to take effect from the 1st of November, 1810. Mr. Barlow hastened to communicate this decree to the Englisli Government, which thereupon withdrew, on the 12th of June, its orders in council. But it was too late — the United States had declared war against England. Such are the facts on which the Americans rest their claims for indem- nification. I shall now come to the negotiations. Tiiey were begun and pro- secuted by Mr. Barlow, in 1812, who met with his death amid the snows of P(dand, whither he had gone at the invitation of tlie Minister of Foreign Affairs. The amount then claimed by the United States was^ as high as seventy millions. A report had been communicated to the Emperor, by the Duke of Vicenza, under date of the 11th January, 1814, wherein the minister declared that indemnification ought not to be allowed for vessels Seized in virtue of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, with the exception, first, of those seized since the 1st of November, 1810 ; secondly, of those confiscated prior to their knowledge of these decrees ; thirdly, of ships [ Doc. No. 2. J 457 burnt at sea ; anil, fourthly, of those seized at St. Sebastian ; tlie amount of in(lemnificatif)n for all which therein allowed by the Duke was t'iirtecn millions,* but, as he deemed the list of vessels incomplete, he proposed to make it eighteen millions. Tiie Restoration had no great regard for a Government based on the principle of popular supremacy. It did not dispute the justice of those claims of the United States ; but it was fertile in excuses for evading a question which it was no part of its policy frankly, and openly to meet. This was not the case after the revolution of July. France felt the neces- sity and the expediency of a more strict union with a Government which, based like her own on the principle of liberty, jiad proved faithful to her cause at a time when victory had abandoned it. A commission was named ; the principles which had been assumed by the Duke of Viccnza, in 1814, were made the basis of decision. United as to the principle of indemnifica- tion, they were divided as to the question of the amount to be paid. By the majority it was fixed at twelve millio?)s of francs ; by the minority raised to thirty millions. This sum, however, fell far short of that dcntanded, in 1831, by Mr. Rives, the negotiator on the part of the United States, who produced claims for four hundred and eighty-five prizes, the value of which was esti- mated at 70,560,000 francs, but at length reduced to 70,000,000. Such were the conflicting principles of the negotiation, when the convention between France and the United States, of the 4th of July, 1831, was concluded. It becomes us now to examine whether the treaty accords with the principles of strict justice, and of the true commeicial interests with France. The questions which naturally present themselves to the minds of your com- mittee are the following : Are the United States entitled to indemnification ? If entitled, do we owe them twenty-five millions ? Are the benefits secured to our commerce by the treaty in question, a sufficient compensation for the loss sustained from the non-execution of the Bill article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana ? It was the wish of youi' committee, in oi'der to arrive at a solution of the fii-st question, to obtaiti a perfect knowledge of all the demands made by the Government of the United States on that of France. Feai'ing that the Duke of Yicenza might, \u 1811, have consulted the interests of the impe- rial policy rather than those of justice ; that the decision of the commission of 1831 might have been too severe, from their not having before them many of the documents since furnished, or that the Government may have been too indulgent, each demand was separately made t!»e subject of minute exa- mination, and submitted to the tests of the strict principles of right and the most exact rules of justice. Among the numerous pretensions of the United States, there are many which cannot be made the subject of grave discussion ; but there is one which merits the most profound consideration. It respects the question whether the French Government bad a right to seize and confiscate ves- sels sailing under the protection of a neutral flag, I'ecognised as such by various treaties. The United States refer to the treaty of 1800, based on the liberal principle that the Jlag covers the property, as strictly entitling them to indemnification for all seiztn-es made in virtue of the decrees of Berlin, Milah and Rambouillet. Your committee are of opinion that the decrees of Berlin and Milan, were, in a manner, forced on the Imperial Government by the first of all laws, that which allows the means of self- SO 458 [ Doc. No. 2. ] defence and self-preservation. These decrees were acts of retaliation against a hostile Power. Their intention was not in any way hostile to the United States. They forhade thcni, it is true, all commerce with England ; but did they not, in exchange, open to them the ports and ensure to them the supply of the whole Continent ? Instead of complaining, they ought to have thanked the Emperor for these decrees, as the very source of the commercial prosperity which th^y have since attained. The Federal Go- vernment should have caused its neutrality to he respected by England at an earlier day. It was not in 1812, but in 1807, that the honor, the dig- nity, the interests of the United States demanded from them a declaration of war with Great Britain. Had this declaration then been made, the empire would have escaped its own disasters j England would have recog- nised the liberty of the seas; and the union would have preserved the im- mense benefits which our policy ensured to it, and have avoided the war which it was, after all, forced to declare in 1812. With what reason can the United States complain of the decree of Ram- bouill^t ? Tilt non-intercourse act was an act hostile to France, and had pi-eceded that decree, the lawfulness of which no Power on earth had a right to dispute. Judge then, for yourselves, gentlemen, of the indulgence, to avail myself of an expression of our colleague, M. Bignon, with which we have admitted these claims of the United States. Your committee have rejected these pretensions, so far as they bore, ge- nerally, upon all the considerations arising from the decrees of the empire ; yet they conld not but except such ships as were captured prior to their knowledge of the existence of these decrees ; the principles of national and universal law, and of equity, forbidding that a prohibitory measure should be considered as taking effect before the parties interested had come to a knowledge of it. Your committee are also of opinion that indemnification was justly due for ships seized since the 1st of November, 1810, the date of the repeal of those decrees. It is an undoubted principle, that an act should be deemed inoperative from the moment of its repeal. Another question of deep interest to your committee, was that in rela- tion to vessels seized in Spain, and afterwards sold at Bayonne ; a ques- tion, the most important details of which they have carefully investi- gated. It is to them a fact demonstrated, that these vessels would never have entered the port of St. Sebastian, but for the previous pledge of the French authorities that they should not be deemed as coming within the scope of the existing decrees. We are therefore of opinion that to with- hold indemnification for these vessels would be to compromise the honor of France. The same is true of vessels sunk or burnt at .sea. The right which permits the commander of a squadron to destroy vessels in time of war, not for any culpable act of theirs, but on the mere suppo- sition that they might, if suffered to proceed, make known to the enemy the secrets of his expedition, is acknowledged to be an extraordinary right, and a doubt has never been raised that the claimants of property so de- stroyed are entitled to reparation. Your committee are also of opinion that indemnification is due the Unit- ed States ; but that it is due only, 1st, For vessels seized prior to a know- ledge, oh their part, of the decrees of Berlin and Milan. 2dly. For vessels seized since the 1st of November, 1810. 3dly. For vessels confiscated in Spain, and sold at Bayonne. 4thly. For vessels sunk or burnt by French [ Doc. No. 2. ] 459 squadrons; all which is in accordance with the opinion of the Duke of Viceriza, in 1814, and with that of the commission ajjpointed in 1831. The principle of indemnification having been once admitted, and the claims which it «uglit to affect once specified, your committee had next to examine the reasons which led the Government to increase the sum, and to fix it at 25 millions. We had a visit from the Minister of Foreign Affiiirs : the result was our conviction, from documents furnished by him, tliat the Government has always held, that if indemnity were due, it was due but to these four classes of claims, the justice of wiiich, I think, has been fully proved ; and that these, and these alone, have formed the basis of its nc- gotiations with the United States. Another duty remained to be discharged by your committee, which was to furnish a statement of the number and the value of cargoes and vessels, for the loss of which they had decided that indemnification should be made. The minister of the United States had presented, in 1831, claims for485 prizes. TJie committee, after an examination of all the lists produced by both Governments, have admitted, as entitled to indemnification, but 124 vessels and 127 cargoes. This done, your committee had only to make out an estimate of tlie value of the cargoes and vessels, and to compare it with the sum of 25 millions, which the French Government has engaged to pay to the United States, deducting, however, that of 1,500,000 francs for the indemnification of French citizens, creditors of the United States, whose clainjs are of the same nature as those of the Americans. The result of this estimate and comj)arison was a perfect conviction, on the part of the committee, that the sum of 25 millions is justly due to the United States. In fact, the value of vessels confiscated amounted to 25 millions, omitting that of the eight not sold at Bayonne, but surrendered to the Marine Department, in virtue of the imperial decisions. As respects the second part of the treaty relative to compensation al- lowed for the benefits secui-ed to us by the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty, by estimates made from those which have already restilted to our commerce from the free entry, so to speak, of our wines and our silks into the United States, your committee have every reason to believe that the French Government has, in signing this treaty, acted Justly, wisely, and for the interests of the country. Permit me to answer certain objections made by the opponents of the bill to the report of your committee. I would first remark to my honorable colleague, M. Boissy d'Anglas, that he errs if he thinks that the French Government is the only Govern- ment from which that of the United States would have demanded this in- demnification. It has exacted and received millions from England, from Spain, from Sweden, and the Two Sicilies. I have, with every member of this chamber, admired the consummate power and address shown in the speech made by our honorable colleague, M. Bignon, in the course of this debate. Such is the force of talent, that he would have infallibly convinced even myself, had I not profoundly stu- died the question now before us. There were, however, two points in this speech with which I was particularly struck. The first was, that, aftei* adopting the principles of the committee, he was unwilling to admit the conclusions rationally resulting from them ; the second was, that the po- licy of the empire found in him a most eloquent opponent. Our honorable colleague admits the principle that indemnification ia duo i60 [ Doc. No. 2. J he United States, but rejects, with one exception, all the grounds upon viiich it can be justly predicated ; grounds admitted hy the Duke of ^icenza, and even by tlie Emperor himself, in 1814. In other words, he i of opinion that something is due the United States; but he denies that his something should be paid them. M. Bignori wishes the inOcninification to extend only to such vessels as ^ere burnt at sea by our squadrons ; denying it on account of the vessels onfiscatcd before the parties interested could have had knowledge of the ecrees, of those seized after the revocation of tliese decrees, and of lose seized at St. Sebastian and sold at Bayonne ; and his reason for so oing is, that (he grounds on which the allowance of indemnification for lese vessels is predicated, afford matter for doubt and discussion. I ask pardon of my colleague; the grounds admitted by the committee annot afford matter for doubt and discussion ; because principles, which re the same at all times and all places, forbid that these grounds should rationally contested. Do you reject the principle that a law can never ave a retrospective effect ? the principle that a decree revoked is an inope- itive decree ? Can you silence the voice of conscience while it tells you that je price of the ships — pardon the expression — robbed at St. Sebastian, ight to be repaid ? The strongest objection made by M. Bignon to the report of your com- littee is this — you should not have allowed indemnification for the twelve jssels condemned after the 1st of November, 1810, but seized before tiiat ite. It is because the note of the 5th of August, 1810, had declared that le decrees were revoked ; because the United States were the first to ake advances to us, in repealing the non-intercourse bill; because we were le cause of the war which they declared against Great Britain in 1812, lat we have less consulted the strict rule of right with respect to these v'elve vessels, than the dictates of equity. The second part of the treaty which we offer for your ratification, has und as little favor with my colleague, M. Bignon. If the United States duce their duties on our wines and our silks, it is, forsooth, an act in em of mere stratagem and address. They reduce their custom-house ities because they no longer know what to do with their money : mean- bile we hear nothing talked of but American batikruptcy. Your com- ittce are neither so sliarp-sighted nor so far-sighted as our honorable lleague. The only question \\ith them, on this head, has been, whether reduction of duties on our wines and on our silks is a sufficient compen- tion for the loss of tlie benefits promised by the Louisiana treaty. The lestion is affirmatively answered by the estimates themselves, and re- tires no further investigation. My lionorab'.e colleague thinks that the mericans would make no change in their tariff, even siiould you not tify the treaty of the 4th of July. But, if the Americans are as selfish M. Bignon considers them, will they not be eager to wrest, by their ities, from the commerce, what they have not been able to obtain from e justice of France ? What will tiien become of Lyons and Bordeaux? eflect ! gentlemen ; there is cause for reflection. Thus, gentlemen, right ;d equity both demand your assent to the bill before you. In giving that sent, you will perform an act not of justice only, but of the wisest policy, is by a reunion of the bonds which should connect us witii America at you will oppose the encroachments of a Power which, not having dared make war upon you by acts of violence, has endeavored to do so by its f Doc. No. 2. J 461 tariffs. It is by opening new outlets to tlic products of oui* soil and of oui industry, by increasing for the working classes the elements of labor, tha' we may usefully serve the country. Spirits are at work among us, whos( agitation threatens to explode. Tliere is but one way to lay the storm, anc that is to open to Ihem new opportunities of action ; they are restless onl} because they have no place in society. Let us colonize Algiers ; and let uj seriously consider the state of Corsica, which requires birt a few millionj usefully expended, to become one of the most populous countries in Europe. M. BoissY d'Anglas. I wish to oJQfer a reply to a statement made by M. Realier Dumas. Gentlemen, when a deputy rises in this tribune to fulfil one of the dic- tates of conscience, that of protecting the interests of the country, hr should be certain as regards the facts stated by him, otherwise he will lead those of his colleagues into error, who are ready to place dependence upon him. M. R6alier Dumas has told you that I had, no doubt thought- lessly, affirmed that no other Powers had indemnified tlie United States for tiie losses experienced during the continental blockades, of which the imperial decrees of Berlin and Milan were the inevitable results. I ask you, gentlemen, to allow me to show you where the charge of incorrectness will apply. It may be said that, immediately after the glorious revolution of July, the agents, and the friends also, of the Federal Government, recommenced urging those claims which had been rejected by that of the Restoration ; the new Government, with a view to policy, passed an ordinance on the 14th October, 18S0, creating an administrative commission to examine this business. To name the members who formed a part of this commission, is to fur- jiish a guaranty of its impartiality : M. Lain6, Peer of F'rance, was its president, and furnished its report; M. Bellet, senior, M. Benjamin Delessert, M. George Lafayette, M. Piciion, and M. d'AudifTret, were the other members. Upon the pretensions of the United States, M. Lain6 made a report* marked by force and argument; in it the different questions were examin- ed and resolved, agreeably to the jjrinciples of public rights. After two months of the most assiduous labor, a sum was fixed upon, very inferior to that which is now demanded of you ; this amount was determined with- out having previously examined and considered the negotiation wliich had taken place between the United States and three other Powers, relative to indemnifications demanded, under circumstances in some degree similar; but the commission was awai-e that the analogy was very far from being perfect, and that the sacrifices to which England, Spain, and Denmark had quietly submitted, were amply compensated by incontestable advantages. Tiie following, gentlemen, are, moreover, the terms of the report : " A majority has allowed indemnification in three classes of cases, be- lieving that equity towards others ought to prevail over the motives for rejection given by the Governments of the Empire and of the Restoration ; it has therefore been their object to maintain harmony between two friendly Powers, and to establisli reciprocal and beneficial commercial relation- ships ; for which ends France has already made great sacrifices, not hav- ing been influenced by the example of England, of Spain, and of Denmark. ♦ Never published. 462 [ Doc. No. 2. J i '' If, for the captures made during tlie war of 1793, England has judged ' it expedient to recompense the United States, it was because she had gone ! beyond the boundaries of injustice itse)f, in regard to neutral Americans ; I because she wished to detach her from France ; and she had been amply indemnified by the treaty made by her with the Federal Government, at 'the end of the year 1794, as that treaty struck at the grand compact I of 1788, between France and the United States. I << The convention of indemnification with Spain was combined with the 1 acquisition of the Floridas j for the accomplishment of which France < afforded many facilities to the United States. << As for the convention with Denmark, we may find in the Department of Foreign Affairs the motives by which this Power was governed : it I would then be proved that the sum allowed under the name of indemnifi- I cation was given without regular accounts, and was very far below what i was claimed," { Such, gentlemen, are the words of the report itself, made by M. Laine : 5 you will understand, that, when I observed that no indemnification had 1 been given by the different Powers to the Federal Government, I meant i that no indemnification had been allowed upon the grounds assumed in the claims of the United States against France; most assuredly I would not I assert that at no time, and under no circumstances, had any arrangements : been made ; but I was perfectly correct in affirming that, under parallel i circumstances, for reasons such as are now given, and simply as the pay- 1 ment of a debt, no pecuniary sacrifice has been made by eHhep »f these three Powers. I An honorable general has told you that it is to oar own hant>r to pay I that which we owej yes, undoubtedly, gentlemen. States, as well as indi- viduals, are bound to fulfil their engagements, under penalty of being dis- graced if they do not ; bwt, gentlemen, if you are not in tJebt, as I am per- suaded you are no^-, do not allow yourselves to be duped; otherwise, in place of fulfilling the demands of honor, we shall become the laughing stock of Europe, I Recollect, gentlemen, that extraordinary expenditures are those which pro- 'duce the ruin of empires; ordinary expenditures are easily borne, because i we provide ft>r them corresponding resources ; from these there can be no- ' thing n^ore than momentary uneasiness ; but for extraordinary expendi- 1 tures, credit must be resorted to, the future must be pledged, and there h no power suiScientJy strong to bear up against the continued abuse of such 1 expedients. ' Gentlemen, I have quoted the rcp^>rt of M. Laine, but I will now make ' a new observation ; for this purpose I shall call upoti the Minister of Fo- reign Afitiirs, and I beg of him to grant me a moment's attention. I say, then, it is somewhat extraordinary that the report of M. Laine, ' given as the result of the labors of th* commission, has not been added to ' the printed documents. In that report it is said that the commission &f ' 1831 asked but twelve millions for the United States. Tliere is a great ' difference between that sum and twenty-five millions demanded by the new ' commission. I therefore request the Minister of Foreign Affairs to have the goodness to lay that report upon the table of the president, in order 'that it may be printed and distributed. The Duke de Broglie, [Minister of Foreign Jffairs.J The report has been communicated to the committee. [ Doc. No. 2. J 463 M. BoissY d'Anglas. The minister tells me that this report has been given to the committee. I declare that I have sought for it in vain ; and if I have had any knowledge of it, I should say that it was obtained in a manner almost fraudulent, for it has been communicated to me just as tjjough there were no obligation to do so. It is proper, however, that the Deputies should not be thus com- pelled to obtain tiieir information in a clandestine manner. The Minister of Foreign Affairs. The report has been communicated to the committee ; it is in its pos- session. M. BoissY d'Anglas. The committee has not deposited it in the committee room. M. Petou. It is indispensable that the report should be communicated to us j until that is done, it will be proper to put off the vote on tiie law. M. Realier Dumas. I will observe that the report in question has been communicated to the committee, of which I am a member. M. Petou. That is not sufficient. M. Realier Dumas. It is not surprising that the commission of 1831 extended the amount to twelve millions only ; because that commission had not before it the docu- ments vvitii which we have been furnished. It is proj)er for me to say that all the documents have been furnished tons, not only by the United States and by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but that we have collected others in the archives of the Council of State, of the Department of Marine, and of the administration of the Cr.stoms. And I aver that the committee has performed this labor conscientiously, and has made its estimates according to the strictest rules of justice. M. BoissY d'Anglas. I persist in demanding the report made by M. Laine. M. Petou. Remember that Napoleon determined to pay but thirteen millions. M. Auguis. Gentlemen : I will begin by submitting to the Chamber a short reply to some of the observations which have just been made by the honora- ble M. Realier Dumas, member of the committee. M. Realier Dumas has just affirmed that the committee was furnished with all the necessary documents ; that they did not restrict themselves to an examintion of those which have been supplied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs ; that they have searched the archives for some, and ap- plied to the Council of State for others; and, in fine, that they had ob- tained documents from every possible source. I apprehend, gentlemen, that our colleague is mistaken. If, in fact, he had taken the pains to make a more attentive examination in the ar- chives of the Depaitment of Foreign Affairs ; if he had asked for the papers relative to the claims made by Frenchmen against the United States, in consequence of the cession of Louisiana, in virtue of the 464 [ Doc. No. 2. J treaty of the 3d of April, 1803, he would have found there claims which, though not mentioned in the report, nevertheless are for a very consi- derable sum, and have been long since preferred ; he would have seen that the claim of the heirs of Sieur Renault, to which I had the honor of calling the attention of the Chamber on the sitting of Friday, has also been long in suit; he would have found there a correspondence of the Duke of Richelieu, at the time Avhen he was Minister of Foreign Atfaiis, in the course of which, the Duke, in a despatch to our minister plenipo- tentiary in the United States, had required of him some information re- lative to this very claim. If he had taken the trouble to consult the work of Brackenridge on the natural and artificial products of Upper Louisiana, he would have found that the sum to which this claim, if allowed, Avould entitle the holder, is no less than 1,525,000 francs per annum ; the details respect- ing it may be found in the work just mentioned ; he would have seen that the claims of the heirs of the celebrated Law had been also submit- ted to the United States through the Minister of Foreign Affairs; he v/ould have seen that the claims of Count Coetlogon had also been the theme of subsequent instructions ; that a voluminous .correspondence had been carried on with M. Hyde de Neuville ; that the United States had been several times reminded of these claims ; that committees had been appointed by the Congress, the reports of which had not pronounced the claims presented to them invalid ; but, on the contrary, that far from considering the demands of those claimants to have been silenced by the treaty of the 4th of April, 1803, the Federal Government had consider- ed them as subjects for re-examination. There are papers which may be found in the journals of Congress for 1829, in those for 1827, and in those for 1828, which make mention of these same claims, and avow the necessity of more ample testimony to enable them to decide definitively upon them. Gentlemen, I have had the honor to declare to you, for my- self, that I am unable to attest the correctness of the amount mentioned by these claimants ; but that, supposing the sums to be susceptible of considerable reduction, yet the 1,500,000 francs will be insufficient to meet the claims now presented on the part of the heirs of Renault, Law, Luxembourg, and Coetlogon. Gentlemen, the claims of the United States are made up from the amount of different claims preferred by in- dividuals on account of partial losses sustained between 1806 to 1811. It is true that you must examine narrowly, in order to determine precise- ly, the sum which ought to be paid to the LFnited States, whatever may be the principle admitted, as well as that which ought to be retained by the French Government to meet those claims which may be presented at a future day. Gentlemen, before examining the principle, and before ac- knov/ledging, in fact, that the French Government owes any indemnifi- cation to the Federal Government for the losses which they may be able to prove subsequently to the new modifications of the imperial decrees diminishing the severity of those of Milan and Berlin, we must learn whether the advantages derived by the American Government are not more than a compensation for the losses which they have thus sustained. The honorable M. Bignon proved to us, on Friday last, by facts and by reasonings which have not as yet been contradicted, that not only the American Government had no claims to prefer against France, but ra- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 465 tlier, if either of the two countries has a right to demand indemnification of the other, it would probably be France, and not the American Govern- ment. Gentlemen, when, in 1814, arrangements were made between France and the different foreign Powers, it resulted, from a recapitulation which was placed before the Chamber of Peers, by M. Roy, in the ses- sion of 1832, that France had just claims to the amount of 235,000,000. Examine well this amount ; 235,000,000 due to France by foreign Pow- ers ! I have reason to fear, gentlemen, that we have too easily given up a debt so considerable ; and, notwithstanding this, we now see foreign Powers addressing the Government of July, in demand for sums which are small indeed when compared with those which we have a right to demand from them. Gentlemen, in such a state of things, would it not be proper to form a new committee, which should examine the claims of each, and deter- mine how much is due by each, so that the difference may be paid by the party which may appear in the end to be indebted to the other ? I am of opinion that, under such circumstances, the Chamber would act imprudently, and with a precipitation prejudicial to our finances, if at once, and without a more full examination, it should acknowledge France to be indebted to the United States to the amount of 25,000,000, and consent to the payment of it without the deduction which I have had the honor to suggest to you. Do not imagine that this is a question of royal prerogative. There is an essential distinction to be observed be- tween the diplomatic treaty made in 1831, and the financial arrangements of the same treaty. No one is less disposed than I am to dispute with the Crown the right of making treaties, that is, diplomatic treaties ; trea- ties essentially political. As regards any financial arrangements which these treaties may embrace, you are omnipotent ; your power cannot be limited or questioned. Examine then at once, with religious attention, with truly financial accuracy, whether it be not imprudent and rash to de- termine at once upon this settlement. It has been made for the United States, as I have already had the honor to observe to you ; but I fear not to declare that it has not been made in accordance with our own essen- tial interests. The amounts are considerable ; on the one hand, a sum, the yearly inte- rest of which is 1,525,000 francs; on the other, our claims, of which one alone amounts to two millions and a half : there are others not yet reduced to figures, but which may nevertheless be considerable. I think it in accordance with the purity of the Government, and with the dignity of the nation, to examine these different accounts with especial care ; other- wise, you will pronounce upon them lightly, and thereby give authority to the other Powers who are reserving their claims, to come afterwards, and demand indemnification more or less heavy, on the strength of the precedent you will have established ; you will, I say, consecrate these claims, because, without falsifying this precedent, you could not refuse to lend an attentive ear to the claims which might be made upon you. I persist then, as I had determined on Friday last, in requesting the organization of a new committee, which may duly weigh the rights of each party, so that, after they have been established, the Chamber may be called upon to do what is just. M. Petou. Seconded ! Seconded ! We pay every where, and nobody pays us. 466 [ Doc. No. 2. J Several members. Spain owes 80 millions. Holland, Belgium, Saxony, every one owes us. The Duke de Broglie, [Minister of Foreign Affairs.] Gentlemen: I appear before you on this occasion to defend, in the name of the Government, the law which is proposed to you : I come to justify in your presence all the clauses, all the conditions of a treaty founded on strict right — founded on equity and reason — founded on the reciprocal interests of the two countries between which it has been con- cluded. This treaty has not been spared in the discussion which has taken place ; it has been painted in the darkest colors, to the view of our opponents, as an act doubly onerous to France ; onerous in the first place, as imposing upon us a heavy burden ; and onerous in this sense, that it sacrifices evi- dent rights to delusive advantages. Our adversaries have gone further. The Restoration has found grace « in this respect, in their eyes. If we are to believe them, the Restoration had shown itself jealous of the honor of France, and careful of her interests ; the Government of July, less skilful and less firm, has accepted every thing. If the Restoration, gentlemen, is entitled to this glory — if it be true that the Restoration, in this instance, has preserved us from paying tribute to a foreign nation, certainly the fact is rare ; it is the only one of its kind, and ought to be inscribed in letters of gold in the annals of the discarded Government ; that would be compensation enough. But let us not hasten to proclaim this miracle upon the strength of assertions made by nameless persons ; let us first ascertain the truth of the fact, and not lavish our incense and our gratitude at random, for we may be only losing both. I shall take up the facts of the case at their origin ; it is the only way of understanding them correctly. I shall endeavor to present them in their natural order, and to place them in their true light. I am under the neces- sity of soliciting from the Chamber a little attention, much indulgence, and, above all, much patience ; for it is not my fault that these facts are very numerous and very complicated. During the course of that long maritime war, which dates from the beginning of 1793, and ended only with the peace of Amiens, great differ- ences sprung up between the Executive Directory of the Republic and the Government of the United States. Infractions of pre-existing treaties, and acts of violence, had been committed on both