Rouge from March 24, 1822, to February 14, 1824, $396 40, being, in fact, not double rations for the latter period merely, but, as it is covered by the other charge, it amounts to quadruple instead of double rations. The pay and rations of officers of the army are fixed by law and regulations. With the wisdom and equal operation of the law and regulations, the committee, at present, have nothing to do. It is sufficient that such existed, and were understood by the accounting officers, and by them acted upon. It has been a subject of complaint that these regulations as to double rations. have been too far extended, or too liberally construed. The committee can see no reason for extending the allowances under these regulations further than the several officers of the Department and accounting officers have; and they have decided, and decided correctly, as far as the committee can perceive, that the petitioner's case is not embraced by these regulations to give him his claim to double rations, much less to quadruple. The committee would here remark, that the petitioner has another portion of his claim in connexion with duties at Baton Rouge, which, from the course adopted in this investigation, will not be necessary to particularize: hence, it will not be necessary to be particular as to the manner in which this charge of double rations at that post arises. The petitioner claims another sum of $433 75 for extra services in the Quartermaster's and ordnance service, in 1816, two years before the residue of his claim accrued, or he was in the Quartermaster's Department under his appointment, and which claim was not made, as far as can be discovered, in his various accounts rendered, till after he was relieved from duties in his staff office; and no proof is adduced of having performed such service under circumstances to entitle him to extra pay. The committee can see no reason to allow that claim.

The last charge which the committee will notice is the sum of $1,352 91 for interest on the several sums by him claimed, from the time they were rejected to the time of service of process upon him, considering their rejection as equivalent to non-acceptance of a bill of exchange by a drawee when in funds. It is unnecessary to notice this charge any further, if the committee be correct in its foregoing conclusions, because, in such case, there would have been nothing due to the petitioner on which to raise this charge of interest, unless he makes it on those rejected, which constituted the balance for which he was sued, and which, by the verdict of the jury, has been adjusted. The committee believe it to be unnecessary to go into that question, or to investigate the other portions of the petitioner's claim, as those would not, if all just, amount to the balance which has been cancelled by that verdict. So far as is above investigated, the account would stand as follows:

Charge for per diem on paying war claims

Per centage on disbursements in Quartermaster's Depart

$4,341 48

3,645 32 2,041 00

433 75 1,352 91

$11,814 46

Of the residue of his claim, $759 84 is for extra per diem allowance in superintending the erection of barracks at Baton Rouge; $2,703 $2 for extra as military storekeeper at New Orleans, for a time specified, after the new organization in 1821; $231 84 for transportation of baggage, decided at the Department as not chargeable under the regulations; and $51 88, a per centage for disbursements in the ordnance and medical departments; all amounting to the sum of $3,747 37, for extra services, while receiving pay of his rank in the line and additional pay in the staff, with all such other extra allowances as the accounting officers and Secretary of War considered competent and within the laws and regulations The above amount, added to the items considered by the committee, will make the sum of $15,561 83, claimed by the petitioner for extra services, including interest, transportation of baggage over the amount deemed by the Secretary of War and accounting officers (and some of which have even been submitted to the Attorney General) as equitable, lawful, and just.

The committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That Thomas F. Hunt is not entitled to the relief he asks.

QUARTERMASTER GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington City, April 16th, 1830.

SIR: I have just received your letter dated yesterday, and have the honor to reply to your several inquiries, as follows:

1. It is the practice to require the officers of the Quartermaster's Department, at certain stations, such as Pensacola, New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit, Bangor, &c. to receive and distribute the funds required for the service of the Department at the posts depending upon those positions respectively. This is one of the duties which renders it necessary that there should be an officer constantly at each of those posts, whether troops be stationed there The duty is not extra, but properly appertains to the office of Quartermaster; and no extra compensation is allowed or due for the performance of it.

or not.

2. It is the duty of a Quartermaster to pay all outstanding debts contracted by his predecessors, provided they be properly vouched, and there be an appropriation to pay them. This is not an extra, but an appropriate duty, for which extra compensation is not allowed nor due.

3. There are no permanent geographical limits assigned to particular posts, to which the duties of Quartermasters are confined. It is the duty of those officers to perform service at such post or posts as the Secretary of War or the Quartermaster General may direct; and there is no geographical

line, beyond which the performance of any duty appertaining to the Department could be considered extra duty, or as entitling an officer to extra pay. A particular service, however, performed by Captain Hunt, may be considered an exception. In addition to the laborious and responsible duties he was required to perform at New Orleans he was required to superintend the erection of extensive works at Baton Rouge, about an hundred and twenty miles from New Orleans. I was authorized by the Secretary of War to inform the officer superintending that work, that he should be allowed the same extra compensation allowed to the officer of the Ordnance Department, performing similar duty at that post. Paper marked A will show what that officer received. If Captain Hunt has not already received those allowances, he has as fair a claim as a positive understanding or contract can give him.

4. When officers of the Quartermaster's Department are required, in the performance of their duties, to travel from one post to another, the regulations secure to them, as well as to other officers, the usual travelling allow

DEPARTMENT OF WAR, 27th February, 1818.

Until it is otherwise directed, Lieutenants of the corps of ordnance shall be allowed for superintending and for disbursing moneys in the construction of arsenals, one dollar a day; Captains and all other officers one dollar and Afty cents a day, during the time such disbursements are making.

J. C. CALHOUN,

Modification of the above order, made by the Secretary of War,July,1822.

Provided the allowance claimed shall, in no instance, exceed 21 per cent. on the amount disbursed.

WM. LEE, Esq. Second Auditor.

Per diem as Commissioners to be settled annually-See Secretary of War's endorsement on Major Talcott's letter of 20th April, 1827.

SECOND AUDITOR'S OFFICE, April 16, 1830.

While superintending and disbursing money in constructing the arsenal at Baton Rouge, Captain Richardson received a per diem of $1 50, and double rations,