into and formed a part of the contract of Daniel Searle & Co., and therefore that he was not entitled to any additional compensation for those four extra weekly trips. If they formed a part of said contracts, they continued to the 31st of December, 1839, when the contracts terminated, and Daniel Searle & Co., if bound at all, were obligated to perform said four extra weekly trips during the suspension of navigation, regardless of who were the contractors on route No. 774. Instead of compelling them, however, to perform this extra service without compensation, they were paid for it after the 1st day of January, 1835. Daniel Searle & Co. had not conveyed the mail daily on routes Nos. 956, 979, and 1157 during the suspension of steamboat navigation. A. Morgan & Co. could not have been subjected to any fine or forfeiture for such delinquency, because they had not contracted to do any service on those routes, nor to transfer any service from route No. 774.

The contracts with Daniel Searle & Co. were, to run four-horse post coaches three times in a week on route No. 1157, at the compensation of $5,000 annually. They performed that service for that compensation, and when they put in an improved bid, at the suggestion of the Postmaster General, to run a daily line during the suspension of steamboat navigation, at $3,000 annually, the same was not accepted, and why? Because the Postmaster General believed the two companies were jointly interested, and therefore the said sum of $3,000 might be saved to the department; and yet, by the transfer as suggested by Mr. Avery, there would be a daily mail from New York to Owego in the winter season. If this was not his understanding, he should not have paid A. Morgan & Co. after he ordered the postmaster at New York to send the mail daily on the route of Daniel Searle & Co.

Mr. Kendall declined to make any additional allowance to Searle & Co., because he had not ordered any additional service.

That does not sustain the note on the acceptance of the bid, nor the endorsement on the contract. These were intended to mean something, and what that something was, is well established by the proof, that the Postmaster General intended, according to the wishes of the inhabitants, to run a daily line in the winter from New York to Owego, on the routes of Searle & Co. This he accomplished. He had no right to expect this, without paying an adequate or ratable compensation. John H. Avery did not own or control either line as principal or agent, and he had no right or authority to pledge either company to do, or to abstain from doing, any act or service.

When Searle & Co. transported the mail daily, they must have supposed they were doing so for a compensation. The postmaster at New York had been instructed from the General Post Office Department to give them the mail daily, and could they have come to any other conclusion under what had taken place-that the mail being delivered to them daily, they were by the same order instructed to carry it daily? I cannot doubt Mr. Kendall was mistaken in regard to the authority of Mr. Avery to act for the companies. That was the basis of his decision. An application was made to Congress, and an unfavorable report was made by the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, on the decision of Mr. Kendall. The subsequent Postmaster Generals

have declined to reverse the first decision. It was under these circumstances, and after these repeated decisions, that the question was submitted to Mr. Farrelly, the Auditor, to state an account, and to find the amount due to Daniel Searle & Co. for the four extra daily trips during the suspension of steamboat navigation the two first years of their contract, as above mentioned. After briefly referring to the facts and the law, and after presenting various considerations for his conclusion, the Auditor says:

"As, therefore, there is no provision in the contract to pay Searle & Co. for carrying the mail the four additional trips, the claim is not an account which I have any authority to settle."

From this decision an appeal was taken to this office. I am to say whether that decision is right or wrong. I have stated the facts more at large than may be necessary, but my motive was to attract the attention of the Postmaster General to those that are the most prominent, without subjecting him to the labor of collating them from the papers if he should think proper to re-examine the case; and if he should not, then that the same service might be rendered to a committee of Congress, if application should be made them for relief.

By the act of July 2, 1836, all contracts on behalf of the Post Office Department are to be made by the Postmaster General, and all debts for the department are to be created by him. This includes the compensation or money to be paid, as well as the thing that is to be done. Take this very case. The Postmaster General contracted with Daniel Searle & Co. to transport the mail on route No. 1157, from Milford, in Pennsylvania, to Owego, in New York, three times a week in fourhorse post coaches, at the rate of $5,000 per annum. In making the contract he reserved to himself the right to increase the service, alter the route, he making adequate compensation for any expense occasioned thereby, not however to exceed the exact proportion of the original amount to the additional duties required. This left with the Postmaster General himself, and with no other person, to say what would be an adequate compensation. This is the agreement of the parties to the contract. The contractors say they were ordered to perform additional service. The Postmaster General denies he ever gave such an order. If resort is had to the writing on the acceptance of the bid, or to the endorsement on the margin of the contract, to prove that additional service was to be performed, neither contained a provision that a compensation is to be paid, and the rate of compensation is left by the law, and by the contract, to the discretion of the Postmaster General.

When the Postmaster General perfects a contract, then the duty of the Auditor commences.

It is said by Mr. Sherman that a data is given by which the Auditor can ascertain what should be paid to Searle & Co., by taking, 1st, the contract price, and paying for the additional mail service at the rate of compensation stipulated by the contract; or 2d, by taking the rate of allowance made by the Postmaster General to Messrs. Searle & Co. for the two years succeeding the first of January, 1837, for performing the like service after the expiration of the contract of A. Morgan & Co., on route No. 774. By resorting to either or any other mode of ascertaining what this additional service is worth pre-supposes that the Au

ditor can fix the compensation, which, in my opinion, is erroneous. That power is with the Postmaster General and with Congress, and not with the Auditor nor with the Comptroller.

Having examined the facts and the law presented in this case, and duly considered the same, I concur with the Hon. J. W. Farrelly in the decision he has made, and affirm the same. I do not doubt that Daniel Searle & Co. are entitled to compensation for the additional service performed as mentioned above, but that they can only find relief at the hands of the Postmaster General, or at the hands of Congress, if he thinks he is not permitted to act in the matter by reason of the decisions of his predecessors.

ELISHA WHITTLESEY.

CONGRESS,

CONGRESS,

URIAH P. MONROE.

[To accompany bill H. R. No. 763.]

FEBRUARY 23, 1855.

Mr. MCDOUGAL, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the memorial of Uriah P. Monroe, asking compensation for extra mail service, report:

That in the month of June, 1851, the memorialist contracted to transport the United States mail from Sacramento to Shasta, in the State of California, and back, once in each week, for the annual compensation of $7,000.

That on the 1st of October, 1851, the special agent of the Post Office Department for California, having full authority so to do, directed the memorialist to furnish a semi-weekly service over the same route. In compliance with such directions, a semi-weekly service was furnished over said route, commencing the 1st of October aforesaid, and ending the 15th of July following.

These facts are clearly set forth in the communications of said special agent to the Post Office Department, which clearly show the importance and extent of the service. It appears further, that for much of the time the service was rendered particularly difficult, on account of the overflowing of the valley of the Sacramento, which made it necessary for the memorialist to employ a steamboat on a portion of the route. The statements of the special agent are supported by several affidavits; and the committee can see no good cause why pro rata compensation should not be allowed.

The memorialist claims $7,000, and the special agent recommends the payment of that amount. The committee, however, can see no sufficient cause for a departure from the rule of pro rata compensation, and report a bill accordingly.