sides ; retaliatory laws had been passed in both countries ; the convention of the 30th September, 1800, put an end to the differences ; the convention of 1800 re-established the commercial and political relations of the two countries upon a footing of the most perfect good understanding. This convention has been rep- presented to us as a sort of coalition — as a treaty of alliance between these two Governments, in favor of a maritime neutrality. This is going much too far ; the object of the convention of the 30th September (it is only necessary to cast our eyes upon it to be convinced of this fact) was to put an end to this state of semi-hostility which existed between the two countries, and to regulate the reparations to be made by each for injury which had been committed on the other. But it is true that, of the 27 articles of which this convention is com- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 467 posed, there are many which are devoted exclusively to the re-establish- ment of those principles of national law, in respect to the navigation of neutrals, which France has always proposed, and of which she has endeavored to procure the observance by all countries. You know^hese principles; they are extremely simple. We hold as a general axiom, that the sea is the common domain of all the nations whose shores it bathes ; that all may traverse it with equal rights ; we consequently hold, that a state of war between two or more maritime Powers does not at all affect the rights of neutrals ; that the belligerent Powers have no right to fetter the commerce of neutrals, which may freely frequent all the ports, har- bors, or roads of all countries ; in fine, that the merchant vessels of neutral Powers retain in time of war the right of transporting, wherever they see fit, all kinds of merchandise — even those which come from countries belonging to the belligerent Powers. We admit, it is true, two or three exceptions to these general rules. Thus, merchant vessels of neutral Powers have a right to frequent the ports, harbors, or roads of the belligerent Powers, provided always that ttfiose ports are not blockaded by naval forces in a situation to dispute the entrance to them ; in which case, the neutral ship, being duly warned, ought to depart, or, if she persist, it is then at her own risk and peril. Thus, also, neutral vessels have a right to transport wherever they may see fit, all kinds of merchandise ; they are forbidden nevertheless to furnish the belligerent Powers with arms or munitions of war. Arms and munitions designated by the technical name of contraband of war, are liable to be seized if found in neutral ships by the armed vessels of one belligerent Power, when they are destined to be funiished to the other. In fine, to determine whether neutral vessels do or do not carry ar- ticles that are contraband of war ; to determine whether vessels which bear a neutral flag, actually belong to the country whose colors they wear, we admit, in time of war, the right of visiting, provided that it be subjected to certain forms and certain precautions. When, however, a neutral vessel sails under the escort or convoy of a ship of war of her own country, we hold then, out of respect to the Government which takes her under its guaranty, that all presumption of fraud ceases. And we no longer admit the right of visiting. Such are, in a few words, the rules of the law of nations. These rules were for a long time acknowledged by all Europe. It is not more than eighty years since a single Power, England, has thought it might depart from them more or less. > As to the French Government, if it has not always put these principles in practice, it has always professed them, and, when opportunity has pre- sented itself, it has endeavored to introduce them into the text of trea- ties. This is what it did in 1800, and on twenty other occasions ; and it does so still at this day, in the treaties with the Republics of South America, without pretending to enter into an alliance or coalition with them. The sense of these treaties is, that the two countries engage with each other to observe these rules, and nothing more. But it is to be remarked, that at the moment when the French Government entered into such an engagement with the Government of the United States, it was at war with England, and that England did not observe the rules in « 468 f Doc. No. 2. J question ; consequently, the French Government was not ignorant the it placed itself in regard to its enemy in a position of relative inferiorit) since it imposed upon itself restrictions in respect to neutrals, which it enemy did not assume ; but it thought then, and I believe rightly, tha the maintenance of these tutelary principles presented advantages t France of an elevated description ; permanent advantages, which com pensated, and more than compensated, for the inconvenience of showinj a little more fairness than her enemy. The peace of Amiens put an end to the war between France ai)d Eng land ; but the peace of Amiens, you know, was only a truce ; the wa) soon broke out again, and broke out with increased animosity anc^ve energy. The French Government not being in a situation itself to carry on it£ own commerce with its own colonies, adopted the course of offering it tc neutral Powers. By an order in council of the 24th June, 1803, the English Government interdicted it to them. Very soon afterwards i(, io re-established it, but indirectly; that is to say, by subjecting thy jr neutral Powers to hold commercial intercourse with the French colonies only through the medium of free ports, which it took care to establish in the British colonies. This was the object of the two orders in coun- cil, of the 27th June and 3d August, 1805. This was the first check given to the navigation of neutrals ; others* soon followed. K An order in council, of the 19th January, 1804, had declared the colo- nies of Guadaloupe and Martinique in a state of blockade. Another order in council, of the 9th August of the same year, declared the coasts of France, from Dieppe to Ostend, in a state of blockade ; finally, two other orders in council, of the 9th April and 15th May, 1806, extended the blockade from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe. Until then the Imperial Government had observed the rules of the law of nations ; it had religiously respected the convention concluded in the month of September, 1800 ; but irritated by these orders in council, which fell like one thunderbolt after another upon the commerce be- tween France and the countries that were neutral, it issued on the 21st of November, 1806, a decree, known in the history of the law of na-. tions under the name of the decree of Berlin. This decree declared the British islands to be in a state of blockade ; but neither the Berlin decree, nor the order in council, created any real blockade : the blockadfe was fictitious, as neither Power had a naval force sufficient to make it effectual. With regard to ourselves, our squadrons then rarely ventured upon the ocean ; neutrals were merely warned not to trade with the designated ports, and that their vessels, if stopped at sea when bound for one of those ports, would be seized and declared good prize. The appearance of the Berlin decree raised two great questions ap- plied to neutrals in general ; it was a violation of the principles of the law of nations, according to the view I have just taken of them ; prin- ciples, in virtue of which we do not recognise a fictitious blockade : for, according to us, neutrals should be free to frequent all ports not effect- ively blockaded. Applied to the Americans in particular, it was an infraction of the convention of the 30th September, 1800, the 12th ar- ticle of which is explicit upon the subject. [ Doc. No. 2. J 4G9 The right of reprisal is alleged in justification ; but does that right xtend to a violation of the rights of third parties ? This is an important aestion. My enemy attacks me, and I defend myself ; nothing is plainer. He "svels a blow at me, which I return ; nothing could be more just. But ^ly enemy, for the purpose of indirectly injuring me, despoils an innocent 'larty. Have I a right, in order to injure my enemy indirectly, to despoil "' n innocent party ? This would be a question easily answered in morals ; it less simple in politics ? I will not take it upon myself to say. Uhers have been bolder than I am. It is also alleged, by way of justification, that the French Government Signed the convention of 1800, with an understanding that the American " rovernment should cause its rights to be respected by the English ; that should declare war against the English if those rights were disregarded, 'l^nd that, not having done so, the French Government was released from s obligations under that treaty. Is it indeed allowable to supply, by gratuitous suppositions and impli- -Isation, which nothing authorizes or justifies, the absolute silence of a " "eaty, and especially of a treaty concluded in time of war, and in the .ce of the difficulty itself ? I would not dare answer affirmatively; it is serious affair to make up by suppositions and implications for the si- nce of a treaty. The French Government, notwithstanding, at first seemed to hesitate ; le Minister of Foreign Affairs was absent ; the Count de Decres, linister of Marine, was at that time charged by the Emperor with the jlations of France with the foreign legations. General Armstrong, the nvoy of the United States, applied directly to him, and officially de- landed his opinion in relation to the Berlin decree, and whether it ould be applied to American vessels. The Minister of Marine did not esitate to reply officially that the convention of the 30th September ould be respected, and that the Berlin decree would not be applied to ; this ofhcial declaration, being transmitted to the United States, was )mmunicated by the President to the House of Representatives in a essage of the 7th January, 1807. Nevertheless, the acts were not conformable with the words, and Ameri- m vessels were not only seized in virtue of the Berlin decree, but seized a ingtime before the news of the existence of that decree could have reached e shipowners ; for it was indeed peculiar in relation to this decree, and to 1 the others of which I am about to speak, that they were put into cecution the day after their date. General Armstrong demanded ex- ami^lons respecting these seizures. Evasive answers Averc given him. inally, at the expiration of a year, and on the 7th of October, 1807, the iiperial Government decided that the Berlin decree was applicable to merican vessels as well as to those of other nations. After having once entered upon this course, the two Governments con- tiued in it. The English Government, by three orders in council, dated the h January, 26th June, and 11th November, 1807, declared in a state of ockade, first, all the ports of France ; then, all the ports of the allies of ranee ; and, finally, all those ports which chanced at the time to be xupied by the French armies. To be sure, it admitted certain oxcep- 3ns in favor of neutral vessels which might be willing to submit to some 470 [ Doc. No. 2. ] conditions ; such as stopping in England, unloading their cargoes there, and paying certain duties. By way of retaliation, the French Go- vernment issued from Milan, on the 23d November and 17th December, 1807, two decrees, declaring that any vessel which submitted to the con- ditions thus imposed, should forfeit its national character, and be deemed good prize. Such, then, was the state of things towards the close of 1807. On the one hand stood the French Government, at the head of all the maritime Powers of the Continent ; on the other was England alone, but more powerful upon the sea than all the continental Powers together ; and be- tween these two belligerents the United States were placed as a neutral. The English Government interdicted commerce between the United States and the States of continental Europe ; and the French Government! interdicted commerce between the United States and the British islands. The American Government adopted the only course that it could, in this^ almost desperate state of things ; it saw that whatever direction the ves- sels of the Union might take, they would encounter certain ruin ; that, if i they escaped the English orders in council, they fell under the Frencyi decrees, and vice versa ; and that, if by good fortune they should escape both, they would have to run a third risk ; for the French squadrons had contracted a singular habit in their few expeditions; they destroyed all the vessels they met with, whether friend or foe, Avhether they com- plied with, or transgressed the decrees ; they destroyed them for fear that they might apprise the English fleets of the course they (themselves) had taken. The American Government, seeing that their shipping could scarcely escape the dangers which beset them on all sides, with parental care adopted the expedient of forbidding their departure from their own ports, by the law of the 20th September, 1807, which placed an embargo upon all the vessels of the Union in all its ports, and did not suffer them even to proceed from one port of the Union to another without giving security. This was purely and simply accepting the conditions to which the two belligerents had subjected her ; and it was, besides, a municipal act merely, which applied only to American vessels. It was an inoffensive act, and one not marked by hostility towards any. It, nevertheless, appears to have excited, in a great degree, the displeasure of the Imperial Government. The latter replied by an act of retaliation. The natural method of re- taliating was to place an embargo upon French vessels in the ports. of France, or at least upon those bound for the United States. ^ But the embargo was not of this sort. It was put upon American ves- sels in the ports of France. The decree laying this embargo cannot be found in the archives ; but we have the decree dated the 25th February, 1809, by which the embargo was raised. The American embargo did not succeed. A large number of Ameri- can vessels did leave the ports of the Union ; those which had not returned to them, kept away ; and the owners continued to play the great game of neutral commerce, very much like the sons of high femilies, whom the watchfulness of their parents cannot keep away from the gambling table. \^Laughter.'\ The honorable deputy from Andelys, (M. Bignon,) to whom you [ Doc. No. 2. ] 471 listened the day before yesterday, laid much stress on what he called the immense profits of the American ship owners. Those profits may be esti- mated as high as you please : but I am a little surprised that the honorable deputy should have told you that, since some have been made rich, others had no right to complain, and that the gains of some were an adequate compensation for the losses of others. Supposing the honorable deputy were a citizen of the United States, (which we should very much regret ; ) and supposing he had embarked his whole fortune in a vessel confiscated at Antwerp, at Bayonne, or in Holland, pursuant to the imperial decrees; and that, upon his appearing to claim indemnification of us, we should tell him — no doubt you are ruined, but there is your neighbor who has made a large fortune, you should be contented, and ought not to ask any thing of us ; what would the honorable deputy say ? [Marks of approbation.] You are now asked, gentlemen, not to indemnify the American Govern- ment, but to place in the hands of that Government a sum for the purpose of compensating those who may have suffered by the improper application of the Berlin and Milan decrees. We cannot, therefore, say that the profits of some are a recompense for the losses of others. The American Government, notwithstanding, did not deem the condi- tion of American commerce as prosperous as you have represented it, and, in proof of this, it did all it could to remedy the evil. Seeing that an embargo was ineffectual, another expedient was devised ; the embargo was repealed on the 1st of March, 1809, and an act, known in the history of the law of nations as the non-intercourse act, or law interdicting commercial intercourse, was substituted for it. By this law the commerce of the world was again opened to American shipping, but the ports of France and England were closed against it ; and the act went on to say, that if, after the 10th of May, 1809, any French or English vessel should, except in distress, enter a port of the Union such vessel should be seized and condemned. This act is the only one on the subject, of which the French Govern- ment can make any just complaint against the United States ; and, indeed such complaint would not be well founded, for the non-intercourse act does not at all resemble the Berlin and Milan decrees; it did not interdict neutral commerce with France, but it exerted a power which belongs to every Government, namely, that of closing its own ports, as every man has a right to shut up his own house. But it must be confessed that the con- vention of 1800, which had yet three months to run, is at variance with the spirit of this law. I ought to add, that the law was never applied, and that not a single French vessel was condemned under it. It may well be supposed that the embargo law having occasioned so much irritation to the Imperial Government, the non-intercourse laiu would occasion still more, but it did not. During the whole of the year 1809, and the first month of 1810, the French Government does not appear to have regarded that law. In fact, during all that time, an indirect trade which was not prohibited either by the French laws or by those of the United States, was carried on between France and the American ship owners. It originated, and was kept up, through the medium of those ports which were in the temporary occupation of the French armies. These were chiefly St. Sebastian, Bilboa, and other ports in the vicinity, to which the American vessels were attracted, not only by the prospect of 472 [ Doc. No. 2. ] gain, but by the express invitation of General Thouvenot, who commanded at St. Sebastian. This fact is confirmed by a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated Vienna, 13th June, 1809. The Imperial Government tolerated this commerce until the 10th Feb- ruary, 1810, when all of a sudden it issued an order to seize all vessels and cargoes which might be found in those ports, and to bring them to Bayonne. Six weeks afterwards a decree issued at Rambouillet, on the 23d of March, 1810, directed that all these vessels and their cargoes should be sold, and the proceeds deposited as consignments, a la caisse des depots et consignations. The decree also provided that, by way of retaliation for the non-inter- course law, all American vessels then in the ports of France, or which might thereafter enter them, or those ports occupied by French troops, should be seized and sold, and that the proceeds should be deposited as consignments. There are two things to be considered in relation to this decree: 1st. That a retroactive operation is announced in it, in terms as plain and as unambiguous as were ever used in an official act. 2d. That upon this occasion, also, the Imperial Government hesitated as to the consequences of its own decisions ; for it did not say that the proceeds of the sales of the vessels seized should be placed in the public Treasury, but that they should be deposited as consignments. Nevertheless, the American Government did not seem determined to push things to the last extremity. The non-intercourse law, enacted for a year on the 1st of March, 1809, expired on the 1st of Maich, 1810. The American Government did not renew it, but it published a procla- mation, in which it apprised the Governments of France and England that the law would be again put in force on the 1st of March, 1811, if they did not revoke their decisions relative to neutrals. The Imperial Government met these advances ; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a letter addressed to the envoy of the United States, on theSthof August, 1810, pledged himself that the Berlin and Milan decrees would be repealed so far as concerned the United States, from and after the 1st of November, 1810. Yet, on the same day, by a decree dated at Trianon, the Imperial Government directed that all condemned American vessels should be sold, and that the proceeds of the sales should no longer be deposited as consignments, but be placed in the public Treasury. The same decree directed that the proceeds of the vessels already sold should be withdrawn from that place of deposite, and conveyed to the public Treasury ; that is to say, on the very day when it was stipulated to repeal the Milan and Berlin decrees, an order was issued to condemn those American vessels respecting which doubts had been entertained. And, stranger still, this decree is based upon a report in which it is stated that the decree was designed as a measure of retaliation for the non-intercourse law ; and the same report also establishes, on the one hand, that the non-intercourse law was no longer in existence, and, on the other, that it was never applied to French vessels. The declaration of the French Government, that from and after the 1st of Nove' her, 1810, it would revoke, as respected Americans, the Berlin and M" decrees, produced in the United States the effect that was to have i expected. Therefore, on the 2d of November, the President, / • / [ Doc. No. 2. ] 47o by proclamation, declared that the non-intercourse law was repealed for- ever, so far as it related to France.- The Americans had cause to expect that, from and after the 1st of November, 1810, the seizures and con- demnations would cease; but it was not so; they were continued in 1810, through the whole of 181 1 , and the three first montlis of 1812 ; the envoy of the United States requested in vain, during that long space of time, that the engagement to his Government should be officially promulgated. It was not until the 10th of May, 1812, that he could obtain a communi- cation of the decree of the 28th April, 1811, which converted the stipu- lation into an authentic act. I repeat, during eighteen months, the seizures and condemnations were persisted in. Nevertheless, in 1812, the relations being restored to a footing of friendship and good understanding, Mr. Barlow the new minister of the United States, addressed the French Government, and entered upon two distinct negotiations with it. The object of one was the renewal of the convention of 1800, subject to such modifications as circumstances might require. The object of the other was to obtain indemnification for the proceedings which 1 have just related. He supported his demand with such arguments as these : " From the date of their promulgation," said he, " to the 31st June, 1809, when the convention of 1800 ceased to be in force, the imperial decrees enacted with reference to American vessels could not be applied but in violation of the stipulations of that convention ; from the 1st June, 1809, to the 1st November, 1810, they could not be applied except in violation of princi- ples of public law, which both the Americans and the French pride themselves upon respecting ; and from the 1st November, 1810, until the 10th May, 1812, except in violation of a solemn engagement entered into with the United States." " Besides," added he, " even if the legality of the Berlin and Milan decrees were admitted, could their application to facts anterior to their existence be justified, or at least anterior to the time allowed for obtain- ing intelligence of them? " Could their application to things which did not naturally fall within their scope be justified ? Could they be applied without trial, without judgment, without condemnation ?" And a great number of cases were adduced to which these exceptions were applicable. In the sequel, I shall have the honor to acquaint the Chamber with the facts upon which these assertions are founded. Mr. Barlow pursued this double negotiation with an activity which cost him his life. He followed the Emperor Napoleon to Russia; he arrived at Wilna, and died during the retreat a victim to the severity of the season. The minister who has the honor to address you being then on his way from Vienna to head-quarters, discharged the mournful duty of receiv- ing the last sighs of that unfortunate man in a hamlet of the Grand Dutchy of Warsaw. At the time of his death, Mr. Barlow left this double negotiation in a very advanced state. We learn from a report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated the Gth October, 1812, first, that all the bases of a new ar- rangement were determined on ; and, in the second place, that the prin- 31 474 [ Doc. 1^0. 2. J ciple of indemnification was admitted. It was admitted in relation of two classes of cases ; namely, of vessels destroyed upon the ocean, and of those arising from the application of the Berlin and Milan decrees subsequent to their repeal. A second report, dated the 27th November, 1812, adds a third class of cases, that of vessels seized before they could have obtained knowledge of the existence of the Berlin and Milan decrees. In a third report, dated the 5th February, 1813, the necessity and jus-^ tice of indemnifying the Americans for these three classes of cases are established with great force. Finally, in a fourth report, dated the 11th January, 1814, a report written under the dictation of M. de Caulaincourt, (Duke of Vicenza,) Minister of Foreign Affairs, these claims are estimated at about eighteen millions of francs. You have been told, with respect to the sum of eighteen millions, that it was not an estimate based upon the admitted principles, but an offer made to the Americans to induce them to take vigorous measures against the English Government. That assertion is in direct contradiction w4th both the letter and the spirit of the report, in which the sum of eighteen millions is specified as the probable result of the estimate in pursuance of the classifications I have just mentioned. Such was the state of things at the period of the Restoration. A ne- gotiation was begun ; the principle of indemnification was coiiceded ; three classes of cases were admitted, which were to serve as the basis of that indemnification, and its probable amount was estimated at eighteen millions. I ask the pardon of the Chamber for detaining it so long upon these points. [Several members here cried ^ No ! no ! on the contrary, go on.] My first intention was not to enlarge upon the proceedings of the Re- storation in relation to this business. The Government of the Restoration has fallen ; thank God, it has fallen to rise no more, and no one is better disposed than I am to respect the ashes of the dead ; nevertheless, the praises lavished upon that Government constrain me to enter into details. I will do so as briefly as I can, and without acrimony. I will again con- tent myself with stating facts ; to you, gentlemen, I will leave the task of drawing inferences. Louis XVIil ascended the throne on the 2d of April, 1814. The first note concerning claims addressed to the Government of that mon- arch by the minister of the United States, is dated the 9th November, 1816. Thus eighteen [?] months elapsed, during which time the Govern- ment of the United States abstained from renewing its application. For this long silence it assigns a motive which does honor to its delicacy. As was declared, it saw France crushed beneath the weight of the trea- ties of 1815 ; it saw that the 4th article of one of those treaties imposed upon France a contribution of seven hundred millions, and it refused to make common cause with those who estimated their alliance and their friendship at so high a price. The honorable member from Andelys (M. Bignon) has given another construction to the conduct of the American Government, and that con- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 475 struction is one so singular, that although I listened attentively to the orator, I am not sure that I comprehended his meaning. I have beea obliged to have recourse to the Moniteur to dissipate my doubts in that respect. [Some interniptions.] According to the honorable M. Bignon, and in that only he is right, the minister of the United States would have consented, he would even have desired, in 1812, to close the business of the American claims for a grant of eighty licenses, that is, for permission to eighty American ves- sels to enter French ports, laden with colonial produce, and to sell it for the exorbitant price it then bore under the continental system. This is very true, gentlemen, and the bargain would have been a good one : for, according to all the calculations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, those licenses would have produced a sum of 91,200,000 francs, with which the Government of the United States might have liberally paid its citizens. But the honorable deputy adds, that the Government of the Restora- tion went still further, for it opened its ports to American vessels of whatsoever character ; that is to say, gentlemen, because the American Government would have deemed itself indemnified if it could have en- joyed the advantages arising from the continental system, by selling colo- nial produce at an exorbitant price ; it should also consider itself indem- nified, inasmuch as, after the continental system had been destroyed, and colonial produce had fallen to its natural level, the French Government did not close its ports to American vessels, while it opened them to all the world. To state such an argument is to refute it. I will not dwell upon it. Nevertheless, it was not long before we received proof that the mo- tives assigned for its silence by the Government of the United States were the true motives. Indeed, at the moment when the note of the 9th November, 1816, was addressed to the French Government, that Government had to contend with new difficulties. By the 19th article of the treaty of the 30th May, 1814, it had rather inconsiderately stipulated to pay all the debts it had contracted to indi- viduals or to public establishments, beyond its territory, for supplies, contracts, or any other obligations Avhatever. Two conventions, bearing date the 20th November, 1815, regulated the method of settlement ; and I repeat, that at the time the note of the American Government was received, nearly a thousand millions of francs had been allowed. It was not without deep regret that M. de Richelieu, then Prime Minis- ter, saw the demand of the Americans added to the burden beneath which France was already sinking. Still, as he was a man full of loyalty and honor, he plainly recognised the debt ; in an interview he had with the minister of the United States, on the 20th January, 1817, he confess- ed that indemnification was due to the American merchants ; in a se- cond interview, which took place on the 12th of April, 1817, he renew- ed this declaration ; but he at the same time requested that the payment of the debt might be postponed to better times. I do not say that the Government of the Restoration was wrong in thus placing France in the position of a debtor who craves time from his creditor ; I am convinced that upon that occasion every thing Avas done 476 [ Doc. No. 2. J that could and should have been done. But I ought to remark, that Brance was not thereby released from its debt to the United States; on the contrary, that debt was made a question of honor and delicacy, and thus rendered still more obligatory. The American Government suspended its operations for five years ; this unquestionably proves the good will of the Government of the United States ; but in the meanwhile, whenever an opportunity offered, it did not neglect to keep up the recollection of its claim. Thus, when, in 1818, the French Government had negotiated for the claims of the sub- jects of foreign Powers, and had agreed to pay for them a sum of three hundred million eight hundred thousand francs ; when the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced this convention to the Chamber of Deputies, lie declared that France v/as released with regard to the European Powers^ and this restriction was inserted at the official demand of the Government of the United States. Thus also on the llth February, 1819, the 15th May, 1820, and the 21st October, 1820, that Government presented to the French Govern- ment certain separate claims of its citizens, and, at the same time, inci- dentally adverted to the rights and the claims of all the others. It was in 1822, five years subsequently to the period i have just men- tioned, that France being relieved from foreign occupation, and the French finances appearing to be in a prosperous condition, the Govern- ment of the United States renewed its operations, by addressing, on the llth of January of that year, a note to the Vicomte de Montmorency, then Minister of Foreign Allairs. In an interview which took place on the 27th of January, he formally acknowledged the debt. A few days afterwards, during a second interview, the President of the Council also acknowledged it. I pray the Chamber to pay particular attention to these two facts ; it is seen that not a single doubt was raised by the Government of the Restoration as to the debt to the United States. Still the Vicomte de Montmorency did not disguise from the American minister the great displeasure he felt because this burden fell to the share of the ministry, of which he made a part ; and the mind of the President of the Council, ^ery fertile in expedients, suggested to him more than one device for repelling the difficulty from himself, so that it should fall upon the shoulders of his successors ; he did it in this way. At that time, there existed between the French Government and that of the United States some serious differences concerning navigation du- ties : which differences were of two sorts. In the first place, France 3iad in 1814 imposed duties upon the vessels of foreign nations, from Tvliich French vessels were exempted. She also imposed several extra duties upon merchandise imported in foreign vessels, from Avhich the same merchandise v.as exempt when imported in French vessels. The Government of the United States, on the contrary, offered to ad- mit the flags of all foreign nations upon tei-ms of reciprocity. The offer was accepted by England, Prussia, and Sweden. The French Government having resisted, the Government of the XFnited States imposed upon French vessels a discriminating duty of eighteen dollars per ton ; and the French Government, by way of retali- ation, independently of the additional duty imposed upon all foreign flags [ Doc. No. 2. J 477 without distinction, added a special dutj of ninety francs a ton, exclusive- ly applicable to American vessels. In the second place, France, on ceding Louis'iana to the United States in 1803, had stipulated that her ov/n vessels should be received in that country on the same terras as American vessels, during the succeeding twelve years ; and from the expiration of that time, forever, on the terms of the most favored nation. Now we have just seen that the English flag had been placed upon the same footing with the American in all the ports of the Union. The French Government claimed, as a matter of right, the same terms in the ports of Louisiana. To this the Americans answered, whether correctly or incorrectly I will not say, that, by placing the English flag on the same footingwith their own, they had not intended to confer a favor ; that it was a conditional, not a gra- tuitous concession, and that the condition was reciprocity — We olTer the same to you, said tliey, upon the same conditions. If you do not ac- cept the offer, you acknowledge that it is not a favor, and that you have no right to it — A negotiation upon this subject was carried on at Wash- ington. Messrs. de Montmorency and de Villele took advantage of this, and in- timated to the envoy of the United States, that, although they acknow- ledged the debt to America, they had no hope of obtaining from the Chambers the appropriation necessary for paying it, so long as the ques- tion of navigation duties remained unsettled. They intimated, besides, that, as soon as these differences were settled, they would discuss the mode of payment either by arbitration or by a direct bargain. On the 18th of June, the envoy of the United States protested against this new postponement ; but on the 24th of June, that is, six days after- wards, a convention was signed at Washington, which provided that those duties should be abolished ; that is, first reduced one-fourth in the two following years ; then one-fourth on each succeding year, until they were extinguished, with the exception, however, of a duty of five francs per ton for light money and pilotage. The envoy of the United States had scarcely received this convention, when he presented himself to the French Government, and required the performance of its promise. The French Government replied — We are ready to discuss with you the amount of the indemnification ; but there are claims of French citizens upon the Government of the United States, which we will have settled by the same treaty. The difficulty relative to Louisiana still exists ; it has not been arranged at Washington ; we will include it in the same treaty. The American minister refused to consent to this. He made no diffi- culty upon the first point, but he declared that he had neither adequate powers nor instructions with regard to the other ; and the discussion remained in this state for seven years, while Messrs. Uamas, Chateau- briand, and Laferronays successively occupied the Department of Foreign Affairs. The negotiation made no progress. It was carried on first at Paris, then at Washington, then again at Paris, without any result. Thus the French Government said, 1 am ready to settle the amount of indem- nification, provided you consent to treat respecting the French claims, and the pretensions advanced by us under the 8th article of the Louisiana treaty. 