There has been overpaid $33,187 99, after allowing the petitioners the ful amount of all their expenditures.

The petitioners have presented a statement, wherein they claim that they Expended $346,665. This, however, is unaccompanied with any legal evidence to support any part of the account, further than is admitted by the committee in the account stated above. As far as the committee can trace the memorandums, &c. much of this account grew out of the purchase of slaves, which has been conceded by all not to be the proper subject of a charge against the United States.

In relation to the amount claimed to have been expended by the petitioners, two things are important to be noticed:

1st. The committee admits to their credit, $50,000, the value of a cargo shipped from Alexandria, as testified to by Mr. Green. Whether the whole or any part of this cargo was paid for, is not known; but, the presumption is, at least, equal, that a part of the account now claimed, arises from this shipment, for which they have been credited in the account as stated by the committee.

2d. The committee has credited them $70,000, expended under the direction of General Starke. It is not to be inferred from thence, that this amount of money was expended from the funds of General Starke.

Mr. Naylor says, "that it cost the contractors about $70,000, under the management of their agent, Starke, up to the suspension of said works by the Government." This excludes the idea that General Starke advanced his own funds; he was not bound to have done so. The committee, therefore, cannot know whether many, if not all of the items now presented for articles purchased and expenses incurred at the South, may not be included. in the gross sum allowed on account of expenditures under Gen. Starke.

It is in the power of the petitioners to show what are the facts: for no one will pretend that they ought to be allowed the whole of their expenses in gross sums, and then the items composing them. The amount they claim to have expended, so far exceeds the value of the work done, and the materials delivered, that they should be held to something like strict proof. They say they have expended

The value of the work and materials delivered, we have

seen amounts to

$346,665 00

53,305 35

Difference, $293,359 65

If he has such

It is

They say that Mr. Farrow was to keep separate books. books, he is bound to produce them; and, if he withholds them, the usual presumption arises, that, if they were produced, they would operate against them. The petitioners say, they have been ruined by the contract. very easy to see that such may be the case. They had drawn from the Treasury large sums of money, and incurred heavy expenses, in the purchasing of negroes, in the purchasing of land, in the construction of brick yards, in the purchasing of implements for carrying on the works, and in the purchasing of materials, one-half of which they sold to General Starke on the 10th April, 1820, and put the other half under his absolute control; and in August following, sold the whole of the property to him; from the sale of which, or for the use of which, it does not appear that they had ever been paid one cent. The property sold on the 10th of April was to be appraised by three men, and the consideration mentioned in the deed of sale, of Au

gust, is $40,000. They have divested themselves of the whole of their property, by the conveyances made to General Starke.

By this contract they were to construct of brick masonry
Of this was constructed

Leaving undone

They were to excavate of earth
Of this they excavated

Cubical yards.

30,000

1,446

28,553

100,000

7,250

Leaving undone

92,750

In every aspect in which the committee can view the case, whether as to the profits that might have been made, or as to the expenses incurred, this committee cannot see that the petitioners are entitled to any further relief.

The petitioners, by their conveyances made to General Starke, have, in the opinion of the committee; divested themselves of all their interest in the contract. The nature of their assignments was not known at the time the commissioner acted, nor until the evidence was taken by Captain Burch.

FARROW AND HARRIS.

MARCH 19, 1830.

Read, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to morrow.

Mr. WHITTLESEY, from the Committee of Claims, to which was referred the case of Farrow and Harris, made the following

REPORT:

The Committee of Claims, to which was referred the petition of Nimrod Farrow and Richard Harris, report:

No. 69, p. 17.

(b) Same,p.17.

That the petitioner, (a) Richard Harris, on the 17th July, (a) Reports 2d 1818, entered into a contract with the United States, to con- sess. 18th Con struct a fortification at Dauphin island, and, on the (b) 14th of August, 1818, he executed a bond to the United States, in the penal sum of one hundred thousand dollars, with the other petitioner, Nimrod Farrow, as his security, for the faithful and due execution of the work, which was to have been commenced on the 1st of December, 1818, and completed by the 1st of December, 1821. (c) On the 4th of November, 1818, Farrow and (e) Same, p.20 Harris entered into partnership, and filed their articles in the War Department, and, after this date, the business was carried on in their joint names, until the 10th of April, 1820, when they sold and transferred to (d) Turner Starke, one equal moie- (d) Ex. Doc. 1st ty of the contract, and the profits to be made thereon, and a moiety of the property, real, personal, and mixed, situated at the Red Bluffs, on Mobile Bay, or on Dauphin Island, or that was connected with the works and operations then carrying on at either of those places. (e) On the 1st of August, 1822, (e) Same, p.53. Richard Harris, for himself, and on behalf of his partner, Nimrod Farrow, sold and transferred to Turner Starke the residue of the property, and the contract mentioned above, including

the slaves.

sess. 19th Con. vol. 5, Doc. 104,

p. 50,

At the second session of the Seventeenth Congress, (1821) no appropriation was made for carrying on the works commenced at Dauphin Island, and the necessary consequence was, that ail future operations ceased. The petitioners conceiving themselves to have been greatly injured by the sudden and unexpected stoppage of the works, () on the 13th of January, 1823, (f) 2d session, presented a petition to Congress, praying that an allowance 18th Con. Rep. might be made to them equal to the loss of the profits they might

69, p. 7.