478 f Doc. No. 2 . J^ The American minisler replied — We cannot connect the Louisiana question M'ith the del)t of which we claim payment from you ; the two questions are entirely distinct. In the first, our right is acknowledged by you; in the second, yovu' right is disputed by us. We are unwilling to con- found all the questions in one and the same act; but we do not refuse to treat the two questions separately, and to terminate them by separate acts. In saying that the French Government had not denied that the Americans were substantially right, I do not desire it to be understood that it did not from time to time make attempts, and even shameful attempts, if I may so express myself, to get rid at once of these inconvenient claims ; for instance, there was scarcely a Minister of Foreign Affairs who did not begin by saying in conversation with the minister of the United States, Why did jou not have your claims settled at the same time with those of the European PoAvers? The answer was plain. It was at the express request of the French 'Government that the business was postponed ; there would have been a want of delicacy in not acceding to that request. Another odious argu- ment was advanced, which has also been repeated from this tribune ; namely, that the legitimate Government was not responsible for the acts of the usurping Government ; that application should be addressed to the usurper or to his representative, but that the legitimate sovereign owed nothing. Gentlemen, it must be said to the honor of the Restoration, that this argument was not seriously used. It was, to be sure, put forward; but the ministers who employed it instantaneously withdrew it, and re- turned to the true state of the affair. I believe that it was advanced but once in an official note. It will not escape you, gentlemen, that, according to the turn this negotiation had taken, its result was entirely in the hands of the Govern- ment of the United States ; the French Government declared its readiness to treat respecting the indemnity to be granted to the United States, provided the Louisiana questions were included in the same act. It followed, that from the time the American Government agreed to treat simultaneously on the claims and the Louisiana question, the French \Government was taken at its word, and driven to the wall ; there was no further retreat. W^ell, the American Government took this course in 1830. Mr. Rives, the minister of the United States, came from Washington, furnished with "instructions authorizing him in the last extremity, when he could no longer avoid it, to give up treating the two questions separately, and to combine them in one and the same negotiation. On his arrival, he found the ministry of the 8th of August formed ; he found it rather anxious respect- ing its existence — uncertain whether it could obtain from the Chambers the ordinary appropriations ; and, consequently, not much disposed to ask them for such as were extraordinary. At first, therefore, he was not very cor- ' dially received, and had to put up with the long list of evasions which I have just recited, and which, after being advanced upon this as well as upon many other occasions, were soon abandoned. In an interview he had on the 1 1 th of January, 1 830, with the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, [Prince Polignac,] that minister explicitly admitted the right of the Ame- rican Government relative to the vessels destroyed at sea, which he cha- racterized as acts of piracy. [ Doc. No. 2. J 479 It was the same with respect to all those vessels seized, the proceeds of the sale of which had been deposited as consignments. In another conversation, on the 11th of February, the Minister of Foreign Affairs even confessed that indemnification was due for supplies, which had not been mentioned until then, during the negotiation. The admissions ^vere such, that the American minister framed from them the basis of a scheme of settlement, in which he stated the admissions, one after another, and which he sent to the Department of Foreign Afl'airs. The scheme was received, and an answer to it was promised. If the American minister found the French INIinister of Foreign A ifairs tractable enough as to the right of indemnification, he found him entirely liberal in regard to the Louisiana question. He then determined to make use of the power with which he was clothed. Two negotiations, one official, the other confidential, were from that instant set on foot between the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and the minister plenipotentiary of the United States. In the official negotiation, the minister of the United States endeavored to take advantage of the concessions he had obtained, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs tried to get over those concessions. During this time they had recourse to a confidential negotiation. Mr. Rives had offered not only to settle the two questions by one and the same treaty, but to dispose of the Louisiana question for the considera- tion of a reduction by the Government of the United States of the duties upon French wines. This overture was favorably received, and, upon the application of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it became the object of a confidential memo- randum, which was sent to him on the 20th of May. In a letter of the 31st INlay, also confidential, the minister asked for some explanations as to the duration of the proposed reduction ; which explanations were given on the 15th of June. He appeared satisfied, and promised, on his own part, to submit a project of a definitive settle- ment of the two questions. Things were in this state when the revolution of July occurred, which overturned the Restoration. I ask pardon of the Chamber for being obliged to enter into all the details. [Several members : Goon! Goon!] They are indispensable. I beg the Chamber to let me rest a few moments. [Aflcr some repose,] I have sketched, gentlemen, the state of the business before you at the time of the revolution of July. '^I'he statement I have just made will enable you to give its just value to the assertion so often made from this tribune, — that the Government of the Restoration had freed France from the American claims. You have seen, gentlemen, that the Governmant of the Restoration had uniformly recognised the debt ; and that, when the revolution of July burst forth, it was upon the j)oint of doing that which has been since done by the Government of July. I should say as much of a proposition which has not been openly ad- vocated from this tri])une, l)ut which has been so often repeated, tliat I will take this opportunity to reply to it, to wit: that the Government of the Restoration, had it been willing to treat, might, upon more than one occasion, have obtained more advantageous terms. 480 [ Doc. No. 2. J I aiBrm that upon no other occasion did the ministers of the Restora- tion, or any one of them, discuss the amount of claims with the minister of the United States. When, therefore, it is averred that the Govern- ment of the United States would have been satisfied with less, such an assertion is purely gratuitous, and not based upon any ascertained fact. This being established, what could the Government which sprung from the revolution of July do ? What ought it to have done ? Should it have told the Government of the United States, as it was advised to do from, this tiibune two days ago — upon the whole, your prosperity was greatly increased : we have indeed destroyed and confiscated your vessels, and ruined a large number of your citizens ; but, as others have made great profits, we are equal. Moreover, we had a hand in driving you into a war with England ; that war did you honor. It is true you have seen your country invaded ; your capital taken by assault ; your fleets burnt ; but you made a noble resistance ; you behaved like brave men ; accept our compliments, we have nothing else to offer you. I am of opinion, gentlemen, that this argument would not have sufficed. Ought v/e,as the Government of the Restoration had done, or rather had timidly attempted to do, ought we to plead the irresponsibility of a new Government for the acts of the old Government? We would have blush- ed to do so — such an argument was unworthy of us. Finally, ought we to have tried to avail ourselves of the Louisiana question? The Govern- ment of the United States had itself offered to treat concerning this question. It was clear, therefore, that we must do one of two things ; either confess that we owed, but declare that we would notpay ; or else end by a single treaty all the questions in controversy. The first of these two measures would have disgraced us. It would have been followed by a rupture v^ith the United States; a rupture to the consequences of which I shall presently have occasion to advert. Tha second measure was the only sensible, honest, and admissible one, and we adopted it. Nevertheless, do not believe that the Government bound itself by this transaction blindly or at haphazard, without looking before or behind. On the contrary, it took Avise precautions ; it chose, as has been said from this tribune, very enlightened men to form a commission, men taken from the two Chambers, of every shade of opinion ; so that this commission was incapable of suffering itself to be led astray by the spirit of party. All the facts, all the documents were spread before it. Every thing was given to it. All questions were submitted to it. It unanimously decided that indemnification was due to the American merchants. With regard to all the rest, there was not the same unanimity. The minority thought the American claims might be admitted in their whole extent, and that the application of the imperial decree was at all times irregular, and in contravention of the law of nations. The majority, on the contrary, were of opinion that the imperial decrees Avere justifiable in themselves, and that indemnification was due only for their abuse, and for their retro- spective, irregular application. The same diversity of opinion was manifested upon incidental matters. Thus, it was agreed by all that indemnification was due for the ap- plication of the imperial decrees anterior to the jperiod when a knowledge of them might have been obtained. * But what time was to have elapsed when such knowledge should be [ Doc. No. 2. ] 481 presumed to have been obtained ? The minority asked for four months, the time fixed by our ordinance relative to maritime prizes. The majority decided upon eighty days, which had been fixed upon by the non-inter- course law. There was the same concurrence of opinion that the imperial de- crees could not be lawfully applied after to their repeal. But, by con- demning vessels after the 1st of November, 1810, which had been seized before that time, was such an application made of the decrees ? The minority decided this question in the aftirmative ; the majority in the ne- gative. It was the same with the question, whether it was lawful to con- demn upon mere decisions of the cabinet, without argument or adjudi- cation. Upon all these points, gentlemen, the Government sided with the ma- jority ; consequently, with the opinion most disadvantageous for the Americans, and the most advantageous for France. There were two points with respect to which it could not accede to the opinion of the majority : the first, because it was contrary to the intention of the majority itself; and the other, because it was based upon a question of figures, and such questions cannot be decided by majorities. The first of these points was to determine how the American vessels and cargoes were to be valued — whether at the price of cost in Ameri- ca, or at the price of sale in France. The majority of the commission conceived that they should be valued at the price of cost in America, and not at that of sale in France ; because, said they, colonial goods were exorbitantly high at that time, and the estimate made on the latter base would be extravagant. On this point we could not adopt the opinion of the commission, and for this reason, that although colonial goods were really very high at that time, there had been such a glut, and so much hurry in the sales, that the ships and cargoes had been sold veiy low ; and if tbe opinion liad been adopted, it would have led to conclusions very diftercnt from those at which the commission wisbed to arrive. It is sufficient to compare the American statements drawn up from the prices of purchase in America, with the French statements drawn up from the selling prices in France, to be convinced that tbere would be a difference of twice the amount in favor of the Americans, between the price of purchase in America and the amount of sales elTectcd in France. Thus, with regard to the twenty-two ships, valued in the American statement at 8,747,203 francs, from the prices at the places of exportation, we find the French statements drawn up from the sales give a value only of 4,271,890 francs. That was a point upon which the Government did not agree with the commission ; it adopted the price of the sales in France, instead of the cost in the United States. The second point upon which there was a difierence arose from a set- tlement of the indemnification upon the principles admitted. The commission determmed upon the sum of twelve millions; we ar- rived at a much higher amount. Every document had been furnished to that commission ; every statement had been placed in its possession. The publication of the report of that commission has been eagerly called for, and I no\Y declare, on behalf of the Government, no obstacle has been 482 [ Doc. No. 2. J interposed ; we transmitted that report to the committee of the Chamber, and they have extracted from it whatever they judged convenient. I will here also remark to those who demand the publication, that they will not find what they seek. They will not find there the series of cal- culations, made in accordance with adopted principles, from which the commission arrived at the sum of twelve millions. If such a series of calculations exist any Avhere, I know nothing of them. I examined the report at the time I was occupied with the affair, and J have remarked, and you will see when it is printed, that the commission confine them- selves to laying down general principles, giving only the total ; but as for the series of calculations by which they arrived at that sum total, it is wanting in their report. Will it be found elsewhere ? I do not know. I have inquired ; it could not be furnished. It does not exist at the Department of Foreign Affairs. What followed ? We Avere compelled to go over the whole labor, that is to say, to take up the statements which had been placed before the com- mission of 1830, and likewise before your committee, to dissect those statements, in order to apply the principles laid down by the commission itself to the various cases enumerated ; a very different result was the consequence, as you perceive. To what is this difference attributable? I do not know ; but I have settled the fact, that the error is not on our side. The statements, I re- peat, are the same which were submitted to the commission of 1830, as well as to the present committee. The principles were settled by the commission of 1830. The investigation Avas made with great care upon these principles. I transmitted the result of that examination to your committee, and I entreat it to compare them, and see if the calculations w^ere exact, and, if they found the least difficulty, to come to the Depart- ment of Foreign Affairs and reinvestigate the matter with us. They com- pared the condensed statements with the originals. Two of the commit- tee were delegated to the department to communicate with the person charged with this labor. They found it perfectly correct ; and I venture to affirm that it will be impossible to discover the least error. I have caused them four times to be verified. The committee itself compared them. That point settled, and, moreover, the Government having adopted all the principles of the commission of 1830, it endeavored to make them available in the negotiation, Avithout concealing the objections Avhich there would be to surmount. A treaty resulted, composed of three series of arrangements. The first six articles provide that the French Govern- ment shall pay to the Ameiican GoA^ernnient a sum of 25 millions, which shall be paid in six annual instalments, with interest at four per cent., the American Government being charged Avith the distribution to the respect- ive claimants to Avhom it is due. The American Government, on its part, is to pay to the Government of France the sum of 1,500,000 francs, upon the same terms and conditions, to be distributed by the French Go- vernment to AAhomsoever it belongs. By the seA'enth article, the French Government renounces its pretensions founded on the eighth article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, and the American Government, in requi- tal, agree to grant, for the space of ten years, a reduction in the duty on French Avines. I haAe not, at this moment, the amount before me ; but it is particularized in the treaty. [ Doc. No. 2. J 483 Thirdly, the French Government engages to establish the same duty lipon long staple cottons, as upon short staple cottons. I intend to discuss separately the three distinct points of the treaty. I might, with propriety, dwell only upon the first, lor the Chamber is not now deliberating upon the treaty : it is deliberating on a law, the object of which is to authorize the Government to execute the first six articles of the treaty ; strictly speaking, then, these six articles only are under discus- sion. But I grant that a treaty is indivisible ; that all its stipulations are connected and linked together, and that one being rejected, the whole fails to the ground ; therefore, it is better to discuss the whole question at once, than to postpone the debate to another period. The claims of the American Government, extending to the entiie ap- plication of the imperial decrees of Berlin, Milan, Rambouillet, and Tria- non, amounted to 71,095,961 fr. 12 c. They claimed, at the same time, interest at 5 per cent, upon that sum, from 1814, which added 52,208,925 fr. 87 c. They claimed, besides, 5,055,445 fr. 38 c. for debts and sup- plies prior to 1806. It is thus that the account of the American Govern- ment was established. It has been remarked from this tribune, that in 1812 the Government had lowered its pretensions from 71 millions to 40 millions, and eA'en to 30 millions. I do not know whence the oratoi' who made this statement has obtained it. I have no knowledge that the sum of the indemnification "was so discussed in 1812, between the minister of the United States and the Department of Foreign Relations, nor that the American Government produced, at that period, a statement of its claims. I only know that, in many of the reports presented to the Emperor by the Minister of Foreign Relations himself, he valued the American claims one while at 30, then at 40, and even at 50 millions. In that he only expressed his own opi- nion ; but I have not found any traces of discussion on the subject, or that the minister of the United States ever consented to reductions. Such, then, was the state of the American demands. The first effort of the negotiation was to induce the American negotiator to relinquish the claim of interest, and the accessory demand of 5 millions for ancient debts and supplies. It was not without trouble that we obtained this con- cession. The question was at length definitely reduced to the capital. The French negotiator declared himself totally unauthorized to admit the il- legitimacy of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, inasmuch as they were re- gularly applied, and useful at the time ; tiiat he would only be able to allow indemnification for the irregular application of those decrees ; that is to say, in those cases where they were applied, before the knowledge of their existence was duly communicated and understood, and where they were made to apply posterior to their repeal, and for the destruc- tion of ships upon the high seas. The two negotiators could not agree upon those principles ; but they agreed that a general offer should be made, without regard to principles. The French negotiator began by offering 15 millions. That offer was peremptorily refused, and the negotiation appeared to be broken off. It was upon the express demand, and after the strictest investigation of M. Casimir Perrier, then President of the Council, whose position as Prime Minister, and at the same time occupying an elevated rank in the 484 [ Doc. No. 2. ] commerce of Fiance, rendered him a good judge of the question ; it was at his solicitation that the Council of Ministers decided that a higher offer should be made. The negotiation was then resumed ; it Avas pursued with much dili- gence through all difficulties. In fine, from reciprocal concessions, from offer to offer, from one reduction to another, the sum of 25 millions was adopted. In fixing upon this sum, did the French negotiator compromise his re- sponsibility ? Did he exceed the limits which were found settled by prin- ciples which he himself had laid down ? No ! He was not the first, for they had been already more highly estimated by the Emperor himself, who will not be accused of making bad bargains relative to his own acts, and the interests of his treasury ; and the estimates of the ministers of the Restoration, and of every commission down to 1830, were higher. Before I proceed, I will say, had that been the case — and I request the Chamber to consider it as stated hypothetically — 1 will repeat, had the French negotiator even exceeded the principle which he had laid down, still he would not be censurable, for every transaction of this kind is ef- / fected by compromise, and the mutual abandonment, in a certain degree, ' of the positions first assumed. Each party takes his own ground ; each makes concessions to the adverse party ; and every convention is essen- tially a mean between the two. But there is no need here of recurring to general principles in conven- tions. It is easy to demonstrate, with statements in hand, that, in applying the principles settled by the Emperor Napoleon and by every commission down to, and including that of 1830, to the facts known to us, the sum would far exceed 25 millions; and this I will endeavor to prove to the Chamber. I am obliged to repeat to you, that the facts which I shall place before you consist of correct extracts from statements furnished by the Marine Department, of vessels burnt ; by the administration of the Customs, of vessels sold ; by the Council of Prizes, of vessels condemned ; and from the archives of the Secretary of State, of vessels condemned by the simple decision of the Cabinet. The selection of these statements was made with the greatest care, and they were transmitted to your committee. The committee appointed two of its members to examine them, and that com- mittee, entertaining doubts on certain points, came to the Department of Foreign Affairs, and had those doubts removed ; consequently, I advance nothing which is not the result of the most scrupulous investi- gation. [} The first class of acts which are used to serve as a basis for indemnifi- cation, is the class of vessels burnt upon the high seas. Not a single orator whom you have heard, refuses to admit this class. Every one agrees that when the property of a third party is destroyed for personal interests, indemnification should be made. How were we "to learn the number of ships destroyed at sea ? It was necessary to consult the correspondence of the Marine. There were no legal statements {procis vcrbaiix) drawn up by the ad- ministration of the custom-houses, because there were no custom-houses at sea. It therefore became necessary to examine the journals of the differ- ent squadrons, and the correspondence of the Minister of Marine, with the [ Doc. No. 2. ] 485 commanders of squadrons. That minister has furnished a statement, con- taining a list of 25 vessels. In comparing this statement with the statement of claims brought for- ward by the American owners, a dilferencc of 19 ships is discovered. These claims were communicated to the Marine Department. New re- searches were made among their correspondence, and it is admitted that the claims for 13 of the 19 vessels were well founded. Six were struck off. On the other side, it was observed that of the 25 vessels given in the first statement, there were seven which the commanders of squadrons re- ported would have been seized as contravening the imperial decrees. Proceedings were commenced ; but it does not appear that they were prosecuted to a termination. In fact, from a suspicion only, we have stricken those vessels from our calculations. Eighteen then remained from the first statement, that is to say, 25 less 7 ; and thirteen from the second, that is to say, 19 less 6. There were, in the whole, 31 vessels, which it is certain were burnt or sunk, w ithout any other motive than to conceal the movements of our squadrons. Such is the basis of that part of our operations. What was the value of those vessels ? As no legal statement of their value was drawai up, we were compelled to seek it by approximation. Four of those vessels had been valued by an Imperial Commission, sitting at Rochefort. The average of these four ships gave as the value of the ships destroyed at sea, 1 56,735 fr. 9 centimes. This average applied to 31 ships, produced the sum of 4,858,787 fr. 19 centimes. It is a fact that the commis- sion were about to reject five of these vessels, solely l)ecause the date of their destruction was not precisely fixed. I will here remark, that the date in this case was of no importance. The date of facts is important, relative to the application of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, because the question arises whether they were applied at a proper period ; but with respect to ships burnt at sea, it matters little whether it was two or three months sooner or later, provided that it happened during the course of the mari- time war with England. Consequently, I could not admit the reduction which your committee introduced. As we are yet too high, I only ask permission to make the retrenchment at the end of the account. The second class is composed of vessels seized and confiscated within the 80 days allowed for the promulgation of the imperial decrees. The term of 80 days, fixed by the commission of 1830, has been considered as the least term in which the knowledge of those decrees could be communi- cated to the other side of the Atlantic. The statements furnished on this ' subject are extracted from the archives of the Council of Prizes, contain- ing all the vessels which were regularly condemned ; and extracts from the archives X)f the Secretary of State, comprising a greater number of vessels, confiscated without any form or process, in virtue of a simple de- cision of the Cabinet. This statement shows 42 vessels seized in the 80 days, one of which had lost her national character, having been captured hy an English brig. Another was released. Forty remained ; of those 40, four were in ballast, and of a fifth half the cargo only was confiscated. There were then 40 ships and 36 cargoes, and a fraction of a cargo, which I neglect. So much for the second class. 486 [ Doc. No. 2. J The third class consisted of vessels seized at St. Sebastian, Bilboa, and at Port Passage, and were condemned by the retroactive decree of Rambouillet. I have had the honor to show to the Chamber already that the decree of Rambouillet interdicted the entrance of American vessels in the ports of France for the future, and pronounced the condemnation of those which had already entered, not only without any opposition from the French Government, but upon an express invitation of the French autho- rities. It has always been admitted that indemnification should be made for those seizures. The statements with respect to these were furnished by the Adminis- tration of the customs which presided at the sales. The statement of the administration of the customs comprises twenty-eight ships and thirty- five cargoes. There is a difference between the ships and cargoes, be- cause the whole of the ships were not sold : the best were selected, and turned over to the Marine Department, which transformed them into national vessels. We omit these seven ships, although placed in the sepvice of France, so that we count only tAventy-eight ships and thirty-five cargoes. The fourth class comprises condemnations subsequent to the 1st No- vember, 1810, that is to say, posterior to the repeal of the decrees of Berlin and Milan. These cases have never been contested. It is im- possible not to acknowledge that indemnification is due for confiscation made in virtue of decrees which no longer existed. With respect to these, there has been a difference of opinion between the Government and your committee. The disagreement is as follows: Upon a first list were placed the ships which had been seized and con- fiscated since the 1st of November, 1810. There is no difficulty on this point, but there were ships seized anterior to the 1st November, 1810, and condemned posterior to that date. The commission of 1830 had been of opinion to reject the last; to de- termine from the date of seizure, and not from the date of confiscation. We thought this method of proceeding extremely rigorous, and that at least it should be from the 23d April, 1811 ; that is to say, from the period when the French Government declared itself fully satisfied with its relations with the Government of the United States ; from the time Avhen the Government of the United States were placed in a state of semi-hostility to England upon the demand of the French Govern- ment. There was no longer sufficient reason to continue a system of re- prisals, when the motive no longer existed in the resolutions of the American Government, and which never had, in their actions, for there had not been a single French vessel confiscated in America. We had then presented, as a subdivision of the second class, the ships seized anterior to the 1st November, 1810, but condemned posterior to the 28th April, 1811. Your committee have rejected those ships, and I have heard, not without surprise, orators from this tribune reproaching it for having admitted them. Without doubt they had not read the report with sufficient attention. Although we considered it just, yet I do not insist upon the subdivision ; I only wish to make the retrenchment in the sum total. The amount of the whole we find to be ninety-three ships and ninety- six cargoes. In order to value these ninety-three ships and ninety-six [ Doc. No. 2. ] 487 cargoes, we have adopted the mean of the sales which were made at Ba- yonne of the thirty-five cargoes and twenty ships. This was the only ground afforded us for estimating the value of the ninety-three ships and ninety-six cargoes. The average of the sales made at Bayonne gives the sum of 221,482 fr. 20 c. as the price of a ship and cargo, which, multi- plied by the number of ships, amounts to 21,223,021 fr. 25 c. ; add for the ships destroyed at sea 4,858,787 fr. 19 c, giving for the total amount of the four classes, 26,081,819 fr. 2 c. In striking off the twelve ships spoken of above, and the five destroy- ed at sea, there will be a deduction of 3,225,140 fr. 45 c; we then ob- tain a sum total of 22,856,688 fr. 57 c. I declare my belief that this amount cannot be attacked with a shadow of reason. Is this all, gentle- men ? Certainly not, and I admit it must be my fault that I did not ex- plain myself with sutficient clearness before the committee so as to give them all my ideas. I had pointed out three orders of facts entering among the classes formed by the commissioners of 1830, and which have not been mention- ed in the report of your committee. Those three orders of facts are, first, of the ships seized at Antwerp in 1807 ; secondly, of the ships seized in Holland in 1809; and, thirdly, of the custom-house duties paid on the seized ships. I ask permission of the Chamber to explain these facts in the first place, and then to express my opinion. Seven vessels entered at Antwerp in the first months of 1807; the de- cree of Berlin was then in force ; the decree of Milan had not been promulgated, it was dated the 17th December of the same year. These ships had touched in England; that was their crime. According to the terms of the decree of Berlin, they were liable to expulsion, but not to confiscation; nevertheless, they were^seized ; subsequently, their declara- tions having been found to be true, the consignees were permitted to send away the vessels, but the cargoes were detained under the pretext that they might be English property, and that an investigation was to be made. To save the cargoes from destruction, they were sold, and the pro- ceeds deposited in the public office appropriated to that object. A trial took place, and it was established upon that trial that the cargoes belonged to Americans, and were not English property. The consignees claimed the value of these cargoes. They were not told that they did not belong to them, but they were put off with evasive answers. For two years the proceeds were locked up in the pul)lic chest; then came the decree of Trianon, which directed that all the pro- ceeds of American property, so deposited, should be paid into the public Treasury, in retaliation for the non-intercourse law ; that is to say, that the proceeds of the cargoes should be subjected to the ex post facto decree of Trianon, and that they were condemned in retaliation for an act of the American Government, passed two years afterwards. These cases are included in that class in which the imperial decrees have been con- sidered retroactive. The custom-house informs us that the price of the cargoes amounted to 3,360,392 fr. 20 c. Let us now look at the case of the ships seized in 'Holland, which is not less strange. These ships arrived in the ports of Holland in the be- ginning of 1810; they came direct from the United States, had not 488 [ Doc. No. 2. J touched in England, had encountered no English cruisers. The decrees of Berlin and Milan could not be applied to them : nor were they ap- plied. The ships were left at the disposition of the consignees, the cargoes were landed in Holland, and stored till the payment of duties. The treaty of the 15th March, 1810, was then concluded, by which the French Government stipulated to restore all the American property in the hands of the Government in Holland. These cargoes never were restored ; they were sold, and the proceeds placed in deposite. After- wards caine the decree of Trianon ; by virtue of it, these cargoes were condemned, against which there had not been the slightest accusation. The price of these cargoes amounted to the sum of 1,550,576 fr. 41 c. which, added to the sums already enumerated, gives a total of 27,767,639 fr. 18 centimes. There remains another consideration, viz. the duties which were paid upon the confiscated cargoes ; and it appears to me difficult to oppose any argument to the restitution of those duties. A custom-house duty is a deduction from the profit of the merchant who introduces merchandise. Therefore, there are no duties to be levied upon confiscated cargoes ; and nevertheless it is what happened to the vessels seized at Bayonne ; re- ceived as friends, treated as such during a whole year, they had paid the duties ; after these duties were paid, the cargoes were confiscated. We now return them not their full value, but the half or the third of the ori- ginal cost at the port of departure. It would have been difficult in a ne- gotiation to pass over such acts. The duties paid for the ships confiscated at Bayonne and Antwerp amount, for the first, to 8,223,935 francs 57 centimes, and for the second, to 5,875,668 francs 18 centimes, which, added to the other calculations which I have submitted already, make an aggregate of 41,756,292 francs 22 centimes. Such is the result of the bases established by Napoleon, by all the ministers of the Restoration, and by the commission of 1830. Upon these data the Minister of Foreign Aflfairs had to negotiate. I add, that if any one believes these valuations to have been exaggerated, he is grossly de- ceived. Do you know, gentlemen, at what price each ship is valued .'' At 13,000 francs. I ask whether a vessel for a fishing or a coasting voyage would not be valued at a higher price than that. With respect to the valuation of cargoes, an attentive observation is only necessary to compare the duties paid by the ships seized at Bayonne, with the esti- mate of their cargo. The duties amounted to eight millions, and the cargoes to 7,293,260 francs, that is to say, the cargoes were not sold for a price equal to the duties paid. It was by these facts that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France was governed. I say, then, that if the American minister had been possessed of the principles settled by the French Government, not by the Government of July only, but by every Government which had ruled in France for fifteen years — settled by the commission of 1830 itself; if he had abandoned all the claims which those principles excluded ; if he had adopted entirely the system of the minister with whom he treated, and only required the liquidation to be made on the basis settled by the Government itself, we should have arrived at a result of not less than forty millions. And it is because the French negotiator had the wisdom and address, [ Doc. No. 2. J 489 (not speaking of myself, I can say the wisdom and address) to shift the question, to disengage himself from the precedents which had been im- posed on him, and to make this question an amicable one, one of good iaith, of reason, and of good sense ; tp take into consideration the general circumstances in which he was placed after a lapse of time ; to make, in good faith, the best of a. bad bargain, by which a debt has been reduced to twenty-five millions, which, had it been liquidated in conformity to the principles settled by the commission, would have amounted to forty mil- . lions ; it is after this, we are told, that the Government has sacrificed the interests of the country; for myself, I declare, there is something want- ing to this reproach, which may be found in the treaty, viz. justice and reason. M. BiGNON. I demand the floor. The Minister of Foreigiv Affairs. I now proceed to the second portion of the treaty — to the Louisiana question. The Chamber under- stands it already. The Chamber knows that we claim for our vessels the same treatment as American vessels in the ports of our ancient colony, inasmuch as the English have obtained that treatment but on condition of reciprocity. The Chamber knows that the American Government answered, " If you consider that treatment upon the condition of leciprocity a favor, we offer it to you ; you will not accept it; then, by your own admission, it is not a favor, and you have no right to it." The Chamber knows, in fact, that we claim the advantage without making any return ; we ask for national treatment without reciprocity. On which side were right and reason ? It matters little at the present day. The American Government in effect has yielded this point. It has re- cognised the right of France ; whether the acknowledgment has been induced by conviction, by their being weary of the controversy, or from any other motive, is indifferent ; it is acknowledged, since they offer to redeem it with an equivalent. The only question then to be settled, and which is not difficult of ex- planation, is, whether the equivalent is a full remuneration. What advantage would result to the French commerce from the privi- leges we claim, founded upon the eighth article of the treaty of Louisiana ? It is that no discriminating duties will exist on French shipping. What may be the amount of the discriminating duty levied upon French ships in all the ports of the Union, those of Louisiana included ? The duty is of five francs per ton by the convention of the 24th June. What should we gain by it ? That depends on the number and the size of the ships admitted into the ports of Louisiana. I have directed a statement to be prepared of the number and tonnage of vessels admitted into the ports of Louisiana, leaving intervals between the years, for the sake of greater precision. There entered the ports of Louisiana, in the yeai 1818, 29 vessels, of - 7,250 tons. 1824, 6 - - 1,817 1828, 8 - - 2,671 1830, 4 - - 1,096 1831, 7 - - 1,040 1832, 15 - - 3,.561 52 490 [ Doc. No. 2. ] The amount of the average duty paid is 14,102 francs 50 centimes. It was not so vexatious as to require much notice. Now what advantage should we reap ? I must here first remark, that the French commerce with Louisiana is at least stationary, if not declin- ing, for, in 1828, twenty-nine French vessels entered the ports of Loui- siana, and, in 1831, only seven. The benefit we are to enjoy is a reduction in the duties upon wines. Our commerce in wines with the United States is in a steady and regular in- crease. Thus our exportations of wines amounted in 1828, to - - . . £,573,466 francs. 1829, - - - - 4,309,093 1830, - - - . 4,948,632 1831, .... 5,570,378 1832, .... 5,295,549 If we take as the basis of our calculation, the year 1832, which is not the higiiest, theie were imported into America 1,600,000 gallons, equal to 6,000,000 litres, French measure; on which, at a mean duty of 17 cents, an amount of 1,200,000 francs was paid. In 1834, in virtue of the reduc- tion, made by the terms of the very treaty which we are now discussing, supposing that our commerce has not augmented, taking the year 1832 as a rule, and the wines being taxed at the rate of 7^ cents, they would not pay more than 80,000 dollars, equal to 400,000 francs. Here then is an advantage of 800,000 francs per annum. It is true, and I readily admit it, that there is not an exact parity in the cases, inasmuch as the advantage resulting from the treaty of Louisiana was perpetual, while the diminution of duties which the treaty accords to us iS' only for ten years. But the disproportion is so great that this considera- tion is of no importance. In fact, what will have happened at the end of ten years, supposing things to remain as they are ? The French commerce will have been benefited ten times 800,000 francs, that is to say, eight millions, whilst, upon the other hypothesis, it would be benefited ten times 14,000 francs, that is to say, 140,000 francs. It therefore would require six or seven centuries for the latter to equal the former. If we are told that the French commerce will increase in the ports of Louisiana, we can reply, the commerce in wines will also increase in the ports of the United States, and that there is a greater likelihood of the latter than of the former. I believe then, that, in relation to the second portion of the treaty, the advantage is wholly on the side of F'rench commerce. I have only a word further to say upon the question of French claims, and the duty upon cottons. Respecting the French claims — since 1814, the Government has never ceased urging those demands, and calling upon all those interested to bring them forward, and make them known at the Department of Foreign Affairs. These claims are 31 in number ; and it should here be stated, that all those mentioned in the handbills which have been printed and circulated about the Chamber for the last two days, were comprised in this number. These claims were submitted to the commission of 1830. Four only were found to be susceptible of admission in a diplomatic transaction. In effect, gentlemen, there are many claims which may be founded in [ Doc. No. 2. J 491 right, but for the decision of which applicvition may be made to the proper- tribunals in the United States. They are questions of property, which are not to be settled diplomatically. The commission of 1830 reduced those claims to four, and the sum total of these four only amounts to one million and fifty odd thousand francs. The Government believing that the commission had been some- what too rigorous, felt it their duty to interest themselves in favor of some other of the claims which appeared most worthy of their interference. They obtained 1,500,000 francs ; and I dare assert that it is enougli, and more than will be required to satisfy all the claimants for whose rights stipulations can be made in a treaty. The question relative to cottons is plain. The difference of duty between lojig staple und short staple cottons was created by the law of 1816, and did not exist in 1814; at that time the difference of duty corresponded to the difference of value between the two species of cottons, and it was that which Justified it. Since that time the art of spinning has been so much improved that the difference in value has disappeared ; hence, a difference in duty came to be regarded as an absurdity, which ought to be abolished. Memorials were presented on this subject by French merchants. In a treaty which the French Government made witli Brazil, in 1826, an equality of duties was stipulated on long and short staple cottons, and in a law presented in 1829, it was proposed, on the part of the customs, to equalize the duties upon the two species of cottons. Wiien, therefore, at the moment of signing tlie treaty of 1831, the American negotiation requested that equalization of duties which the French Government had itself pro- posed, there was no possible reason for refusing. In the commencement, gentlemen, of this long, perhaps too long dis- course, I asserted that the treaty was based upon riglit and equity ; I believe 1 have proved it ; indemnification is due to American ship owners j we may discuss the amount, or the facts; we may debate upon this or that application ; but we cannot discuss the ground of right. I have taken it upon me equally to advance that this treaty was based upon equity and reason. I believe I have proved that the sum granted by the bill is lower, much lower, than would have been attained by a rigorous adjustment, settled upon the princijjles professed by th.e French Govern- ment itself, at all times. It is then true that both negotiations have taken into account all that a lapse of time could retrench from the amount of such claims. I have said, in fine, that this treaty was based upon the reciprocal inte- rests of the two contracting countries. But a word, a word more, (I am. already much fatigued,) will suffice to explain my thought. It depends upon you, gentlemen, to render this treaty null and void. I ask pardon of the Chamber. I have spoken very long, and am ex- hausted with fatigue. It depends upon you, gentlemen, to render this treaty null and of no force : it depends upon you to reject the law which is before you. Here, on this side the Atlantic, it is merely a matter of black and white balls for voting ; but permit me to assure you that it does not depend on you to make the Government of the United States accept your decision. The power of depriving them of the natural means they possess of paying themselves with their own hands does not rest with your control. The exports of France for the year 1831 amount to 424,202,754 francs Of this value our exports to the United States amount to 110,351,696 492 [ Doc. No. 2. J fiwincs. You consequently perceive that the United States absorb more than one-fourth of our whole foreign commerce. It will not be necessary to add a great many centimes upon the duties tnow collected upon an amount of sucli value, to place annually at the *Jispositiou of the Government of the United States the sum of 4,600,000 francs. The question is not, then, whether France sliall pay the stipulated sum, -otjt what Frenchmen shall pay it; whether it be taken from the general treasury, to which all contribute, or paid by the manufacturers of Lyons, the merchants of Bordeaux, by that portion of the French commerce and industry which maintain habitual relations with the United States. To impose a burden exclusively upon one portion of our commerce and industr}', would be revolting injustice, for the damage was caused by the .Frencli Government ; that is to say, by tiie representative of the taxable inhabitants generally. Another equally gieat absurdity, permit me to say, would follow ; for, proceeding by increasing their tariff, the Ameri- can Government would be led to impose restrictions upon French indus- try, productive of infinitely greater injury than the amount of the sum collected. The ordinary result of higii tariffs is to restrict and limit the markets. You have been, indeed, told tiiat you have not this result to fear ; that -the American Government w ill view, with a tranquil eye, with entire T^ant of interest, and without any sentiment of displeasure, the rejection and annulment of the treaty in debate. You have been told that they would remain passive spectators of the result. I am under tlie impression that the foretellers of ;such events have not attentively read the debates winch took plare two years since in the Congress of tiie United States; that they have not attentively read the annual messages of the President of that republic. If they had read them, J am convinced that tlieir confidence, in this respect, would have been much weakened. In order to prove to you that the American tariff was framed only with a view to American interests, and not relating to ours, the question of silks has been cited. The illustration is not happy. It is true that the Americati Government, by a general measure, reduced the duties upon the silks of Fiance simultaneously with those of China, viz. the first from £2 per cent, to 5 per cent., and the latter from S6 per cent, to 10 ])er cent. But it should have been added, tliat the result of this double reduction dis- turbed the established proportion between the duties upon the two kinds of silk, and the effect produced was the almost entire exclusion of French. ailks from the markets of the United States. What have we done ? We haNC availed ourselves of the treaty you are now debating ; and, advancing those important considerations which re- sult from its existence, and from the nature of the relations which it esta- blishes between the two Governments, we solicited the restoration of the |)roportion. The Government of the United States listened to us, and, at our re- quest, they hastened to reduce the duties upon French silks, even to the .▼)olnt of admitting them free of duty, still maintaining the duties which had been established upon the silks of China. I ought to inform the Chamber, upon the declaration of persons skilled la these matters, that, upon the continuance of this difTereuce, which we [ Doc. No. 2. J 493 Iiave obtained by reason of this treaty, will be decided' the admission ol French silks in the markets of the United States, or their exclusion from them. [Much sensation in the Chamber.] It will be unnecessary for me to dwell upon cojisideiations of public order, which are inseparable fiom the question. I will only observe ta the Chamber, that if, by a decision which 1 must be permitted to call de- plorable, there should be suddenly produced any great discouragement in many branches of our industry, any gicat disturbance in our foreign mar- kets, it would multiply considerably tlie chances of disorder in our coun- try ; and that the least of these inconvcniencics would oblige us to do for Bourdeaux, for Lyons, ajid for other cities, what we have been compelled to do for La Vendee, to increase our military establishment. [A slight agi- tation in the Chamber.] It would not bo necessary that this increase should be very great to absorb the saving whicli is proposed for the relief of the tax-payers. [Mnrmnrs more distiHctlij pronoun ceil.] Gentlemen, one of the honorable members said, in cowcluding his speech, « do you believe tijat if the treaty of 1831 was yet to be made. a minister could be found w ho would consent to sign it ?'' My reply will be very short, and very plain. I believe that treaty to be just ,; I believe it to be wise. I accept, in all that concerns me personally, the responsi- bility bequeathed me by my jiredecessor. As to the responsibility for events and consequences, from this moment forward, gentlemen, it is not upon our head that it rests. Our task is finished ; yours commences. [Loud signs of approbation followed this speech of the Minister of Foreign ^Sffairs.] The President. M. Berryer has the floor. M. Berryer. M. Bignon wishes to reply to something which concerns him pcrson'- ally. M. BiGxox. After the (Hscourse which you have just heard, the ingc;niity of which I admire, although I cannot approve of the conclusions, the deputy from- Andelys entreats the Cliamber to extend to him their indulgence. Before I enter upon the question, I must recur to a circumstance ta> which the minister adverted during the sitting of the Chamber on Friday last. He repeated an assertion which I had made, and which he consi- dered incorrect. There was an erroi- of language on my part, but the idea was true. I said the minister was tardy in presenting his bill. I should have said that the debate on the bill had been deferred, and that this delay was the work of the ministry. Wiien the bill was brought to the Chamber, for the first time, if I am well informed, the committee were astonished at tiic refusal of the minister to supply the documents which they requested ; and no re- port was made upon it. At the ft)llowing session the bill was presented somewhat later. If the minister had truly attached any importance to an early discussion of the law, I here declare that the Chamber would have taken up the matter immediately. If the discussion has not taken place,. it is because it was not desired. [.1/»rmJi?-s.] Gentlemen, when we de- liberate upon burdenitig the nation with a contribution of twcnty-fiye mil- lions, the question should not remain long undecided. On that subject the minority and majority perfectly agree. The delay which has occurreil,. then, does not attach to us. 494 [ Doc. No. 2. ] In listening to tlic minister, I avow that I was mucl» surjirised at hear- ing such a s])cccli uttered by a French Minister of Foreign Affairs : his language would better have suited an American minister. I have always thought that, under all forms of Government, whether re- publican, imperial, or royal, the interest of France was always the same : but the minister has judged otherwise. He has ransacked the arcjiives of his department for the discovery of wrongs inflicted by the Imperial Go- vernment. Does he suppose that if we could penetrate the cabinets of foreign nations, and examine their archives, all their resolutions would be found just, frank and irreproachable? He does not believe it. In his reflections he has suff^ered the moialist and the philosopher to supersede the statesman. Gentlemen, it is not possible to follow the minister through- out the long course of his explanations. It will be sufficient for me to re- ply to the ])rincipal points of his discourse. On Saturday last, one of the positions I assumed was, tliat the losses of the Americans had been ara])ly compensated by the immensity of their profits. The minister says that the profits of a part do not compensate for the losses of the remainder. That is true ; but it was one of those un- avoidable calamities which nations, placed between great belligerent Pow- ers, must endure. Under such circumstances, they should indemnify their own citizens.. They are rich enough to do it. The Americans have the ways and means in abundance. Since the minister has again dwelt on the severity of the Berlin decree, lie obliges me to return to the demonstration made by the Americans them- selves, that the English decidedly took the lead in those measures. In 1810 the American Government wrote to Mr. Pinkney, their minister in London, to urge upon flie British ministry '< the revocation of the illegal blockade of the French ports, declared anterior to the decree of Berlin,'^ as a step towards the ulterior demand of the revocation of that decree. " It is impossible," continued the Federal Government, " to sustain, that a blockade, such as that of May, 1806, of the whole coast, from the Elbe to Brest, that is, declared four years ago, wiihout ever having been executed, or attempted to be executed by a naval force, can be in conformity with the laws of nations, or compatible with the rights of neutrals.*' The Briiigh Cabinet insisting that the blockade existed, inasmuch as they had it in their power to enforce it, the Federal Government replied : ^' If it were admitted that a sufticient force, from the very fact of its exist- ence, be susceptible of being apjilied to this particular object, we see evi- dently how absurd it is to confound the power of doing the thing with the reality of the action. The absurdity of such reasoning is manifest ,; a port blockaded by sea without a ship before it, is a contradiction of terms, as well as a viol ation of law and common sense." This is not my lan- guage ; it is the language of the American Government. It appears to me that the argument is unanswerable. Whatever applies to the decree of Berlin, is equally applicable to all the measures successively adopted by their Government. A great part of the minister's speech was intended to establish the fact that indemnification was due, without determining the amount. Upon that point we agree with him perfectly, and I declared so at the beginning of the debate. The minister has thought proper to indulge himself in some ironical remarks upon the comparison which I drew between the relative situations [ Doc. No. 2. ] 495 of France and tlie American Government at tlie conclusion of the war of 1814. I admire wit under many circumstances : but I think it ill-timed, when so grave a question is under debate. I doubt that it would prove acceptable to the tax-payei's. The point upon which the minister most strenuously insisted, was, the commercial advantages given in exchange for those secured to us by the treaty of Louisiana. Gentlemen, I will not repeat what I have sr.id lelative to the motives which induced the Americans to make tlie concessions which they apj)ear to have made. But as they adopted those measures for themselves, they will continue them for their own inteiests. Those interests the Federal Government understands marvellously well ; let us take care of our own. If the American Government siiould determine upon any rigorous mea- sures towards us, we have it in our jjower to retaliate. In the treaty of 1822, the French Government consented to a sort of reciprocity upon the tonnage of French and American ships. That clause has been very advantageous to the United States, as their navigation is conducted more economically tiian ours. Their ships fill our harbors. Few French vessels go to the United States. If, tiierefore, which I do not believe however, the American (iovcrnnient should mani- fest any unfavorable dispositions towards us, retaliation is ])roinpt and easy ; may it please Heaven to avert such an event ! For my own part, I have too much confidence in the wisdom and ability of the American Go- vernment, ever to believe in the necessity. Gentlemen, w hatever the Minister of Foreign Affaii-s may have said, the question is divided into two piincipal parts : first, the origin of the pecuniary disputes between the United States and France ; and, secondly, the payments which have been agreed upon. The pecuniary disjiute originated fj-om the great measure adopted in 1803, and agreed upon between the two countries for the independence of the flag. From the moment that the American Government ceased to cause its flag to be respected by the English, they had no riglitto demand tliat it should he respected by France. The Federal Government submitted to every species of violence which the English Government chose to inflict. On the other hand its profits were immense. The profits were for them ; the losses for us. Tiiey ought not in conscience to be so avaricious. The minister pretends that the argument 1 used, showing that the Americans had indemnified themselves, was not admissible, and carried witli it its own refutation. I beg pardon of the minister : if tlic Emperor Napoleon had not fallen in 1814, he could with justice have said to the Americans — yourcommercc with Francois now jjrosecuted only on certain conditions : you are at war with England ; I maintain, with respect to you, existing conditions, and I will not repeal them until these claims, about which you are so importu- nate, are settled between us — the American Government would have yield- ed, and the claims would have been cancelled. This leads me to tlie observation of the minister relative to the eighty licenses, which he thinks could not be estimated at less tlian eighty mil- lions. He has supposed the price of each of these licenses at a million, whilst they could not in general be more tiian half a million francs, which would reduce the sum to forty millions. It should be further remarked, 496 f Doc. No. 2. ] that when the Americans demanded to be paid thus with licenses, tliey en- gaged at the same time to import into the United States from France or Italy, an amount equal to the proceeds of the niei'cliandise imported in virtue of llie licenses. Here is a capital point, an important consideration for estimating the indemnification. Wc see, from this, that the Americans at that time did not extend their claims higlier than twenty or twenty-five millions. It was the Emperor who decided not to grant those licenses, because he perceived that this mode of indemnification would give rise to shameful speculations, incom- patible with the dignity of the two countries. Gentlemen, I have not contested the principle of indemnification. I have read with attention the report of the commission of 1831 — I found it well and skilfully drawn up. In it I recognised the sentiments of wise and conscientious men, wlio had reduced our debt to its just value. I think the sum of twelve millions would suffice to jiay what is justly due to the Government of the United States. I conclude this discourse, therefore, as I did ray former one. M. Berryer. Gentlemen: I ask pardon of the Cliamber for prolonging this discussion ; but I could not resist tiie desiie of submitting some observations, which are called for by the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Reason and equity have been invoked in defence of the treaty before you, to which the bill now submitted is intended to give sanction. Ita])pears to me that, as regards equity and i-eason, tiici-e are many other considerations which attach to the facts which the minister has stated with so much ingenuity, but upon which he does not seem to have pondered at all. The history of diplomatic relations, during the course of thirty years of hostilities, undoubtedly presents a long succession of acts of violence and animosity .* but one reflection, of much force, arises from the speech of the Hon. M. Bignon, delivered at a previous sitting of the Chamber. It is, that in tlic midst of all the calamities of the belligerent Powers, in the midst of the depiedations undei- the orders in council, or under the imperial decrees of Berlin, Milan, and Rambouiliet, a Power exists in the world, which, notwithstanding the calamities of all others, has gone on regularly increasing and prospering. This Power is that of the United States, with theirterritory considerably augmented, extending to the Pacific Ocean ; their rivalship Avilh the maritime force of England happily sustained and increasing. Such is the spectacle offered us by the United States ; and in the mean time, it is to the subjects of this Power that we are now to determine what indemnification France shall allow. This general consideration, which has been presented by M. Bignon, appears to me of a nature to make an impression upon all minds, in a (piestion which may be reduced, after all, to one of equity and reason ; but let us letuin to facts. The minister, in reviewing the period between 1793 and 1800, has no- ticed those outrages committed in violation of the law of nations, and of the rules admitted by nations with respect to maiitime rights. It is very true that during that ])eriod, measures unheai-d of were adopted by the French Government, and neutral rights constantly invaded. The Directory even carried things so far as to break the happy alliance with the United States, w hich was the fi'uits of the generous policy of Louis XYI. But in 3 800 the Government passed into abler hands, and became animated with [ Doc. No. 2. ] 497 a better spirit. The treaty of September, 1800, was then formed, which only re-established between the two Powers a recognition of the common rules of right. Relative to tiie claims of neutrals, or to the deprcdatioriS which they bad suffered, nothing was said, or at least notiiing was done. This treaty showed that the subject would be discussed at a future j)criod. Three years elapsed. Peace -had been attempted in the intervening period. It was even concluded ; but that peace, you know, \Nas only a truce. The First Consul was eager to effect political objects, which he was probably soon obliged to abandon, in order to conclude an arrangement with Spain resj)ecting the rights of France to Louisiana. Scarcely was he invested with this right — he liad not even obtained possession — when he understood that his ])osition was different, and felt that it would be impos- sible to preserve to France tiie magnificent teriitory of Xesv Orleans. He said to his council, that it would be folly to persist in the idea of its pre- servation ; that it was evident, fi-om the situation of the two Powers, Eng- land could easily obtain possession of our posts in Louisiana by a single hostile movement, and that it was absolutely necessary to surrender them to satisfy the demands made by the Government of tite United States, which claimed tlie free navigation of the Mississippi, and the port of New Orleans. I will do more, said he ; I will give the whole colony. The Emperor spoke thus, in the belief of the incieasiug prosperity of the United States, and of the advantages which a good understanding between France and that nation would some day produce to French commerce. The treaty of 1803 followed, wherein, yielding every satisfaction requir- ed by the United States, exceeding that even, he abandoned to them not only all they asked, but the possession of Louisiana, for tiie sum of 80 mil- lions, of which 20 millions were assigned to indemnify the citizens of the United States for spoliations committed during the preceding period. Tins treaty, besides the special stipulation for 80 milliinis, contained two clauses, arts. 7 and 8, for the advantage of France. Art. 7 stipulated that, for the jteriod (»f twelve years, the vessels of France should be admitted in the ports of the Union upon the same footing as American vessels. Art. 8 stijjulated that, after the lapse of twelve years, French vessels should be received, forever, as the minister has said, in the ceded territories, upon tiie footing of the most favored nations. This ■was briefly said in terminating his speech, and the minister appeared to attach but little importance to the stipulations in art. 8, affecting the French commerce. He has contemptuously placed tlicm in contrast with the 5th article of the treaty of 1831, whicli regulates the tariff for the introduction of the wines of France in the ports of the Union; he lias shown their disproportion ; and that it would rc(]uire six or seven centuries to obtain, by the execution of the 8th article, the advantages which will be derived in ten years frsm the execution of the 5th article of the treaty of 1831. I believe I understood him correctly. I w ill reply hereafter to this [loint ; but at jiresent I must assert that the consequences of the treaty of 1803 were not so lightly appreciated at the time when that treaty was formed. Animated debates took place in Con- gress when the question was agitated, whether the treaty should be rati- fied, and whether they should give to President Jefferson the necessary powers to ratify it. 498 [ Doc. No. 2. ] The envoys of the United States at Paris, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Monroe who liad been specially associated with him, represented the im- portant consequences of the execution of the 8th article of the proposed treaty, and declared that the United States were giving immense advan- tages to France. The correspondence relative to these negotiations has been published in America ; every member of the Senate was possessed of, it. We do not enjoy this advantage in France.. Our coniniittees receive some communi- cations; but it is impossible for the members of the Chamber, who are not of the committee, to acquire an exact knowledge of facts. We are also compelled to be silent relative to details, and to argue upon general consi- derations from authentic documents. I come to what is public. In 1803 Bonaparte said, *' By the cession of Louisiana, I maintain the stability of the United States; I guaranty their sti'ength ; and I succeed in creating upon the ocean a formidable rival to England, which soener or later will humble her pride." On the other side, Mr. Livingston said, in his note, " that as France, by the 8th article of the treaty, acquires the right to be treated in our ports as the most favored Power, she will have in truth the advantages of the colony of Louisiana without the expense." This is the language of Mr. Livingston's note — assertions which, in the conferences that ensued, were not refuted. I recall these facts for the purpose of showing what is true, that neither in France nor America, in a long course of years, has so little importance ever been attached to the execution of the 8th article, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs appears to attach to-day. However it may be, let us see what acts followed the treaty of 1800, by which principles had been set- tled, and bonds had been formed, for uniting more closely the Government of the United States to France. The acts which followed contradict noto- riously the noble professions of the principles of the treaty of 1800. 1 will not recapitulate the succession of acts either of England, France, or the United States; but it was in the midst of this general conflagration, that the Americans obstinately persisted in directing their vessels to the ports of France, or to the countries occupied by the French armies. You must have felt the force of the observation made by the Minister of Foreign Af- fairs. In retaliation for the decrees of Milan and Berlin, and to protect their subjects, they passed the embargo ad, hoping thus to escape the double danger with which they appeared to be menaced by the English orders in council and the imperial decrees. The commercial Advantages for the United States were so considerable, fin consequence of the enormous price which the products of America com- manded on the Continent, that you find the subjects of the States of the Union disobeying the laws of their own country. Notwithstanding the embargo in all the ports of the Union, which interdicted the sailing of ships, you find these ships launching forth and carrying their merchandise to every part of the globe. I am therefore not surprised that they should expose themselves to the decisions of the English tribunals, or to the effect of the imperial decrees of France. I can comprehend the powerful charm which enticed them to run the chances. And when the American Govern- ment understood that the embargo law, which appeared to be a measure of wisdom to protect their own subjects, did not restrain them, and that the great profits enticed them to run every risk between the belligerent [ Doc. No. 2. ] 499 Powers, they enacted tlie non-intercourse latv ; and you have seen, not- withstanding this formal prob.ihition to Americans, made by their Govern- ment, to carry on any commerce either with France or England, or to import into the United States any of the j)roductions of France or England, yet they persisted, for the interest of their commercial speculations, and to obtain the great profits of a good voyage, which might cover several bad ones, violated the law o( non-intercourse. Upon the point of equity, M. Bignon has told you, that when we treat with a State, we should take into consideration commei-cial operations generally, and before we make tiie people of France pay twenty-five mil- lions to the Americans, we should examine the true jjosition of the Ameri- can Governn)ent. Profits were so considerable, tluit, in spite of both the acts of their own Government, the Americans encountcied the risk of two or three unfortunate voyages, to cover by one successful oriC, the two or three preceding failures. M. Bignon was then correct in opposing to the losses which were arrayed on one side, the enormous profits which had been realized on the other. It has been said that those who were the sufferers by the confiscation or destruction of their vessels were not indemnified for their losses by the profits which others reaped in other voyages ; that is very possible ; but we are not now in treaty with individuals in arbitration between France and each of the citizens of the United States. The intention even of the treaty is not to pay the indemnification judicially and individually awarded to etich of the complaining parties of the United States ; but we are deb.iting a treaty with the American Government, which provides for payment to them of a sum of money which they will divide among the claimants. The question being considered under this general point of view, as be- tween State and State, and as a question of good faith and equity, in the midst of all these outrages, when the Americans had been led to brave them by the thirst of gain, with the certainty that the success of a single enter- J)rise would cover the loss of several, does equity demand that indemnifica- tion should be made to the American merchants ? Itisassertedthat, after these dates, viz. 1807, 1809, 1810, and 1811, du- ring which things were in tiiis situation, the Americans puisuing upon the ocean their hazardous enterprises, the Imperial Government was animated with favorable dispositions to the United States. That, upon the arrival of Mr. Barlow in France, negotiations were commenced ; that rejjorts were made to the Emperor; reports, in which, without naming a definite sum, a disposition was manifested to do justice to the claims of Americans who had been injured in consetpience of the general measures which the Emperor had been compelled to adojjt dur-ing the war against England ; and that thirteen millions might be an equitable indemnification — [J J/fm- her, ^'' Eighteen millions P'] I am aware that it was stated that the sum might be raised as a greater favor to eighteen millions ; but that named in 1812 was only thirteen millions. I will not attack the policy of 1812. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind the circumstances in which the Imperial Government was placed, be- fore we condemn ourselves, as if there had emanated from this Government a positive recognition of the justice of the claim of the Americans, and as if a report made to the Emperor upon some possible indemnification was an engagement for France to pay it. 500 [ Doc. No. 2. ] What was tlie position of the Emperor and of the United States ? "War had been declared between the United States and England. Tliis war was prosecuted with great vigor. The English cntei prise against New Orleans was in preparation. It was imj)ortant to the policy of Napoleon, whose vast genius moved the destinies of the whole world, to sustain the United States in their hostility to England. I can very well understand why, in 1812, the Emperor flattered the hopes of the Americans with the possibility of a sacrifice of thirteen millions, to satisfy their claims, whether well or ill founded. I can understand that he miglit have made this sacrifice voluntarily, in order to secure steadiness of intention on the part of the United States against England, with which he was struggling at that period. Thus, gentlemen, let us attach to the acts of 1812, to the report esti- mating the possible indemnification at thirteen millions, that importance only which they merit on account of the relative positions of England and Napoleon, of the United States and Napoleon, and of England and the United States. These are the circumstances which enable us to appreciate the true cha- racter of the hopes which Napoleon had given to Barlow, aiid other Ame- rican ministers. The year 1814 comes round, and every thing suddenly changes. The great English expedition against New Orleans had failed ; but it was not known at Ghent in December, 1814, that the enterprise had been unsuccessful. They were then negotiating with the Americans at Ghent, and a treaty was there concluded between England and the United States. What were the stipulations, and what were the consequences of this treaty? They were announced, I believe, in the exposition accompanying the bill which was presented to us a year ago. They were, that English vessels shall enjoy the privileges of American, in the ports of the Union j to which was added, that a reciprocity was consented to by England. At the close of 1816 the Americans presented a note to the French Go- vernment. M. de Richelieu, in the noble idea of seeking to establish a durable harmony amongst all Powers, in his excessive desire to exhibit France fulfilling all just obligations, gave no decision ; but he returned a favorable answer to the minister of the United States, and intimated that, under more favorable circumstances, France would do justice to that note. This act of M. Richelieu was an act of loyalty — the act of an honest man. In the ])osition of the Government, at that time, in the midst of excessive embarrassments, at the moment when all Europe was ])re.ssing upon her, France was obliged to consent to the enormous indemnifications arising from the long war of 30 years. M. Richelieu intimated to a friendly Go- vernment, to a Government which owed its existence to the protection of France, to the policy of the Cabitiet of Louis XVI, that all would be done which could be done to give it satisfaction. Nevertheless, if we were to consider as engagements the lettei'S which he wrote under the general idea he entertained in that loyalty, for which he was universally respected, it would be going too far. The United States were not the only Power w ith which he made no engagements ; he made similar promises to others. He expressed himself to the same effect, and even in more positive terms, with regard to Denmark. Denmark has also a claim for losses during the war, and for supplies [13 oc. No. 2. ] 501 for tlie French troops. [Denials from the ministerial benches.] Fourteen millions are claimed. This claim is not abandoned, and so far from being suspended, that I hold in my hands tiie powers given to French speculators hy the King of Denmark himself, to urge them in his name. M. GuizoT, [^Minister of Insti'iiction.] There are none such. M. Berryer. I ask i)ardon. This claim is still before the Fi-ench Government. It has occasioned the exchange of a great number of notes, whicii the Min- ister of Foreign Affairs can find among the archives of his department. Many of those notes were known to me jjersonally. 'J his claim of four- teen millions grew out of the acts whicli took place during the war, and upon tlie kind of promise made by M. Richelieu. We have it in our power to cite some other cases. The consetjuences of the treaty of Ghent between the United States and England were soon apparent. What has been the language of the French administration w hen tiie question of indemnifying the Americans has been brought forward, from time to time, as if to lead to a more important dis- cussion ? What has been its answer ? — Begin by executing treaties w itii us ; for twelve years we were prevented from profiting by the advanta- geous stipulations of the rth article of the treaty concluded in 1803, and you now come to prefer this claim : but tiie 8th article still remains, wliich assures us that we shall be treated on the footing of the most favored na- tions. Very well: but you have stipulated with England for treatment on a national footing ; grant us the same thing : treat France as you treat England ; and, in the payment of imports and tonnage duties, let French vessels be considered as American or English. ^This was, gentlemen, re- quiring that treaties be kept. The Americans answered — and the minister has just repealed some of those objections; that the engagement of 1803 was contrai'y to the gene- ral rights of the Union ; tliat it was not possible to apply particular regu- lations to any one of the States incorporated in the Genei-al Uonfcderacv. The regulation must be common to all the members of the Confederacy of the United States. — To which it is easy to reply, that such engagements are regulated by treaties, and not by the private laws of any people. Now, here the engagement results from the treaty of 1803. This treaty was authorized by the American Legislature, and it was in vii-tuc of that au- thorization til at Jefferson ratified it. Relative to the treaty of 1814, with England, the minister says there is this difference to be observed, that the English had consented to a recipro- city in such way that this reciprocity is considered by the minister as the price of the concession made to blngland, to be treated on a national foot- ing in the ports of the Union. Have wc not a well-founded claim to the same advantage in virtue of article 8 of the treaty of 1803 ? JIave we not already paid for this treatment by the cession of Louisiana ? It is the sur- render of that colony which gives us the right to be treated in the United States as the most favored nation ; a right equivalent to a stipulation of eighty millions. Thus, we have paid by the treaty of 1803 for the treatment which we shou^J receive now, as the English have paid in the treaty of 18 14, by the reciurocity to which they agreed w ith the American Government. I, there- 502 [ Doc. No. 2. ] fore, can see no reason why the United States should disavow the obliga- tions resulting from tlie treaty of 1803 in our favor. Such, however, has been the question during the space of seven or eight years. The United States demanding some settlement, and France say- ing, ''treat us conformably with treaties, in a manner as favorable as you treat England." .In 1822, a tieaty of commerce was formed. The negotiations were conducted between M. Hyde de Neuville, on the part of France, with the President of the United States. Every (juestion was discussed in this correspondence, which is very voluminous, and is printed. We there see that the envoy of France, in regulating the conditions of the treaty of commerce, reserves all the rights resulting from the treaty of 1803 ; and in a correspondence which continued from the 15th December, 1817, to the date of the signature of the treaty, viz. to the 22d June, 1822, in every note wliich passed between the President or the Secretary of State of the United States, and tlie envoy of France, allusion is made to the treaty of 1803 ; but I do not discover a single instance in which the American Go- vernment thought proper to mention the indemnification now demanded. You are told that the United States, in their silence, had consideration for the financial position of France, after the payment of indemnification by it to every Power. I admit the claims were not formally discussed between the Governments ; but it is very remarkable that when France had her envoy in the United States, when that envoy discussed every question of the treaty of commerce, and made reservations on the subject of the 8th article of the treaty of 1803, I am forcibly struck with the fact, that in this treaty the question of the indemnification now demanded v»'as never once raised. In fine, gentlemen, in 1822 the treaty of commerce was assented to : the Americans, through the different changes of ministry, continued succes- sively to address notes to the Cabinet, to recall to mind that there were questions in dispute. In fact, I can easily conceive that the United States (which nation has always been discontented with the clause of the treaty of 1803, establishing a difference in French commerce between Louisiana and the other States of the Union) should have been incessantly engaged in raising claims, and seeking questions proper to bring about a definitive settlement of that question so onerous and so embarrassing, lesulting from the 8th article. In order to have justice done to one of these claims, a special commission was formed in 1830, a commission which was composed of several persons who had been members of this Assembly, and whose chairman I believe was M. Hely d'Oissel. [Manymembers — *'No, M. Pichon was the chairman."] M. Hely d'Oissel also made a report. That commission was of opinion that, considering the fact of there being grievances on each side, there was no indemnification to be made to the United States ; not on account of. the ill-advised argument, that Govern- ments ought not to answer for the acts of Governments which have pre- ceded them, but for diplomatic reasons which I have already shown, viz. that the United States had taken advantage of events ; that the loss had been on our side ; and on the strength of the terms of the treaty of 1803, they refused indemnification. [ Doc. No. 2. J 503 The revolution of July takes place. The United States repeat their applications, and the question of indemnification finds zealous advocates. Among others there was a celebrated personage in France, [Gen. Lafa- yette,] who was animated by strong sentiments of affection, and by the remembrance of a glorious patronage by the United States. He became the protector of the claim, he is named a member of the commission ; this commission is composed of six members, among whom are fuund the honor- able deputy I have indicated, and his son — M. George Lafayette. 1 demand the floor. M. Berryer. As well as four other membere taken from this Chamber, or the other House. Among tliese members, two were of one opinion ; four of another ; and the result of the examination of this commission was, that twelve mil- lions ought to be sufficient to satisfy the claims of the United States. Do not expect me now to go into the discussion into whicli tlie Minister of Foreign Affairs entered, or to the cabinet labors of tlie Minister of Fo- reign Affairs, in order to arrive at the sum of twenty-five millions, from the same basis which the commission of 1830 had adopted, and from which it had arrived only at twelve millions. In relation to that matter, it appears to me that it has been completely settled by M. Bignon. I have not tlie necessary documents to discuss the merit of the valuations which have been made, but I observe that the price of 27 vessels and their cargoes has been settled by approximation, and by making an average of the vessels. In a word, notliing can be more un- certain and impossible to justify, than these estimates. Thus we rest upon a calculation completely erroneous, completely false ; and we give twenty-five millions, without any one of us being able to say what is the real state of the losses upon which this estimate of twenty-five millions is made. However that maybe, I do not think the question of twenty-five millions is the most important one relative to the treaty of 1831 ; I do not think it should be considered otherwise than an accessory. The principal question, the interesting question to come at, is the re- nunciation of the advantages of the 8th article of the treaty of 1803. Under this point of view', I dispense with many observations which I had to make, and will only reply to the last observations of the minister, con- vinced that the principal article is that which appears to be little attended to ; I mean that which affects the renunciation of a right resulting to France from the treaty of 1803. The minister has told us that our right w as recognised by the United States ; that they gave us in exchange considerable advantages, so much surpassing all the advantages of the treaty of 1803, that it is nut iK)ssible to hesitate between the new and the old conditions. On this subject the minister has told us, *'They grant us a fixed reduced tariff on all our wines which enter the ports ef the Union. This reduction of the tariff saves to us 800,000 francs per annum, which, in ten years, is a saving of eight millions. Most assuredly, the benefits of the 8th article of the treaty of 1803 would never procure an equal advantage to French com- merce." 504 [ Doc. No. 2. ] Gentlemen, wliat is tlie consequence of the abolition of article 8 of llie treaty of 1803 ? . By a provision of the treaty of 1814, confirmed, I believe, by a treaty of 1828, English vessels are treated as American. Our vessels, on the con- 4rary, in the ports even ceded byFrance, those in which she claims national treatment — our vessels find themselves subject to every duty which can be charged upon the different products of foreign commerce, and assimilated with the vessels of nations whicli do not enjoy near that Government the same advantages as England. Hence the difficulty of competition for French vessels. Wliat says the minister ? "But there is a benefit for you in the reduc- tion of the duty upon wines." Gentlemen, the reduction which is spoken of, reduces the duty from 17 to 7i cents per gallon ; now, the gallon is equivalent to four bottles ; it is about two cents and a half a bottle in the price of wine. I ask, do you believe that this duty, after all, is reimbursed by the consumer ? [d member from the centre. You are mistaken, it is greater than that.] I do not think so, however, I only use the figures of the Minister of Fo- reign Affairs. It is then a difference in duty of two cens and a half a bottle, which is accorded to France ; a duty which would be immediately reimbursed by the constimer. The consumption has been progressive during the last ten years, and more so from 1826 and 1827 to 1831 — a year in which the minister has given us a much larger exportation than in 1832. I do not know the amount of the exportation for 1833. Now it is easy to see that there is here some commercial confusion. If the difference of duty was only such that, in not striking it out, restraint would be j)iaced upon consumption, I could understand the argument which has been urged : but when it is so light that the consumption can- not suffer from its existence or suppression, 1 do not see how the argument can be admitted. In all other respects, France is upon the footing of a stranger, whilst England is upon a national footing. The result, I say, is an evident dif- ference against the commerce of France. Thus, independent of the twenty-five millions, which is an enormous charge on the revenue ; when, in 1812, thirteen millions were considered sufficient; when, in 1830, the commission formed by the minister himself, were of opinion that twelve millians only should be paid, independent of this concession, by v. hicb France suffers, we have renounced the rights secured to us by the 8th article of the treaty of 1803, which renunciation will be a considerable loss to France. You know the position of Louisiana relatively to the other States of the Union. Y"ou know its fertility, the prosperity of this magnificent colony, the increase of its population. You know that New Orleans is the most commercial and most prosperous place in that pait of America ; that it is precisely at a jjointwiiere there is the most considerable commercial move- me)it, where tlie population increases every day, where Napoleon saw in the distance future benefits to be derived from the situation to enable us t contend with all the nations of Europe ; it is precisely at this point that, by our renunciation of the advantages of the treaty of 1803, we are about to lower our position. To this it has been answered, that the Americans can pay themselves f Doc. No. 2. J 505 in establishing duties upon French ships, and tlius the French merchants will have to pay wliat is now asked of you for the support of Government. It is a bad way of treating the question, or rather it is another question. If we consider the utility, the immense advantage to France in the stipula- tion of the act or tariff which is in the treaty of 1831, and are then told that this advantageous condition must be bought with twenty-five millions, it resolves into a mere custom-house (piestion. But it is not that we have to pronounce on a question of riglit, of reason, and of equity : are we or are we not the debtors ? If, on the contrary, the question is to know whether the tariff will be so useful as to be worth the sacrifice of twenty-five millions to buy it, we shall know the ground upon which we are deliberating. But when we are told, "Pay twenty-five millions be- cause you owe them," it is another matter. As for what has been told us, drawn from considerations of public order, of commercial advantages, of increased exportation, to the extent (hat the commercial embarrassments of our cities ai-e immediately to cease: that there will even be a saving in the expenses of the Gendarmerie, I avow I do not understand such reasons. It is not by giving money to the Ameri- cans that Gavernment will ensure the repose of F'rance. M. George Laeayette. Having been designated by name by the orator who has just descended from the tribune, I thought I ought to explain a fact wliich he has incor- rectly stated. I shall certainly not undertake to defend tlie commission of which I was a member, from the accusation brought against it, that it was under the influence of any one, while it was charged with the delibe- ration and examination of an impoi'tant subject ,• but I ought to rectify an error. It was said, if I lieard correctly, that my father and I were asso- ciated on the commission ; my father was not on it, and as for myself, I cannot pretend to have exercised any influence over the commission, since ray opinions did not prevail with the majority. In fact. I was in the mi- nority of the commission, and was convinced that there was due to the United States a sum infinitely greater than the commission accorded to them. [.S'ojjie applause.] Tuesday, >9prU 1, 1834. M. DE Lamartine. Gentlemen : The discussion, as it was yesterday left, seemed to me to be no longer one of political right, but rather one of political exi)cdiency and national good faitlu Therefore, from a wish not to trespass, at this time, too far on the patience of the Chamber, I shall view it in the latter light. The old maxim, ''honesty is the best policy," applies with even more truth to affairs of a public, than to those of a private nature: to the acts of nations, than to tliose of individuals. To the latter, the infj'ingement of it is sure to prove a loss of time and of treasure; to the former, not of time and of treasure only, but of honor*, of credit and of blood. Let us remember this, gentlemen, at the close of a debate, during which I have with pain seen one, wliose word is of so much authority with you, striv- ing to draw you into the labyrinths of an intricate diplomacy, instead of the plain, straightibrward course of a policy true to its engagements, and to the great interests of commerce and alliance; considerations which fought, in my o]>inion, to determine this whole question. Permit me to reduce it,. 33 606 [ Doc. No. 2. J in a few words, to its proper limits. 1 regret the necessity of being com- pelled to oppose, in any way, the able and judicious statement of the ques- tion ycstei'day nia(!e by the honoiable M. Bi|^n(»n ; but I do not wish that certain ])rinciph'H therein advanced, j)rincij)les opposed to the pledges and l!ie interests oi' oui- coniuieicial, ajid to the honor of our moral policy, should be given out from this tribune, and in the presence of these repre- sentatives, without reply and without remonstrance. The hwnorable gen- tleman has, it seems to me, reduced us to the old diplomacy of the Empire. Genllcmcn, he mistakes the times. I admii-e, gentlemen, every thing relating to the Ein})ire, from ihe Code CivUe to the column of the Pkice Vendome ; from tlie victories of Italy to tlie gloi-ious defeat of Wa- terloo — every thing except its moral>^, its liberty, and its diplomacy j the im])erial diplomacy w as nothing but brutal force under the mask of absurd ceremonial, disguised by a few conventional forms of im.perious politeness. The sole negvithout taking into consideration the profits of the operation. I Your conin)ittee, gentlemen, liaving remarked that the sales at Bayonne I liad produced less, by two-fifths, than those at Antwerp; and then that the custom-house duties at Bayonne exceeded the value of the cargoes, these , same duties being deducted, it would seem that it has inferred from these two circumstances, that the sums realized at Bayonne were only equal to , the first cost of the commodities. It has determined, for this reason, to permit the entry of the proceeds of the thirty Jive cargoes sold at BayonnCf exclusive of custom-house duties, as one of the principal items of the estimate. 1 perceive an error in this. ; At that time, so fruitful in extraordinary events, in which the violence of the struggle between two great nations caused the maritime laws of , nations to be forgotten, and erased the clause in the treaty of Utrecht, whicli guarantied the independence of the neutral flag — at that time the commodi- I dities of tropical countries reached Europe only through a thousand diffi- ; culties, and in quantities insufficient to supply the demands for consump- 1 tion; they lost in the places of production the greater part of their market value, whilst their value in Europe was augmented in a surprising degree. , These circumstances combined to excite the speculating and adventu- I reus spirit of the Americans to the highest pitch, and allowed them to realize many fortunes in this w ay. On the other hand, the custom-house I duties, wherever the dominion of France was extended, might be raised ; much beyond the first cost of the article in the colonies, without affecting 1 the selling price in Europe, more sensibly than the duties at this day affect , the existing prices. 1 Thus, though the cargoes sold at Bs^yonne, deducting the duties, may have produced only forty-seven per cent, of the gross amount of the sale, yet this fraction might, nevertheless, represent a sum greater than the first I cost. I For the want of documents I can neither obtain, nor present mathematical proof of this assertion; but tiie fact cited by the committee in its report, viz. that the commission appointed in 1831 to estimate the indemnifica- tion had fixed it at 13,747,000 francs, reduced to round numbers, twelve 1 |millions, value at the port cf departure, is equivalent, in my judgment, to a idemonstration. The committee of 1834havingadopted the classes admitted by thecommis- ision of 1831, it must be perceived that the difference in the estimates arises from the mode of valuing the articles. But I must acknowledge that the explanations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs have not enlightened mo on this subject. There is some error or perplexity, on his part, in regard to the custom-house duties. Instead of proceeding by inductions, as the committee of 1834 seems to have done, there is, doubtless, a means of verifying the amount of the in- demnification as regards the cargoes, w ith more exactness ; it is to consult the prices current of the foreign ports whence the shipments were made, at their respective dates. Tlie capacity of the vessels, and the nature of the lading, should also necessarily enter into the calculations ; Ami, very probably this may still be found. The revision of this part of the labors of the committee appears to me ndispensable. The Government of the United States is too honorable to •efuse its assent, because it would not wish to profit by an error. [ Doc. No. 2. ] 511 I am but little moved, gentlemen, by any of tbe considerations at vari- ance with tbe strict rules of honesty which have been alleged in favor of the sum set down in tbe treaty. TIic Clianiber ouglit, in tbe first place, to exa- mine whether the twenty-five millions arc legitimately due. As to the second- ary question — commercial relations, they are c.st;iblis!ied between nations in consequence of reciprocal advantages; and tiieseadxantagcs should not be bougl'.t either with gold, or at tbe expense of the national dignity. Besides, would it not becalumniating the character of the Government of the United States, to suppose it accessible to feelings of cupidity, and to resentments unworthy of a great people, in regard to a discussion of interest, in which, on both sides, tbe strict correctness of the amount is honestly sought ? I conclude, then, that tbe discussion of tbe treaty be suspended until the committee revise its labors, and calci'date tbe amount of the indemnifica- tion, after having received more precise notices respecting the first cost of those cargoes for which it has been admitted that the proprietors should be indemnified. 1 will not descend from tljis tribune without remarking that the principles which dictated the stipulations of the treaty of 4th July, 1831, require perhaps that tbe claims of tbe old grantees of the India Company, and those of the heirs of the purchasers of a part of the territory of Louisiana, should more strongly excite tbe solicitude of the French ne- gotiator; and that, instead of referring them to the tribunals of tbe coun- try for tbe prosecution of their rights, the French Government should be charged with making their prosecution. If the Chamber cannot touch this part of the treaty without overstepping its privileges, it ought, at least, to invite the attention of the ministry to the heirs of tbe first colonists of Louisiana. M. DuCHATEL. After tbe explanations which are given in the report of the committee, and in tbe speech of tbe Minister of Foreign Affairs, relative to tbe origin of the American claims, the progress of the negotiations, and tlie basis which served for a determination, there lemains no* hi tig further to be said on the part of those who advocate the bill, either in respect to the value or the legitimacy of tbe debt to tbe United States. It is upon other considerations that I ask the attention of the Chamber for a few moments ; and altbougU the discussion is far advanced, and I am desirous to avoid intruding upon tbe patience of the Chamber, nevertheless, the interests involved in the debate are of so serious a character, and tbe facts which I have to submit so conclusive, that I should reproach myself if, wbilcoitertaining this con- viction, I did not advance the reasons which have influenced my opinion. As I have said, I will not return to the debt itself; I will only pointout to tbe Chamber the commercial and political iiiterests which arc involved in tbe adoption of the treaty upon which we are now deliberating. There can be no doubt, that if the debt were not established, if France owed nothing to tbe United States, it would be unreasonable to appear asking tbe Chamber for a grant of money in favor of a custom-house tariff, or for some commercial advantage. But, notwithstanding what has been said at the last meeting by an honorable member, the defenders of the bill are not reduced to that alternative. Since tbe debt is admitted, (and for my part I tliink It fully estjiblislied.) it is proper to present every consideiation bearing upon tlie adoption ol the treaty. In offering to tbe Chamber those considerations, I do not believe I shall depart from the question, notwithstanding what was said at the close of tbe session of yesterdav. 5 12 [ Doc. No. 2. ] The treaty of 1831 has been made : in discussing that treaty, we are not limited to the principles of justice ; every argument may be adduced, whe- ther of policy or of interest. Upon this view of the question, I ask per- mission of the Chamber to examine the subject as briefly as possible. In the first place, however, I wish to reply to an argument which was advanced at the first sitting, and twice brought forward yesterday. It was said, without doubt a debt exists. No one supposes the debt can be contested ; but have you no oifset to oppose to it ? The Americans have grown rich in the progress of that war, when so many losses occurred, and so much injustice was committed. The Americans have profited by that war; they found the price of their sacrifices in the immense advantages which the wants of the war procured them. "While the belligerents were suffering great losses, the Americans grew rich without fighting themselves; tiiey reaped the fruits of tiie victories of others. Thus, say tJiey, if you compai'e the situation of the United States, as it was at the beginning of the war, with what it was at the end, the result of this comparison will show an enormous increase of power and prosperity. And you would wish, it has been added, in the face of these advantages, to recognise yourselves as debtors to America ; but in payment of your 4lebt, you have already given them an increase of power and prosperity. Are not those advantages compensation sufficient? As for myself, gentlemen, I do not think that this sort of compensation can be justly urged. The reason is plain; this debt originated in acts of injustice committed when we were at peace with the United States, and not in a state of war, whilst the advantages which the United States reaped were not of our conferring, but fortuitous. Can we take this ground in a question ofjustice and equity, and, in a manner entering into partner- ship with fortune, pay our debts with its benefits ? No, gentlemen, there would be no justice in that sort of compensation resulting from our acts, or acts produced by causes independent of the will of the French Government. After having rejilied to this objection, to which I have recalled the atten- tion of tlie Chamber only because it has been so often brought forward in this debate, w ith the permission of the Chamber I will proceed, as rapidly and clearly as possible, to explain what are the commercial stipulations of the treaty respecting which so many strange errors have been committed; and, further, to call the attention of the Chamber to the serious consequences to w hich a vote of rejection would lead. The commercial stipulations of the treaty are three in number : 1st. The renunciation by us of the contested right founded on the 8tk article of the treaty of 1803, relative to the cession of Louisiana. 2d. Privileges granted to the French wines by the United States, as an equivalent for that renunciation. 3d. The reduction in the duty, upon our side, on long staple cottons ; an affair in itself so trivial, that but for the frequent notice taken of it in this discussion, it w:ould claim no attention. Those are the three commercial stipulations which figure in the treaty of 1831. 1 begin with the Louisiana question. Much was said of it yesterday from this tribune. One member (M. Berryer) went so far as to say it was the whole question ; the chief point ujion which the debate turned. He told OS that the £5 millions was a secondary consideratiou with him ; he ac- [ Doc. No. 2. J 513 cused the Government of sacrificing the elements of tlic future prosperity and greatness of France by renouncing the pri\ ilegcs of the treaty of 1803. It is only by facts and figures tliat such questions can be decided. Gene- ral considerations possess a little too nujch of theory, and never lead to positive results. We must caiculate the value of the advantages ceded to the United States, and the value of those obtained in compensation. You will observe, in tlie first place, that this right which we pretend to in Louisiana — a right which I will not dispute; (from this tribune, and especially in doubtful cases, I never would attack a right which might belong to my country) — you will observe, I say, that it was not a right in possession fully acquired. It had been long disputed. We therefore did not cede an advantage which we held for an equivalent. We have ceded, not a real possession, but aground of litigation, a questionable right, which we possessed not the means of making good. Behold what we have ceded ! Now let us see what we have acquired. Real and important advantages, as I will presently demonstrate. It will be first necessary to establish the true character of the ceded right, by calculating its importance ; in order to do so, we must look into the operations of our navigation and commerce w ith Louisiana. You know the nature of the difficulty, either in Louisiana or in any other State of the Union. There are no discriminating duties upon our merchandise ; those duties were suppressed in virtue of the treaty of 1822 ; there remains only a tonnage duty of five francs per ton. In all the States of the Union we pay five francs per ton tonnage duty more than American vessels. Their vessels pay the same excess of duty in our ports. It is evident that the importance of the duty depends upon the extent of the navigation. ^Yhat is the amount of our navigation with Louisiana ? An estimate was exhibited yesterday by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will add, that the duty is of little importance, if we consider the sum total of it with all theS'tatesof the Union. If we take the mean of several years, our navigation with the United States is limited to thirteen or four- teen tJjousand tons; not with Louisiana alone, but with all the States of the Union. The duty, multiplied by this number, gives a sum of sixty-five to seventy thousand francs. Here, then, is an annual charge of sixty-five thousand francs upon our exportation during the last yeai', of one hundred and six millions of francs. From such a tariff is it possible there can re- sult any real unfairness ? But there is yet another consideration. Without doubt, we cannot pre- tend to compete with the United States in the carrying trade; all that we can claim is a portion of the direct trade between France and America. Unfortunately, our navigation is more expensive than that of other nations ; all pretensions, therefore, to the carrying trade, are out of tlie (picstion, and we can only enjoy the direct trade between France and Louisiana. If we examine the state of navigation, we find that no third flag meddles with this commerce ; it belongs exclusively to French and American vessels. As there is no third flag, I ask how favors granted to a third flag can have any weight. Between the French and American navigation, the conditions are equal; for if our ships pay five francs more in the ports of the Union, on the other side the vessels of the United States pay five francs more in our ports. The reciprocity is then perfect. We cannot hope to triumph over A.merican commerce in their own ports. If, tlien, there is a semblance of disadvan- 514 [ Doc. No. 2. J tage for us, it disappears in reality ; for the commerce on which we would claim privileges, is reserved entirely to French and American vessels. I ask pardon of the Chamber fur dwelling upon tliese details relative to Louisiana; but as it is the point upon which most stress has been laid, I believed it my duty to explain the matter, more especially as explanation was so easy. Now, in compensation for that claim, reduced to its just value, what have we have obtained ? A reduction of vast importance upon our wines — a reduction of which I will submit a calculation to the Chamber. This reduction, it is true, is only temporary ; but, because it is so, it does not follow that its advantages may not be compared with an advantage that is perpetual. In commerce, a temporary annuity maybe exchanged for a perpetual stock. The annuity must only be of higher value; the difference of time counterbalances the difference of value. You shall see the result of the calculation. The duties upon wines, (I am obliged to use figures, but in so serious a matter precision is requi- site) — the duties upon wines in the United States before the treaty were regulated in three different ways : a certain duty was exacted upon wines in bottles ; another duty upon wines in casks ; and the third duty varied in its application to white or red wines. The duties on wines in bottles were then about forty-two francs the hectolitre, for w ines in bottles of every quali- ty ; on vvliite wines in casks, twenty-one francs the hectolitre ; on red wines, fourteen francs. From the 1st February, 1832, the duties were reduced frorai forty-two to thirty francs, from twenty-one to fourteen francs, and from fourteen to eight francs. This reduction was important in itself; but it remains to be added, that fi-om the 3d March, 1834, a further reduction took place of fifty per cent., on the last duties, so that wine in bottles now only pays fifteen francs the hectolitre ; white wines in casks, seven francs ; red wines, four francs. These duties are very moderate, and will open a w ide field to our com- merce ; and not only the duties we pay are.low, but we have an advantage in the higher duties paid on wines of all other countries. Upon some qualities this difference amounts to six francs ; upon others, to five francs ; and on a third description, to three francs. Estimating by the cask, instead of the hectolitre, the diflferencc in our favor amounts to sixty, fifty, and thirty francs. You were told yesterday that the renunciation of the Louisiana privi- lege costs us annually 14,000 francs, We shall gain 800,000 francs, and when tiie duty is reduced one-half, that sum will be again doubled. It is true we shall only enjoy it for ten years ; but I ask those acquainted with financial aff\iirs, if the equivalent is not obtained, when we exchange a perpetual endowment of 15,000 francs for an annuity often years, which may amount to a million, or a million and a half, per annum. Having reduced the Louisiana question to its true value, I will now turn my attention to the third stipulation of the treaty — to that relative to cottons. These details are dry, but they are indispensable to the under- standing of the treaty. [Go on, go on.] By the treaty, long staple cottons are assimilated with short staple. An honorable member has spoken of this assimilation as being an augmentation of duty. He was wrong. It was a reduction. The duties upon the long staple cottons were reduced to the same rate with short staple cottons. This is but a trivial benefit to the United States. Commerce had long [ Doc. No. 2. J 515 required it. The bill for regulaling the custom-house duties, in 1829, proposed the assimilation. The quantity of lojig staple cottons imported from the United States in 1831 amounted to 250,000 kilogrammes. This quantity, multiplied by 20 francs per 100 kilogjammes, the amount of the reduction, produces a sum of 50,000 francs. Behold the amount of the benefit we have accorded to the United states. We had already granted the same to Brazil. Now that I come to the bearing of the commercial stipulations of the treaty, I beg to call its attention to the commercial interests involved in the question. Our commerce witli the United States affords us the amplest foreign market. Last year they received 106,000,000 of our merchandise. I know this sum exceeds that of several otiier years, but I here present you the precise amounts for a number of years. They will enable the Chamber to appreciate the extent of that commerce. We exported to the United States productions of our manufactories, to the amount of — In 182r, - - -. - - - 76,000,000 In 1828, - - - - - - 66,000,000 In 1829, -.---. 65,000,000 In 1830, - . - - - - . 69,000,000 In 1831, ------ 110,000,000 In 1832, from various circumstances, tlie cholera and stagnation of trade, our exportations fell to 58,000,000 ; but they recovered their level in 1833, and rose to 106,000,000. The products we receive in exchange are raw materials of the highest importance to our manufactories. Raw cotton is the principal article ; of this we bought, in 1833, to the value of 51,000,000. The commerce of which I speak is not only the first in its amount, but promises the gi'eatest extension in futui-e. The favorable conditions upon which our commerce is placed with the United States are worthy of notice. Their productions bear no resem- blance to ours. There can be no rivalry. The American nation is in possession of a soil which opens to its industry a boundless career; its population increases every day ; its riches augment with a marvellous rapidity unknown to any other nation of the world, and which none other may even hope to equal. It is this country, then, which promises to your commerce the most brilliant expectations for the future ; it offers a market for our manufactures, which is every day enlarging. I have here to reply to two objections. You have been told, in the first j)lace, that the measures taken by the United States, bearing upon our commerce, were by no means taken in consequence of the treaty. You are then told, that whatever may be the conduct of the French Government, whatever may be the fate of tiie treaty now under consideration, the United States will make no change in their commercial regulations. I will reply to these two points in succession ; they are of immense im- portance in the question. Is it true that the United States h^ve not been governed, in the modifica- tions of their tariff, by the treaty under consideration ? It is easy to prove the conti'ary. You have seen that we enjoy a considerable advantage over other Powers, in the duty upon our wines. Why did the United States subscribe to that advantage, if it was not to favor France ? And 51G r Doc. No. 2. 1 F wherefore will they favor France, if France, in return, does not entertair friendly relations with them ; if she refuses to pay a debt which appears to be a legitimate one, to the Government of the Union, and concerning tlie justice of which there is no doubt ? It is not, therefore, as has been recently stated, from financial consi- derations alone that the United States have reduced their tariff. With- out doubt, the general reduction which has been effected in their custom- house duties proceeds from that hapj)y financial condition so different from ours : but the reductions which regard France only, w hich give to her pre- ferences and commercial privileges, must have been made with a view to French interests solely, and not to those of America. It is the same in the case of silks. The duties which were formerly tiiirty per cent, upon the silks of China, and twenty per cent, on those oil [^' France, were reduced at first, the former to ten, and the latter to five pet cent. ; but, in consideration of the advantages which they obtained by the treaty, America consented to abolish entirely all duties upon our silks. Here, then, is another stipulation, wholly French, based upon considera- ) tions which concern France alone. ^ We now come to that view of the question which demands your most' "" serious deliberation. Does any one believe that there is no danger from * the rejection of the treaty ? Does any one believe we can thus break with f" the Government of the United States without peril ? Can it be believed! i^' that a treaty which has been ratified, and upon the execution of which the " Government and people of the United States count, can be annulled with- P out creating resentment on the part of the Americans ; without altering ^^ our commercial relations ? Yet it has been so affirmed; but, in my opi- *' iiion, he who affirms it assumes a heavy responsibility. '" I know very well that mankind never had a true interest in all these '^j commercial quarrels ; that, if they were wise, they would listen only to the [■ dictates of prudence; that they would never use reprisals; that they [ would never come under the influence of anger or passion. But who will ! venture to answer that, in a country where public opinion is so powerful ; where it influences so strongly the determinations of Government — who '^'' will venture to answer that it will be interest only, the coldest wisdom, and prudence the most circumspect, which will dictate the resolutions of the Government and Congress of the United States ? We are told that the United States will receive the rejection of the treaty of 1831 with great tranquillity. To this hypothetical assertion it is only necessary to oppose facts. We must examine and see how the minds f^ men are disposed with regard to this question in America. We have oniy * to read the messages of the President, the debates in Congress, and the discussions in the papers of the United States. In the face of these facts, what Is adduced ? Suppositions, vague presumptions founded upon the prudence of Government — upon the wisdom ef men ! But, in truth, gentle- men, for a long time we have seen other motives than reason or interest governing the events of the world. Interests, passions, and national sus- ceptibilities have long been exerting much influence in political affairs. During the two years since the conclusion of the treaty, has there not been so strong an excitement in the United States, has not the subject been engrossing the public mind so far, that M. Bignon, who spoke most forci- bly against the treaty, has told you that, although he would not accept it, '* jet he acknowledged that there might be sufficient reasons with many [ Doc. No. 2. ] Sir lersons for adopting the treaty ? He even added that the delay alone had )een a species of moral violence committed upon the Chamber. For my )wn part, I do not admit this moral violence; but I acknowledge that a question becomes different when, from being simply tlie claim of individu- ils, it arises to be that of a Government. Before the treaty, there were ndividual claims advocated by the American Government, and for the ate of which the Government of the Union was interested, without, how- !ver, inducing any decided steps in behalf of the claimants ; but since the jreaty, it has become a Government question — a national affair. I do not say that your prerogative is not entire ; I only ^ay in this re- pect, adopting the opinion of the honorable M. Bignon, tiiat tliere is some- hing more at stake since the treaty than there was before. Who, then, will take upon himself the responsibility to guaranty jjhat the United States will use no species of retaliatien if the treaty be re- iflected ; that they will employ no means to recover the debt ? Seeing tiiat he principle of the debt is not contested, that positive calculations were lade to determine the amount, and that no opposite calculation has been roduced, no offset against the United States, will not that Government ij-oceed to pay itself from the means in its power ? Gentlemen, nothing can be easier ; our commerce with them last year s|mounted to one hundred and six millions. Now do you think there will jiie any difficulty in establishing, instantaneously, discriminating duties f pon our goods, to compensate and exceed the twenty-five millions we owe Jiem ? This discriminating duty will not be paid by the consumers in the Jjnited States ; for a duty of that kind does not fall on the consumer, but jijpon the nation struck at. The evil, then, will fall upon our commerce Jjxclusively, and would not end when the damage equalled the debt of jjlventy-five millions ; for in such a system no one can say — we will injure ► le commerce of the nation which owes us and will not pay us, by every 5, leans in our power, but we wjll stop when the debt is paid. In order to li $timate the damage which may accrue to us, we must count not only the jims which will be paid into the Treasury of the United States, but the »sses which our commerce will have to endure from this retaliation. The evil will be great — more extensive than calculation can reach ; it [i,iould interrupt for a long time the relations upon which the prosperity of Jfaany cities of France at this moment depends. Your manufactories and l„|iour vineyards demand a steady market ; they require new outlets that !3u will not be always able to procure them. Do not, therefore, to-day, ,j!om considerations not founded in justice, close the markets upon whicU j'i leir prosperity depends. '•! I repeat, then, that this question is one of the most serious character |.|hich can be debated. I repeat, that no one can guaranty that the rejec- [Jon of the treaty will not produce measures injurious to commerce ; to ,J>th nations undoubtedly ; but always most fatal to that which receives (J e first blow. .|1 I will only add a word more. We were told yesterday that it would JAi very easy on our side to resort to a retaliatory system ; that, if the Go- J.I ;rnment of the United States can pay itself by its own measures, France * m retaliate likewise. ^., That, gentlemen, we have great reason to doubt, and upon that subject e future presents enough to excite all your fears. If once, that course adopted, that war of commerce once declared, the consequences would ! most disastrous to our affairs. 518 L t)oc. No. 2. ] Having given to the Chamber my thoughts on commercial interests, I will add a lew words upon the political reasons which I think should deter- niinc the acceptance o[' the treaty. France has always sustained the cause of the liberty of the seas. It was her right, it has been her glory. It is her pride, that in her political relations she has been always found combating on the side of justice ; for the weak against the powerful, for the oppressed against the oppressor; in fine, for the cause of liberty and right. For this cause, what chance of suc- cess is there, if not in an intimate alliance between France and that nation in possession of the next strongest marine after England ? France has the most direct and positive interest in a strict alliance wilh the United States ; ar.d in deciding upon this transaction, in deciding upon this co- venant with the Government of the United States, I will pronounce that we have pursued a wise policy, and the only policy worthy of France. This policy will be not only useful to France at the present day, but it will be still more so in future, for the liberty of the seas depends upon the agreement Nvhich subsists between us and the Government of the tJnited States. Recall to mind the situation of France when that treaty was concluded ; there were then two nations in the world, one in the new world, the other in the old, which professed the same doctrines with us, whose Governments reposed upon the same principles with our Govern- ment ; that is to say, upon the princijjle that the law ought to be the ex- pression of the national majority, and not the will of one man, or of an aristoci'acy. These two Powers were England in the old world, and the United States in the new. You have been often told that it was the true interest of France to ally herself with liberal Governments; I agree in the sentiment, gentlemen, and therefore I approve the conduct of the Government in this case. But the alliance we should cultivate is not that cold neutrality of which the honorable M. Bignon i»as spoken — it is not that common acknowledgment which the United States accord to every Government de facto, which is successively given to Don Miguel and Donna Maria, but a lively sympathy, a strict alliance, a community of efforts responsive to a com- munity of principles and interests. Gentlemen, I conceive that those con- siderations did not operate with the Government of the Restoration. It had other supporters ; it relied for assistance upon the Holy Alliance, upon Governments avowing its own principles. It was of less importance to them than to us to injure the United States. To return to the question, gentlemen, for I do not wish to tire the patience of the Chamber, I say, then, that in my opinion France is truly indebted to the United States ; that positive calculations have been pr«*^ duced to show us the amount due. In the speeches of those who have op- posed the treaty, 1 have found neither the same exactness, nor the same strictness of calculation ; and, in fine, the compensation spoken of cannot, in my o})inion, be admitted to be just. The question of justice being es* tablished, I think we should jeopard, by the non-execution of the treaty, all the interests of our true policy, as well as of our commerce. No other guaranties are given me against these dangers, than mere opinions and pure hypotheses. I have more faith, gentlemen, in the acts, and, I may also say. in the language of our Government ; it is charged with the superintendence of our foreign relations, and certainly it de- serves to be believed when it warns us of danger in" this portion of our [ Doc. No. 2. ] 619 affairs. Convinced as I am that tlie consequences of a rejection will be disastrous, and that, if the Chamber adopt that course, it will experience a bitter but superfluous regret, I cannot assume the responsibility of a refusal : I shall give my vote for the bill. [Approbation.] M. Salverte. Gentlemen : The honorable members who have defended the bill during the sessiofi, lay much sti-ess on the commercial regulations embraced in the treaty. I will follow them in this discussion, not that I cannot add other considerations to those calculated to disprove the existence of an ab- solute debt on the part of France to tlie United States, but 1 feel that t'ae debate is too far advanced to permit me to take up your attention on that point. In the course of debate upon the commercial part of the question, it has been afiirmed, that if we do not adoj)t the proposed treaty, we shall jeopard our relations with the United States, and shall so embarrass them as to produce consequences not onl^ grievous, but frightful and disastrous. The orator whom you have just heard has explained very clearly the principles which ought to govern nations in their commercial relations. I am sui'prised that, after he had so vrell explained tliem, he did not make the application of them to our true situation. In fact, gentlemen, the (lays of wars of custom-houses are past witli enliglitencd nations, with those who understand and practise a sound commercial theory. We no longer impose duties to injure a neighboring people. We impose them because it is our interest to do so ; and, as we know very well that retal- iations are bad, we renounce them altogether. What is the p(5sition of the United States with respect to us ? In order to show that, I am forced to go back to the treaty of cession of Louisiana ; and I am under the greater necessity of doing so, since the honorable M. Duchatel has treated so liglitly tlie 8t!i article of the treaty of Louisiana, upon which the whole question rests. Wtien Napoleon desired to cede Louisiana to the United States, it was not a litigated right which he wished to cede to tliem. Spain had made a full and entire abandonment to us. The cession 021 her part was not com|)letely executed ; but the French au- thorities had been several months in Louisiana, in order to receive posses- sion, which was much desired by the inhabitants. It was in tliis state of things that Napoleon concluded the treaty of ces- sion. The Spaniards, who had [)rotested at first, no longer tiiouglit of op- posing any obstacle to its execution. M. Lambot, as Prefect, took possession in the name of France, and the American authorities received from the French authoi'ities, and not from those of Spain, the possession and the i proprietorship of t!ie State. No doubt tlien exists as to the entire right of France ; no doubt as to the honest intention and the importance of the two conditions of the cession. A sum of eighty millions, of which twenty were applicable to the claims of the U)iiteere [)rcseiited for dis- cussion, •before that which was to confirm the treaty. We do not riispute tiie rigiit of tlie Chamber to debate one law in pre- ference to anotiier; but we do say that Ih.c iniiMsters, liaving a reasonable assurance of a majority in the Chamber, might easily iiave obtained a fair hearing for the law relative to the treaty with the United States. They did not endeavor to do so, and we find ourselves to-day almost com- pelled to accept this treaty. In a word, \\c are jilaced in a position in which a refusal will ap])ear almost an outrage to the Government with which we treat. Is that the ])osition we siiould occupy ? Ilivvo the minis- ters nothing to reproach themselves v> ith ? Do they wish to snake the vote of the ChaUiber of Deputies a n^ere rrgisterii)g ? Is it not with tiiis law as with those gj-anting su])plementary aj)[)ro|)riations, and v,hicli aie proposed to us in the name of necessity, with tiie words — the expense has been iruuu'red, and must be repaid ? If such a situation riroduces ditliculty, and some lit- tle loss of dignity, it is not the fault of the Chamber; gentlemen, you know to whom tlje fault belongs. But, gentlemen, if you do not accept tlie treaty, you endanger an import- ant commerce. The United States will absolutely exclude }oiir silks. You put to hazard all the tariffs which regulate your commerce with the United States. — In reply to that assertion, I only supposeone thing, namely, that in fact the United States may liavc no interest in admitting yom- silks ; that it may be their interest to exclude them, and to modify their tarifi'of du- ties. Now, I ask you, after the treaty shall ha\e been ratified, i\nd tiie pay- ment made, what is to prevent the United States from changing their tariff and excluding our silks ? It would \w here only a deliiy uffour or five years. In fact, nothing is less certain than the prett-nded disngcr : and, as I said at the beginning, that nation which. is essentially calculating and prudent, will regulate its conduct by its commercial interests. In statitg that the Americans would renounce tiie French silk trade, and relinquish the con- sum])tion of articles to which they give a preference, hear in what language the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed himself yesterday. The words are very important; I request the attention of the Chamber. "It will be unnecessary for me to dwell upon considerations of public order, which are inseparable from the (piestion. I will only observe to the Chamber that, if by a decision, which I must be permitted to call de- plorable, there should be suddenly produced any great discouragement in many branches of .our industry, any great disturbance in our foreign markets, it would multiply considerably the chances of disorder in our country ; and that the least of these inconveniences would oblige us to do for Bourdeaux, for Lyons, and for other cities, what we have been com- pelled to do for La Vendee, to increase our military establishment. It would not be necessary that this increase should be very great, to absorb the saving which is proposed for the relief of the tax payers." • I read a little further : " As to the responsibility for events and consequences, from this mo- ment, gentlemen, it no longer rests with us;;oiir task is finished — yours commences." * 34 522 f Doc. No. 2. J Thus, gentlemen, you see in what light you care to consider the discus- sion. If you reject the law, you are told the commerce of silks and wines of France will cease in America ; this interruption will inevitably induce disturbances at Lyons, and even at Bourdeaux ; and these disturbances will be productive of such violent movements, that it will be necessary to increase your military force. And these words fell from the lips of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ! Observe, first, gentlemen, their etl'ect abroad ; for you must know that this tribune has its echoes ; that the language here uttered is heard afar, especially when it falls from the mouth of a minister of the King. Henceforv.ard, gentlemen, all nations having commercial relations with us, either essential or advantageous to our industry, are invited, are en- couraged, to bring forward their claims against us, well or ill founded, and to carry their pretensions as high as they please ; since all then can threaten, after the language of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to inter- rupt their commerce with you in case of refusal, and involve the nation in the most violent troubles. It is of little importance, when the consequences may be so serious, that the language of the minister was addressed to the Chamber of De- puties, to the elected Representatives of Fiance. Now, if in effect it should happen, by any misfortune, that the labors of the silk manufacto- ries of Lyons should be suspended ; that the products should remain on hand ; that new troubles should break forth in consequence, in the second city of the kingdom, to what cause would they be attributed? Who would be pointed out to the animosity of the workmen, suffering with liunger and distress? You — you who have refused to vote for a treaty oppressive and burdensome to France. Recently an article has been pointed out to you, inserted in the official journal, which exposed the Chamber of Deputies to the animosity of the army, on account of a reduction which they voted in the war budget. The ministers of the King have honestly disavowed that article ; it is only to be regretted that it has not been explained how it came to be admitted in a journal where no political article can get access without their order or authority. It is not in a newspaper article to-day that an attack, no less severe, has been made upon the Chamber. From this tribune even has it been proclaimed to the workmen — if employment fails, if the com- merce in silks, which feeds you, languishes, declines, or is threatened with annihilation, you may attribute your miseries to the Chamber of De- puties, which refuses to sanction a treaty perhaps unjust, but which they ought to accept as a necessary sacrifice, in order to purchase the continu- ance of our commercial relations. In making this explanation, gentlemen, I certainly do not arraign the intentions of the minister whose words I have recited ; but I cannot avoid remarking, that this language, intended to make an impression upon your minds, will have a wider range and a more dangerous tendency. In this state of things, as I do not participate in those fears, so I hope jow will not; and, above all, gentlemen, that you will not accept the ti eaty as a yoke which you must bear. I think that if it were for us to deter- mine the clauses of the treaty, we could propose an amendment, and of- fer to treat, if I may so express myself, by compromise ; and in order to terminate all discussions, we could vote a sum often or twelve millions; [ Doc. No. 2. J 523 but to grant that only on condition of obtaining justice for our claim under the 8th article of the treaty of cession of Louisiana, seeing that this arti- cle possesses much greater importance than has been given to it — an im- portance acknowledged by the United States themselves. But we are debating upon a treaty which we cannot modify. Then let us not hesitate to reject it ; a refusal will not be the signal of a rup- ture between the United States and France. The immediate conse- quence of a rejection will be an overture for, and conclusion of, a new and more equal convention, based upon right and justice, in which the interests of France, and those of the United States, will be both attend- ed to. M. Jay, reporter to the committee. Gentlemen : The question submitted to you is of so much importance, that I hope you will listen with attention to the reflections which the re- porter of your committee is charged to present to you. Numerous objections have been raised against the bill which is submit- ted to your deliberations. Never has a more spirited opposition been manifested ; never have discordant opinions been more effectually con- centrated in order to defeat a proposition of the Government ; in this there is nothing to surprise us. With some, the difficulty lies in embracing, in all its parts, a question so complicated ; with others, it is a very natural desire of escaping from a pecuniary sacrifice, which is never yielded to but with repugnance ; and we too, gentlemen, we have deplored this sa- crifice ; and it is only after a long discussion of the inconveniences and advantages of the treaty ; after having maturely weighed the justice of the American claims, that our conviction has been formed, and that we have decided, out of regard both to the moral and pecuniary interests of the. country, to propose to you the adoption of this bill. The objections which have been presented to you may be divided into two classes — general objections, and particular objections. 1 proceed to examine them in succession. The decrees of Berlin and Milan were just in their application to thci commerce of the United States, since the Federal Government did not make its flag respected. This objection has been twice presented at this tribune. 1 shall only examine it in regard to the public morals, which, as M. Lamarline has said, is the highest of all interests. Our honorable colleague, M. Bigrion, has said to you, << that a neutral Government, placed between t\\ o belligerent parties, which does not make its flag respected by one of them, has no right to demand that it shall be respected by the other." These words have been pronounced with so much assurance as an axiom of public law, that I have considered the proposi- tion in all its aspects, in order to determine its correctness ; and after a mature examination, I do not hesitate to declare that it is immoral, and contrary to the first principles of national law. It might be made the fundamental principle of a code of maritime depredation ; and this I pro- ceed to prove. In order that a neutral vessel placed between two belligerent partiea may make its flag respected, it is necessary to admit, at least, that it have the necessary strength to command and obtain this respect; otherwise, jou justify injustice by injustice. I reject this justification in the name of 524 [ Doc. No. 2. J humanity and reason. It would result, from the principles avowed by M. Bignon, that weakness justifies spoliation. A merchant vessel belonging to a neutral Power might find herself under the guns of an English fri- gate ; she might be forced to submit to an examination of her papers and merchandise. Tiiis operation at an end, she might resume her voyage, and meet, perhaps the same day, a French cruiser ; and because she had suffered a visit which she had not power to prevent, she is to be seized and condemned. Here is an exemplificatioti of what is given to us as a principle of tlic law of nations. Fortunately, I can oppose to M. Bignon a most respectable authority; and that authority is himself. To lender the proposition of our honorable colleague admissible, it should be thus modified. A neutral Government placed between two belligerent Powers, and strong enough to defend the honor of its flag, ought to make it respected by both parties. This is precisely what the Americans did. As soon as they had a tolerable navy, they de- clared war against Englarjd ; and that, in order to have their flag respected. Well, notwithstanding this perilous situation, at war with a maritime Power like England, depredations were committed by us on their commerce. Tiiese depredations are entered on one of the lists which were used in calculating the indemnification. Again, it has been said, " as it is easy to demonstrate that in the course of the war, and by means of the war, the Americans have in different ways obtained much n^ore than a compensation for their losses, it follows that the amount of indemnificatiorj, in the present case, should be reduced very low." It is, perhaps, for thc^first time, that the legitimate benefits derived by a neutral nation, from tlie natural extension of its commerce, are urged as a compensation for its losses, caused by a violation of the law of nations, and for which it claims satisfaction. Undoubtedly the United States, under the circumstances in which they were placed, and with their wise policy, did profit by occurrences which unsettled the whole world. The victims of the fury of all parties — the oppressed of all nations — ail those who sought a refuge from the general storm — found protection and safety in the United States. They carried there, some their wealth, others their talents and industry. Thus, in the course of t!ie war, and by means of the war, their population and their resources were increased. It is by this means, and by tlieir commerce, that they have raised up a maritime force, to which we shall, one day, owe the great blessing of the liberty of the seas. But, I ask you, what is there in common between these causes of pros- perity and the claims of quiet citizeas, who, against all right, all justice, have been violently stripped of their property, and ruined by illegal con- fiscations ? How can the ])iosperity of a State be a compensation to an unfortunate man reduced to misery ? A Government is the natural pi'otector of its subjects : it cannot aban- don their cause without risking its own dignity. As the private indi- vidual cannot enforce his i-ights, his Government is under an obligation to have them respected : it is a tacit convention between the members of a society t'.nd the power which rcijresents it. A citizen may abandon his rights; a Government never. Such are the principles of tlie law of [ Doc. No. 2. J 525 nations, which it is in vain to endeavor to obscure by sophisms. The American Government presents in this case an example by wliich all free Governments would do well to profit. No one can reproacli it for this. In claiming indemnification for its citizens unjustly despoiled, it but dis- charges a duty. It is yours to examine whether the demand is just or unjust. No otiier consideration ought to influence your deliberations : and the justice of this claim has been constantly acknowledged for twenty years. Our colleague, the deputy from Eure, (M. Bignon,) has said to you that debts from one State to another are not sucii as improve by age : thus, the older a debt is, the more justice there is in refusing to pay it. This is a principle of morals entirely behind our age, and one which I cannot admit : besides, the present question is not concerning a debt from one State to another : it is a debt from a State to the citizens of another country : it is not the Federal Government that has suffered ; it is the American mer- chants who have sustained the damage for which reparation is demanded. 1 will riow answer an objection presented by M. Boissy d'Anglas the American Government ought to take into consideration the services which France rendered to the United States during the war of independence. Undoubtedly the armed intervention of France was a great assistance to the United States in their contest with England. The Americans have not forgotten it : the remembrance of the bravery and discipline of the French army, of the good conduct, disinterestedness, and skill of its illustrious chief, Marshal Rochambeau, will be always jjopular in the United States : but it is here that we may say, the services of one State to anotiier do not improve by age. It was not only by sympathy in the independence and libwty of the English colonies that the French Govern- ment was led to form an alliarice with tliem : it dctermir.ed to efface, if possible, the disgrace which it had contracted by the treaty of 1763 ; to weaken England, and restore the balance among the maritime Powers. That war had not a sentimental object; it had a political object : it was for the interest of France that it was undeitaken. This service rendered to the United States, from calculation, does not in any manner justify spo- liations which have been committed to the prejudice of Ameiican citizens. It is proposed to us to follow the example of the Restoration, which was never willing to acknowledge the American claims. It is certain that there has been more sympathy with the republic of the United States since the revolution of July, than existed under the Restoration : there is no need of explaining the reasons. However, it would be unjust to say that the ministers of tlie Restorjition denied the justice of the American claims; they acted like debtors v.ho plainly acknowledge their debts, but never pay them. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has explained to you with great clearness the different phases of the negotiations which "were carried on at tliat period. You have seen that the Americans were not willing to join the Pov.ers which coalesced against France, and profited by our disasters to exhaust our treasury. If the»United States liad enter- ed into the Holy Alliance, they would have had nothing to ask of us at this day. They are blamed for having resumed the negotiation after the revolution of July. It is said they have been too impatient. Observe, gentlemen, that they have been negotiating for twenty years ; certainly, if they have shown some impatience to come to a conclusion, I cannot re- proach them for it ; much less discern in that circumstance a sufficient 526 [ Doc. No. 2. J cause for refusing them justice. The ministry of which M. Casimir Pe- rier w as ])iesi(Jent, has been censured witfi bitterness ; it has been said that no other ministry would have approved the treaty. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs has nobly refused the exception. No com- plaint, as I have already said, was raised at t!ie time against the treaty. The decision of M. Casimir Perier was drawn from high political con- siderations. It was necessary to extend our commercial relations ; to revive our then languishing manufaclures ; to draw closer the bonds of friendship with a free people, who had received with enthusiasm the news of the revolution of July. And what was required to accomplish these ends ? A simple act of justice, which did honor to the nation and its Government. Motives, which were then very powerful, appear to have lost their force to-day. But, gentlemen, is our future so certain that you are willing to risk a rupture with a friendly nation, which, under the Directory and un- der the Empire submitted to so many violations of the law of nations, without committing against us a single act of hostility ; and which, at the crisis when the Empire was sinking, was at war with our most formidable enemy ? And to enable us to dispense with being just, I ask you, have we made an eternal compact with peace ? I have now arrived at the last general objection which has been presented to you against the treaty. You have been told that <'for eighty licenses the United States were willing to liberate France from her whole debt to them. Napoleon falls ; it is not eighty vessels that are admitted into «ur ports; they arrive by hundreds, without any condition, and without regard to the country from which they may come." It is hence concluded that the American Government complains with a bad grace, after having been so largely indemnified. Gentlemen, I am embarrassed to know how to treat this objection. It has been said that it was not serious ; and if I did not know that the speaker who has submitted it to you (M. Bignon) has a character as serious as his talents are elevated, I should be tempted to think so myself. It is ne- cessary, then, that I should resolve to examine it seriously. There is a great difference of opinion as to the value of the licenses which were issued by the Government during the continental blockade. I think I recollect that they were then very much sought after, and that they bore a considerable value. In estimating them at 500,000 francs, {and I do not think that this estimate is exaggerated,) it was a sum of forty millions that the United States would have received as a compensation for the indemnification due to them. The fall of the Empire brought about iinother„order of things. Peace was re-established, and the ports of France were opejied to the commerce of all maritime Powers. How can any one assimilate the exercise of a right common to all nations, to privileged li- censes which would have profited only a single nation, and which would have conferred advantages from which the others would have been ex- cluded ? This, gentlemen, passes my conception. If the United States had been allowed to bring into France the products of the colonies, they would have reaped great advantages, which might have served to in- demnify their citizens, because these colonial products were then of con- siderable value : but when peace was made, this kind of merchandise fell, in consequence thereof, to its natural price, and nothing remained to the merchants, of whatever country they might be, but the profits of ordinary •commerce. These two situations were very different, and, as I have just said, no similitude can be established between them. [ Doc. No. 2. ] 527 M. Bignon affirms that, after the treaties of 1800 and 1803, tlie United States were expressly engaged to France not to suflier any violation of their essential rights ; and from this he draws tlie conclusion, that hecause the United States did not resist from the beginning the aggressions of Great Britain, they have failed in their engagement towards France. In such serious matters the first duty is exactness. M'ell, gentlemen. I have read those treaties, and there is not a word in tl:en1 of what M. Bignon has told you ; there is not a passage from \\hich one can even infer such an engagement. It is not true, moreover, that the United States submitted quietly to the outrages of the two belligerent Powers. The embargo which has been spoken of, the non-intercourse ad, and, above all, the war of 1812, prove that we cannot, without injustice, accuse them of not having sus- tained their dignity as an indejjendent nation. A great deal has been said about the cession of Louisiana. Exaggera- tion is an oratorical ait, as well as any other ; but it ought not to be made use of before an assembly of grave and enlightened men. There is no one among us who does not know tiiat thd Emperor ceded lliis colony oiily be- cause he knew that he could not keep it. In ceding it to the United States, lie saved it from the grasp of England j and eighty millions were the price of this politic cessioj). You have been told of ihe immense injui-y thai has been caused by the infraction of the 8th article of the treaty of 1803. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, by the aid of very simple calculations, has demonstrated to you that the compensation establislicd by the reduction of the duties on our wines, and, I will add, by tlie removal of the import duties upon our silks, is advantageous to our commerce ; and that we cannot lose such an advantage without disturbance in our manufacturing and commercial towns. After having exhausted the series of general objections, I corae now to the particular objections ; to those, at least, which appear to be of a nature to fix your attention. I ought, first, to repel an inconsiderate reproach, which I have been sur- prised to hear from the mouth of a colleague assisted in the deliberations of your committee. It relates to the list comprising twelve vessels seized before the 1 st of November, 1810, and condemned subsequently ; that is to say, after the ab- solute revocation of the prohibitory decrees. " I reveal this fact," says M. Bignon, " that the Chamber may see \\\\\\\\\\^i indulgence the Ameri- can claims have been listened to." Here I do not wish, and I ought not, to accuse M. Bignon of any thing but a want of attention or of memory ; and I would be understood as making this reservation. He has forgotten that we brought to bear, with all the force of which we were capable, the motives for not admitting this list, and that we carried the respective values outside of the estimate of those ac- knowledged asjust;(yiJejW^e 4 17;) submitting the question moreover to the decision of the Chamber. No, gentlemen, there has been in the discussions of your committee neither partiality for the immoral system of confisca- tion, nor indulgence towards the claims w Inch have been the consequences of it. We have considered ourselves as arbiters in a transaction in which it was necessary to bring together and reconcile opposing interests. We have also taken into serious consideration our actual situation, and the ir- reparable damage which might be caused to our commerce and manufac- 528 [ Doc. No. 2. ] tures by the rupture of a treaty which the United States have looked upon for three years as a thing accomplished. Do not suiler yourselves to be seduced, gentlemen, by assertions which are hazarded, but whiqh events will not fail to falsify. Our honorable col- league has told you, wittf an atSrmative tone, that the rejection of the treaty would have no influence upon the relations of friendship and commeVce that exist between France and the United States ; that we need not fear any augmentation of the duties in the ports of the Union, either upon our wines or our silks. Gentlemen, do not place confidence in such assertions ; they might draw you into a decision for v.hich you would be alone respon- sible to the country, and of which, enlightened by experience, you would • some day bitterly regret the sad results. What particularly interested your committee was, toknov/ whether we did or did not owe indemnification to the United States. The debt has never been denied, not even, as I have told you, under the Restoratipn. The only dispute has been about the amount of the sum due. We have made a compromise ; but what is a compromise ? It is an agreement, say the writers on public lav.', by which, without determining precisely upon the justice of the opposing pretensions, there is a relaxation on both sides, until the parties come to an arrangement. It is in politics the means of terminating peaceably the differences which spring up between two inde- pendent nations, whose interest it is to live in friendship. It is, above all, in this viev/, as a compromise, that your committee has considered the treaty of 1831. If it has discussed secondary questions, it was that it might have the right to say to you that the estimate of the indemnifica- tion had been made conscientiously, and after mature reflection ; for as to the fundamental question, to ascertain whether you ought to adopt the pro- posed bill, it has only consulted the good of the country, and has been influenced in its decision only by motives of justice, and of political and commercial interest. Some speakers have attacked the bases of valuation upon which we have proceeded, for determining the amount of the indemnification. I will not here return to the calculations which have been presented to you, either in the report of your committee, or at this tribune. I will cite to you one fact, which will prove that we have adopted the most moderate rates in the calculation of our estimates. We have estimated only at 13,000 francs each the whole number of one hundred and thirty-four vessels, for which indemnification was allowed. I ask of all the honorable members of the Chamber, who know any thing about shipbuilding, who know, above all, the value of manual labor on the other side of the Atlantic, \vhether.it was possible to adopt a lower standard of value ? I come, finally, to the objection which appears to have made the greatest impression upon the Chamber. " It is not to the United States," it has been said, " that France will pay the twenty-five millions, but to some speculators who have purchased at a low price the American claims." Gentlemen, even if the assertion were true, we ought still to accept the treaty, but it rests only upon vague rumors ; we have required that one fact should be cited, one single fact ; we have not been able to obtain an answer. Well, gentlemen, I will myself cite to you a respectable authority, which will prove to you what little confidence you ought to place in the rumors of which I have just spoken. An honorable member of the bar of Paris, [ Doc. No. 2. ] 529 who has been an advocate in the Court of Cassation, M. de Lagrange, who enjovs general esteem, has addressed to me a letter, of which he has authorized me to make use. I find in it the following passage: " M. Bignon has insinuated that the indemnification had become the prey of speculators. Leaving aside the great publicity of the commission for liquidation sitting at Washington, I am led to think that he has been incorrectly informed, because the numerous demands for documents which I receive from the United States, are addressed to me by the individical owners of the captured vessels i have formerly defended." At the close of this long and painful discussion, I have only to present to the Chamber some general observations. I am not astonished at the differences of opinion which have sprung up on the subject of the treaty of 1831 . These differences existed also among your committee. It was only after having consulted all the documents ; after having received all the explanations which it was possible to obtain; after having ascertained the truth of all the official statements, and of all the calculations, that your committee, of which M. Bignon was one, decided unanimously to acknowledge that the demand of the United States was just in principle, and, by a majority of eight voices against one, that the rate of indemnification had been conscientiously regulated. Now, gentlemen, I would say, if I did not know your loyalty, that you have the power of refusing to be just; that there is no superior tribunal to which an appeal can be taken from your decision. Itis])recisely because your position is such, that you ought to guard yourselves against all influ- ence of position or party, against all prejudice arising from personal in- terest. The question is one of justice. It is, above all, to nations that are free and proud of their liberty, that it belongs to give to the world lessons of high morality. Be assured that the enemies of your revolution await with anxiety the issue of your deliberations ; and that they would applaud a result which would have the effect of separating two nations, which ought to remain united in the interest of liberty and civilization. Our true position, in this respect, could not escape a man so enlighten- ed and of so pure a patriotism as M. Bignon. "It cannot be disputed," he has said, " that when a treaty has been three years in existence, the Government, to which its stipulations are advantageous, has a right to be-« lieve that its benefits are fully secured. Such is in fact the situation of the Federal Government. This Government would have to complain, not of us, but of our cabinet, for having been so long left under the per- suasion that the stipulations of 1831 would be confirmed. The sacrifice which you will make under these circumstances, you will make (and it is important that the Federal Government should be convinced of it) to a delicate and generous sentiment, for which it will give you credit." I wish, indeed, that the sacrifice of which M. Bignon speaks may be made to a sentiment of delicacy and generosity. Those sentiments agree perfectly with justice and public interest ; but from whatever motive you may decide in favor of the treaty of 1831, you will not the less have ren- dered an eminent service to your commerce and your manufactures. See, gentlemen, what England did in a situation similar to that in which we are placed. The United States claimed indemnification for spoliations committed upon their commerce. The English Parliament did 580 [ Doc. No. 2. ] not hesitate to acknwledge the justice of their claims, and thirty-two mil- lions were allowed to the United States. Gentlemen, in coming to this tribune to deposite your votes in the urn, ask yourselves if you are willing to become responsible for the conse- quences of a rupture of the treaty ; if you are willing to answer to the country for the disasters which it may bring upon your commerce and your manufactures. It is at once a question of justice and of national interest. It is under this double aspect that it has been viewed by your committee, which persists in its conclusions. M. Berryer. I request the Chamber not to close the general discussion until I have addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question which appears to me to be of the greatest importance in respect to the principal object of the law. If the Chamber will permit me to make the inquiry, I will limit myself to a single question. Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in endeavoring to show that the amount of the indemnification of 25,000,000 had been re- gulated upon fixed bases, presented to you, in four distinct classes, the objects of the American claims. Leaving aside the first of these classes, I pass to the second. It concerned American vessels seized before the United States could have known of the decree of Rambouillet, in the ports of St. Sebastian, Bilboa, and Les Passages. According to the notes which I have taken of his speech, the minister said that there were in these three ports twenty-eight American vessels and thirty-five cargoes, which were taken possession of by the French agents; and he even remarked, that the American vessels entered those ports only upon the invitation of a French commander, M. Thouvenot. It is proper to add, gentlemen, that, according to the minister, the ves- sels seized at St. Sebastian, Bilboa, and Les Passages, are almost the only ones as to the value of which there are any data that are at all cer- tain. The sales made in those ports have served to fix this value, and give an average of 221,482 francs and 20 centimes ; so that, according to the calculations of the minister, the thirty-five vessels and cargoes con- fiscated in the three Spanish ports by the French agents would present a *total value of 7,831,873 francs; and it is for these 7,851,873 francs that the confiscated vessels are included in the total allowance of 25,000,000. Thus, according to the minister, in giving 25,000,000 to the United States, 7,851,873 were given to them for the vessels confiscated in the ports of Spain. Now, I ask the minister how it is that the French Government, treat- ing with the United States for the redress of all their grievances suffered from France, among which are included an amount of nearly 8,000,000 for the confiscations made in Spanish ports, has paid no regard to the treaty by which this claim has been settled, and definitively settled, be- tween Spain and the United States ? The terms of the treaty concluded the 22d of February, 1819, between the Spanish Government and the United States, are substantially as follows : The Spanish Government cedes the Floridas to the United States. The stipulations, which were the conditions of this transfer, framed in the same spirit with the cession of Louisiana in 1803, by the French Government, are these : [ Doc. No. 2. ] 531 " The two high contracting parties, animated with the most earnest desire of reconciliation, and with the object of putting an end to all the differences which have existed between them, and of confirming the good understanding which they wish to be forever maintained between them, reciprocally renounce all claims for damages or injuries which they them- selves, as well as their respective citizens and subjects, may have suffer- ed, until the time of signing this treaty. " The renunciation of the United States will extend, "1. To all the injuries mentioned in the convention of the 11th of August, 1802. " 2. To all claims on account oi' prizes made by French privateers^ and condemned by French consuls^ ivithin the territory and jurisdiction of Spain y " Article 1 1 . The United States exonerate Spain from all demands in future, on account of the claims of the citizens to wliich the renuncia- tions herein contained extend, considering them entirely cancelled, and undertaking to make satisfaction for the same to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars." Finally, "Article 14. The United States hereby certify that they have not received any compensation from France for the injuries they sulfered from her privateers, consuls, and tribunals, on the coasts and in the ports of Spain ; for the satisfaction of which, provision is made by this treaty; and they will present an authentic statement of the prizes made, and of their true value, that Spain may avail herself of the same, in such manner as she may deem just and proper." Thus, gentlemen — A Member. Those are not seizures made by Government, but by privateers. The President. M. Berry er has not finished. Let him speak. You shall answer him directly. M. Berryer. " For the injuries they suffered from these privateers, these consuls, and these tribunals, on the coasts, and in the ports of Spain." The ob- jects of the indemnification are, then, the seizures made in the Spanish ports. You see, gentlemen, that the Government of the United States receives a compensation for this class of its claims in the cession of the Floridas ; that the Government of the United States obliges itself to in- demnify its own subjects for the damages caused by the French Govern- ment ; and that, in fine, the claim of the United States, if claim there be, is transferred to Spain, which, in its turn, may prefer claims against France. This would then be a question between us and Spain ; and the United States are completely uninterested in the seizures, the confiscations, and the condemnations, which took place during the French occupation of Spain. Thus 8,000,000 are to be deducted from the 25,000,000 which we allow. It is on this point that I ask an explanation. Several Members. It is not difficult to give it. M. Berryer. We shall see. 532 [ Boc. No. 2. ] The Minister of Foreign Affairs. The explanation which the honorable member asks is not difficult to give. The treaty of which he speaks, and of which I have but a very- imperfect knowledge, as it does not at all concern France, has nothing to do with the question of the vessels seized at Bilboa, Les Passages, and St. Sebastian, in 1809. These vessels had been attracted into those ports hy the invitations of the French General who commanded them, on the part of France. They were seized, and were not captured by privateers ; they were not tried before French tribunals ; in fine, they did not come within any of the classes just enumerated. I should like to have before me the treaty of which the honorable member has spoken, in order to make the comparison. These vessels had been attracted into the ports of Bilboa, Les Passages, and St. Sebastian, by the invitations of the French Governor. On the 10th of February, 1810, a secret order was issued to seize the vessels and their cargoes, and to bring them into Bayonne. It was then that they fell under the decree of Rambouiliet, which directed that they should be sold, and the proceeds deposited as consignments. Afterwards came the decree of Trianon, which ordained that the money thus depo- sited as consignments should be transferred to the public Treasury. These are the facts as they transpired between the American Govern- ment and the French Government. The treaty which has just been cited had for its object to settle the debt of Spain to the United States of America ; and by no means to settle the debt due by France to the American Government, arising from events which occurred within the Spanish territory. These ships were seized in Spain, but were taken to France, and there confiscated. They are by no means comprised in the treaty which has just been spoken of; they were very legitimately included in the calcu- lation of the estimates which I submitted yesterday to the Chamber. M. Berryer. I believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is not very familiar with the treaty of 1819, did not comprehend the terms of that treaty when I read it. It is evident that the question here is as to the indemnification granted by the Spanish Government, on account of claims founded on lists of cap- tures, proceeded upon by French tribunals and French consuls, in the Spanish territory. These are the terms of the article. Permit me again to read it. A Member. And the transfer to Bayonne. M. Berryer. The transfer to Bayonne. You v.ill see if the treaty does not apply to that. What do the United States give up ? And what do they receive in exchange .'' [M. Berryer reads the treaty again.] The Minister of Foreign Affairs has told you that the treaty has no relation to any thing which interests France, or to any thing which France may owe. But, on the contrary, the 14th article relates specially to what r Doc Ko. 2. ] 533 the United States might have demanded from France ; and these very- pretensions they give up to Spain. It is then evident that this is a satisfaction granted by Spain for claims ■which the Government of the United States might urge against France, since the United States thought themselves obliged to declare that they had received nothing on account of them from France. Novv^ we shall clear av.ay all that is equivocal in the case. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has prepared a statement of losses, depredations, and confiscations, which he has valued according, to uncer- tain bases, at 25,000,000. He has pointed out, besides, two or three classes which would raise the debt to twenty-eight millions. Since he has collected with so much care all the documents which could prove the prizes made b}' French privateers, and the condemnations pronounced against the United States, has he prepared another distinct statement of what is included in this treaty ? France has never been subjected to any other claims by reason of the conduct of her consuls, of her agents, of her tribunals. It is evident that we are paying eight millions which Spain has already paid. The Minister of Foreign Affairs. Not one of these vessels was captured by French privateers ; not one was pronounced upon by French consuls ; not one vvas pronounced upon by French tribunals ; consequently, there is not one to which the article just spoken of is applicable. They were confiscated by an order of the Cabinet. [After some difference as to the right of the floor ^] M. Mauguix. This incident v/as sufficient to show you how little the matter has been examined. In truth, what was the first word spoken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs ? It was, that he had a very confused recollection of the treaty made between Spain and the United States for the cession of the Florid as. What ! (he minister has a confused recollection of a treaty which ought to form one of the principal bases of the negotiation ! During 'the period of our great wars, the ports of Spain being open to us, our privateers carried their prizes into them, and our consuls pro- nounced condemnation. The United States, then, had a right to demand indemnification from Spain, because it was in Spain that the injury was committed ; and from , France, because it was the French that caused the injury. It became indispensable then to know what prizes were taken into the ports of Spain by our privateers ; it became indispensable to know what claims of the United States were paid by Spain by n^eans of the cession of the Floridas; and, in truth, it is impossible to arrive at an exact know- ledge of our debt, without first knowing the portion of it which has been paid by Spain, In the treaty of 1819, the United States estimated their claims at five millions of dollars. This single estimate proves that they had forgotten nothing ; it proves that a gueat part, at least, if not the whole, ol tlie damage done by our marine to the marine of the United States was paid 534 [ Doc. No. 2. ] by the cession of the Floridas ; and, consequently, Spain may one day have claims to urge against us, and we shall be liable to pay twice on the same account. This is not the only case, gentlemen, which may serve to show you how imperfectly this matter has been examined. You have been spoken to continually about the treaty for the cession of Louisiana ; but there are some things which have not been mentioned. I have seen, by the report, of your committee, that they have not at all attended to that treaty. When the French ministers demanded of the United States reparation for the injuries which resulted to France from the non-execution of the treaty of 1803, it is pretended that the United States offered to grant to our shipping the privileges of the most favored nation, upon condition that we would grant the same advantages to the American shipping. The United States could not hold this language ; it was contrary to the treaty. Your ministry, if they had acquiesced, would have proved that the treaty was not understood by them. According to the convention, we ought always to enjoy in the ports of Louisiana the same privileges as the most favored nation. [Denial from the ministerial bench.] I have ascertained its truth ; the 8th article pro- vides that in the ceded ports of Louisiana we should enjoy forever the same privileges as the most favored nation. Whenever I affirm a thing, you may be sure that I have ascertained the truth of it. The Minister of Foreign Affairs. That we shall see presently. M. Mauguin. Be it so. We shall see whether there are two different editions of the same treaty. [M. IsAMBERT hands to the Speaker a copy of the treaty.] M. Mauguin. Here is the text : " Art. 8. In future, and forever after the expiration of the twelve years, the ships of France shall be treated upon the footing of the most favored nations, in the ports above mentioned." The Minister of Foreign Affairs. Look at article the 7th. M. Mauguin. Look at article the 7th ! It is very long, but if you wish, I will read it to you. — [ Yes ! Yes !] The Minister of Foreign Affairs. 1 You will see that they have assured to France, for twelve years, the . same treatment which their own vessels have, and — [Noise.] M. Mauguin. *' Art. 7. Shall be admitted during the space of twelve years, in the ports of New Orleans, and in all other legal ports of entry within the ceded territory" — F7'om the ministerial bench. — For twelve years. M. Mauguin. That is what I said. For twelve years we were to be exempt from .A. [ Doc. Mo. 2. J 535 duty in the ceded territories, und we were to be treated forever in the ceded ports upon the footing of the most favored nation. [Ves ! Yes ! That is it.'\ But this is one of the conditions of the cession of Louisiana ; conse- H quently, it is a part of the price of that cession. The United States could not impose upon tlie exercise of our right a new condition of reciprocity. We were entitled to enjoy it without re- ciprocity. . We had the right in the ceded ports for twelve years to pay no more than the Americans themselves, and we had the light forever to pay no more than the most favored nation ; and if the United States have failed to perform those conditions, it does not follow that our right has ceased. It is like a sale of real estate, upon which the seller may always return if the price is not paid. Here the rules of the civil law are applicable ; they belong also to the law of nations. Then all the reasonings which have been presented at the tribune in explanation of motives, and even in the report of the committee, are done away. The matter has not been suffi- ciently studied ; our right has not been made known to the United States. They may have been ignorant of it, or they may have disregarded it. Be it so ; they negotiated for themselves ; but you, you were cliarged to negotiate for France. Hoav, then, is it that you were ignorant of our treaty and our rights ? It has been said that the Restoration was upon the point of negotiation when it was overthrown. This is an error ; and I shall relate a particular fact in regard to it, which will have influence, and which, moreover, does honor to a man now in misfortune. [Hear ! Hear !] The Chamber appointed Messrs. Madier de Montjau, Berenger, and myself, commissioners for the purpose of conducting the trial of the late ministers of Charles X, and we went to Vincennes in order to proceed with the interrogatories. It is needless to say to you that these interro- gatories were conducted as they ought to be in every criminal case. We gave M. dePolignac, when we were interrogating him, some time for rest ; and, during that interval, we entered into conversation. We were speaking (I do not know how it happened) upon the subject of the American claims ; I appeal to the recollection of my colleagues ; and the expression of M. Polignac does him honor. When these claims were mentioned, he cried out, under the impulse of national feeling, " Take care, we owe them nothing; I have studied the question; we owe them nothing !" This exclamation was uttered with so much energy, that it showed a patriotic feeling to which I am happy always to do justice. I told M. de Polignac so at the time. We read his se- cret correspondence on the subject of the East, and we then found, with astonishment, I confess, that his policy was frank, firm, and French ; more so, perhaps, than the policy of the existing ministry. [Interriip- iion.] Since chance has led me to speak of the old ministry, I here express my regret, that when I was called upon by the Chamber of Peers for my evidence, the accused ministers seemed to be afraid of my deposition. Their fears determined me to abstain. I should only have stated, how- ever, in regard to M. de Polignac, the two facts of which I have just spoken, because they do him honor ; and I should also have stated, in 536 [ Doc. No. 2. J favor of M. Peyronnet, a fact which is equally honorable to him, [excla- matio7is,] which is, that we are indebted to him, and to him alone, for the return of the deserters fr^m the army of Spain. [Disturbance.] I return to the question. Here, then, are two circmnstances which show that the question has not been studied. In the first place, no at- tention has been paid to the treaty with Spain ; and, in the next place, the treaty made between us and the United States, respecting the ces- sion of Louisiana, has been misapprehended. I will add, that the ex- amination of this question, as it respects the commercial relations of France and the United States, has been equally neglected. The United States furnish us with raw materials, cotton, woods and tobacco. France consumed in 1832 thirty-three millions of kilogrammes of cotton, of which twenty-seven millions came from the United States. As the United States send us their raw materials, they have the greatest interest in maintaining with us relations of commerce and friendship. We have a like interest, I confess. We, ourselves, ought to seek to preserve a good understanding v.ith the United States ; but it is not the less true, that to them in general belong the advantages of our relations, and we have proof of it in the comparative amount of navigation between the two countries, during the four years from 1829 to 1832. In these four years, we have sent to America 279 vessels, of which the tonnage was 79,018 kilogrammes. [?] The United States have sent us 1,815 vessels, of which the tonnage was 854,000 kilogrammes. [?] They, then, not we, have enjoyed the advantages of navigation ■ they, not we, have profited by them. Thus, you need not fear reprisals on their part. What, then, is the language of the minister in this respect? If you reject the treaty, says he, you may expect reprisals. But have not the States also to fear reprisals on our part.'' We have our rights, our in- terests to defend, as well as they ; let us defend our interests and our rights. I will not leave this tribune without saying a word in reference to a consideration presented yesterday by the minister at the close of his speech. How! the people of other countries are told that if we reject the treaty, we have reason to fear that troubles will break out in our cities and among our manufacturers ! Has the minister forgotten that we are now negotiating with England, and that he is furnishing her with arms against us ? England will say to him that she also possesses the power of exciting commotion in France, and that she will exercise it if we oppose her demands, it will, at length, be necessary to yield, or pay all that is asked of us. With such a policy, and such considerations, diplomacy is degraded ; a nation is disgraced. And when a Government is obliged to say that it always trembles at the idea of popular commotion, itleads the world to think that it always trembles at the idea of a foreign enemy. A Member. Very well ! Very well ! M. Mauguin. This shows but little knowledge of France. France (and her Govern- ment ought to be like her) never trembles, either before popular com- motion or foreign arms. The Minister of Foreigi'T Affairs. Gentlemen, the Government finds itself placed in a very strange posi- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 537 tion. It is charged with explaining a treaty, a treaty which is warmly assailed. This treaty, the Government, since it has signed it, considers as just, wise, and politic. In order to prove that it is just, it becomes iiecessary to show that the Government with which it has been conclud- ed has a right to the indemnification which is allov.ed. Yet, when the Government is accomplishing this task, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is accused of speaking as an American minister would, and of defending the interests of the American Government. NVIiat do you wish us t'» do, grnthMnen r Do you wish us to come here and say that the treaty which has been signed is neither just, nor wise, nor politic? Tliat, in truth, is asked of us. You are indignant, because we attempt to prove that, in allowing twen- ty-five millons as indemnification to the Government of tlie United States, we are only paying a just and real debt. Tiien you are indignant, because, having inserted commercial stipulations in tlie treaty, we endeavor to demonstrate that those stipulations are conducive to the interests of both countries. And when, in fine, the Government, (jbliged to call ujjon the Chamber to reflect upon the consequences of an act so serious as tlic annulling of a treaty of this kind, directs its attention to the effects which might result from a disturbance of the general state of our commerce, we ai'c told that we are denouncing France to foreign nations as a country which can be swayed by the tempest of iwpular commotion. Gentlemen, I repeat, what are tlic arguments that you wish the Go- vernment to make use of? IIow can it justify the treaty, if not by spcak- sng the truth, and stating the real consequences which the rejection of the law will occasion? The Government is then obliged to tdl the Chamber the whole truth ; it is obliged to say to it that in granting the twenty-five nnllions, it has granted them for a real debt, and that, if it is obliged to jiay this sum to the United States, it is not the fault c^f the Govcrnuient ; it is the fault of the situation in which it finds itself jdaced. I repeat, it is highly ne- cessary that you should know the pi-inciples upon which it has been deter- mined to agree to this sum of twenty-iive millions. The Government is equally obliged to inform you by what considera- tions of policy it was decided to admit the commercial stipulations whicii are inserted in the treaty, and it is obliged to warn the Chamber of the consequences of the determination which it is about to make. This is not betraying the interests of France ; it is only telling the truth to the Cham- ber and to France ; for it is one of the conditions of tliis Government, that the truth Jihould be spoken at the tribune. The Government has been very often accused of serving foreign Govern- ments, because it has spoken the truth, and has warned the Chamber of the consequences which might follow its determinations : but gentlemen, 1 repeat, it is a characteristic [of this Government to speak out openly, and before all the world. I come now to the question of the treaty of Louisiana. It appears to me that we agree about the facts. Tiiere is a provision in the treaty of 1803, by which France reserves to French vessels, in the ports of her ancient colony, all the ])rivileges which belong to vessels of the United States, for twelve years ; and, at the expiration of the twelve years, 35 538 [ Doc. No. 2. ] the privileges nliicli belong to the most favored nation. 'I'he.se ai'c the facts; they aic not disputed. What was the ditHcuIty ? The American Government had olTercd to thn vessels of evevy nation in Europe tlie same piivileges as Iheir own vessels enjoyed, upon con(iilioii of recij)i-ocity. Tlie English Govcrnmetit had accepted the piivileges Ihus oRered, on condition of reciprocity. Tlie Frenrii Goveiiiinent demanded, in the ports of Louis.iana, the same privileges which were enjoyed by the vessels of the United States, on the ground that the Englisli Government possessed those privileges in all the. ports of the Union, not excepting those of Louisiana. Out of this demand there arose a dispute, which lasted several years, which did not belong particularly to the present Government, which it did not originate, but which it found in existence wberj it came into powei-, and has conducted to its termination. The dispute wi's this: The American Government said — Do you conceive that in granting to the Englislj Go\ernmeiit, upon condition of reciprocity, the privileges which belong to our own vessels, we have conferred upon them a favor ? If so, you have a riglit to it; we offer it to you. Arc you not willing to take it on tlie same condition? If not, we say tiiat you yourselves acknowledge it is not a favor, and of course the article is not applicable. The French Govei-iiment maintained, on the conti'ary, that it had the right to theadvantage without the condition ; to the privileges of America!! vessels without reciprocity. M. Ukmar^ay. That is evident ! TiiR Minister of Foreign Affairs. Which was right and which was wrong in this dispute ? 1 assert that it is now pei-fectly immaterial, inasmuch as the Government of the United States has yielded on this point, and has acknowledged the light of France, for some reason or other, whether it be from conviction or from weariness of tlie controversy. I say again, it is of little imj)ortancc ; from the time that the riglit of Fiance was acknowledged, there has been no further dispute. What then occurred ? The Government of the United States said, that to make an inequality between the different ports of the Union was contra- ry to tho American (yonstitution. They wished to negotiate with France on this subject, and to purchase the right which France had, and which was conceded to it. Thus, after acknowledging the right, they consented to negotiate, and offered an equivalent. The question now submitted to the consideration of the Chamber, there- lore, is this : the point is not to ascertain which was right ot: w rong — the French Government or the American Government ; it is to ascertain whether the French Government, in negotiating respecting this right, and in parting with it for an e(|uivalent, has done an act hurtful or useful to the intei-ests of France. We have endeavored to demonstrate that the French Government, itj surrendering the right acknowledged to result from the 8th article of the treaty of Louisiana, and accepting an equivalent iu exchange, has done only what is leasonable and advantageous ; in order to prove it, I have shown on the one hand the value of the right, and the value of the equi- valent upon the other. It is clear that that is the only w ay to settle the question. [ Doc. No. 2. J 539 Tlie right conferred on France, by the 8th article of the treaty of 1803, was to national treatment forever in the ports of Louisiana. What is the difference between the treatment of the French flag now, and that treatment to which it would be entitled if the provisions of the treaty of Louisiana were recognised and applied ? In other words, how much more does the French flag pay in the ports of Louisiana, than it would pay if placed on the footing of the American ? We have shown that since the convention of 24th June, 1822, by which all discriminating duties— all, I repeat — were abolished between the United States and France, there does not exist in any of the ports of the Union, not excepting those of Louisiana, a single diflerence between the French and the American flags, except the duty of five francs per ton. Thus the advantage we renounced would have been a saving of five francs per ton upon French vessels entering the ports of Louisiana. Such is the advantage we have yielded. We sought for an equivalent, and, in doing so, calculated the number of vessels and the amount of ton- nage entering the ports of Louisiana. We have shown that during a period of fourteen years, not more than seven or eight French vessels, on an average, came to entry in those ports each year. I have not the precise number before me, but I stated it yesterday to the Chamber. The result, however, was an annual advantage of 1 4,000 fr. deduced from the average of fourteen years. It is, then, this saving of 14,000fr. which the French Government renounced for French commerce ; it has deprived French commerce of just so much money. Now what have we in return ? We have shown that the equivalent offered us was an important reduction in the established duties upon our wines, a reduction producing a saving to the amount of 800,000 francs per annum. M. DEMARCAi'. There is the enor. The Minister of FoREIG^' Affaiks. We have demonstrated it, and i\L Duchatel has again proved it this day. The Government has exchanged an advantage of M,000fr. per annum for one of 800,0001'r. per annum. M. Demarcay. There is no comparison. The Minister of Foreign Affairs. The only diflerence is, that the benefits secured to French connnerce by the treaty of Louisiana were perpetual, whilst the advantage resulting from the J^riff' of wines is only for ten years. \V' e have obseived, that diflerence should be taken into account, just as it would bo in commer- cial aflairs. Nothing is easier than to compare tlie saving resulting from 14,000fr. per annum forever, with 800,000fr. per annum for 10 years; and when the comparison is made, it will he seen that in seven or eight years the latter will equal the former. This is what I said yesterday ; it is correct, and capable of demonstra- tion with the most rigorous precision. I said tliat the French Government had not betrayed the interests of France in renouncing for the benefit of our commerce a perpetual advantage of 14,000fV. per annum, in exchange for 540 [ Doc. No. 2. ] 800,000fr. per annum during ten years. We did not admit that right to be negatived which belongs to France by the treaty of 1803; we have, on the contrary, obtained an acknowledgment from the United States of the validity of the right claimed by the French Government under the 8th article of that treaty ; and after that acknowledgment, we have exchanged this right for another, which appeared to us more advantageous. As to the Spanish treaty, the reason why it is not fresh in my memory is, because it was not a treaty between France and a foreign country, but between two foreign countries. I say, merely, that taking the articles such as they are in that treaty, there is not one of them which is applicable to one of the vessels mentioned in the account I presented yesterday ; not one of those vessels was captured by a French privateer and carried into the ports of Spain ; not one of them was condemned by a French consul upon the Spanish territory, nor pro- nounced upon by French tribunals after having been seized and conducted into the Spanish ports. Tb.ey make a class altogether special and peculiar. General Thouvenot, the commandant at St. Sebastian, had, with the authority of Government, attracted to the ports of Spain a great number of American vessels. There came a decision of the Cabinet, which order- ed these vessels to be conveyed to Bayonne ; on arriving at Bayonne, they were seized and sold by a retrospective application. [Much noise in the Chamber.'] Whatever may be the sense of the treaty spoken of, and which at this moment I do not examine, it is in no way applicable to the vessels w^hich figure in the account which I have submitted to the Chamber; nor does it in any way invalidate the calculations which I presented. As for the commercial question, I shall leave the care of defending that to the Minister of Finance, and to those of my colleagues who are better versed in the matter than I am. I ask pardon of the Chamber for the new explanations into which I have entered to-day, after having occupied their attention two hours yesterday ; but I was unwilling to sutler objections made to pass without reply. I will conclude. I believe I have replied to all, but if the question again comes up, I will ask permission — M. GuizoT, [Minister of Public Instruction.] And M. de Polignac? You forget. The Minister of Foreign Affairs. You are right. Gentlemen, I am indeed pained to be under the necessity of explaining the facts cited by the honorable member (M. Mauguin) who^receded me. I do not believe it just, I do not believe it correct, to bring forward in this tribune a man whose present situation should excite interest, what- ever he may have done, whatever crimes he may have committed towards France. I was careful to reply at first to the facts alleged by the honorable member who spoke last. I have explained to the Chamber that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 1830, after having in a first interview endeavored to repel the demands of the American minister in the ordi- nary way of refusing to admit them, had immediately yielded to the generosity and nobleness of his character, and abandoned that ground is [ Doc. No. 2. J 541 untenable. That in an interview which took place the 11 th January, 1830, he had recognised the debt of the French Government to the Americans, for ships destroyed at sea ; and that he had even cliaracter- ized that act as an act of piracy. That in another interview of the 12th February, 1830, he recognised the debt on the part of the French Go- vernment, on account of captured and confiscated vessels, the price of which had been deposited as a consignment. I have said, in fine, that a few months before the revolution of July, two negotiations were set on foot between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the minister of the United States, one of which was official and the other confidential ; that in the official negotiation the American minister recapitulated all the concessions which had been successively made by the INlinister of Foreign Affairs. In truth, the Minister of Foreign Affairs endeavored, in the note which he sent in answer, to retract some of tliose concessions ; nevertheless, he admitted the greater part of them. The notes exist ; and, indeed, I should be sorry to be compelled to dwell on this point. I have said that, while the oihcial negotiation was in progress, a con- fidential negotiation was likewise going on; that the minister of the United States had offered to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to treat upon the question of Louisiana, which was the point of difficulty, on the terras which have since been admitted in the treaty of 1831 ; that, at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a confidential memo rand inn was given to him on the 20th May, containing those offers ; that, in a confidential letter dated May 31st, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had demanded further explanations, which explanations were given the loth of June, and were then verbally admitted by him to be in appearance sufficient ; to which he added, that he intended to present a counter-project, wilii a view to terminate the difference. The above I had the honor to state, and I now repeat it here. I am sorry that a person should have been cited as authority, in contradiction of this statement, who should be in the position in which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of whom I have been speaking, is now placed. I am con- vinced that the language he used to the honorable member was only in gene- ral terms, and that those words may be made to accord with the facts I have recited. [ Calls for the questionfrom some members; others cry '•'•go o»."] M. IsAMBKRT. Gentlemen, I wish to say a word or two. [Question^ question.] It appears to me that something further may be said relative to the seizure of the vessels in the ports of Bilboa, St. Sebastian, and Les Passages. I have some facts to state on that subject, which I think the Chamber ought to hear. ^Yes^ yes ; go o?i.] The Minister of Foreign Affairs has supposed that France was not a party to the treaty concluded between Spain and the United States in 1819. It is true, France did not concur directly in the treaty, or take part in the negotiation; but, in attending to that transaction, we perceive that France was concerned in it most specially. In fact, it appears from what M. Berryer showed yesterday, that the treaty encountered seriou.s difficulties on account of the situation of the Floridas. Spain refused to ratify it. The time assigned for the ratification elapsed, and the Presi- dent of the United States, in a message to Congress of the ITtii Decem- ber, 1819, explained to Congress the consequence of the refusal to latify, taking into consideration the particular situation of the Floridas. 542 [ Doc. No. 2. ] The President of the United States consequently announced to Con- gress that, as the time for the ratification of the treaty had expired, and in order to terminate the affair, the Spanish Government should be in- formed that vessels of their nation would be no longer received in the ports of the United States. Moreover, they specially demanded the in- tervention of England and of France, for obtaining the ratification. All this is explained, in the most formal manner, in the message of the 7th December, 1819. France employed her interest, as well as England, to secure the rati- fication of this treaty, which embraced particular stipulations. Tlie treaty was ratified on the part of Spain on the 24th October, 1820, after the revolution of 1820, which restored the Government of the Cortes; and then the ratification followed on the part of the United States. Thus it appears that the ratification of this treaty was in some sort due to the good offices of France and England; and in this treaty is found the im- portant clause which has been quoted. It has been said that this clause did not possess the general character attributed to it ; that in all cases in which the prizes were not tnade by French citizens, nor pronounced upon by French consuls, it was evident these five or six millions of dollars, for indemnification, could not be con- sidered as justly lessening the claims of the United States. But the stipulations of the treaty are general; the treaty embraces all the seizures which were made in the ports and on the coasts of Spain. For, from the moment that the Government has laid hands on the prize, what does it matter whether it was taken by a cruiser, or regularly con- demned ? It is evident that the act is equivalent to a regular seizure ; and, as the seizures took place in the ports of Spain, those vessels could not have been brought to the ports of France without the concurrence of the French consuls. The Spanish Government, by indemnifying the United States for prizes by which France profited, undoubtedly has a claim for the amount on France. But Spain is indebted to us, and it will be very easy to make her every compensation. It is evident, therefore, that the United States cannot make good their claim under that head ; the sum is eight millions, and the debt should be thus much reduced. Gentlemen, I think it was not improper in me to lay these facts before the Chamber; and I believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has by no means drawn from the treaty those inductions v.hich he submitted in defence of the negotiation. M. DUPOUY. • I demand the floor. , The President. Gentlemen, shall the question on the bill be taken? [The Chamber decided that the debate should end, and the question be taken. The first article of the bill ivos then read.] Article 1st. The Minister of Finance is authorized to take the neces- sary measures for carrying into effect the first and second articles of the treaty, signed on the 4th of July, 1831, between the King of the French and the United States of America ; the ratifications of which were ex- [ Doc. No. 2. ] 543 changed at Washington on the 2d of February, 1832 ; and b}' the terms of which the sum of twenty-five millions of francs is to be paid by France. Several members requiring a call of the House, it ivas called, and the ballot the^i taken ; the results oj which iccre : Number of members present, - - - - . 344 Majority of the whole, - - - - - 173 Votes against the bill, - - - - - 176 Votes in favor of the bill, - - - - - 168 So the bill ivas rejected by 8 7%ere tvas much agitation in the Chamber, which immediately ad- m ■ HI kARY below. -4 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY \m