THIRTIETH CONGRESS—FIRST SESSION.
Report No. 316.
(To accompany bill H. R. No. 85.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WILLIAM DE BUYS.
February 29, 1848.
Mr. Goggin, 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, by order of the House of Representatives, a bill for the relief of William De Buys, late postmaster at New Orleans, Louisiana, report:

That William De Buys was postmaster at New Orleans, and discharged the duties of that office in a manner highly creditable to himself and satisfactory to the department; that Mr. De Buys was entitled by law to retain five hundred dollars quarterly, out of the commissions on the revenue of the office, provided so much remained after paying the necessary and authorized expenses of clerk hire, rent, fuel, &c.; that, in ordinary years, there was generally a surplus of commissions sufficient to meet the allowance to the postmaster for his own compensation; but, in the years 1842 and 1843, owing to great stagnation in business, which seriously diminished the revenue of the office, the commissions were not enough to defray the expenses and leave a surplus for the postmaster’s compensation. The consequence of this deficiency was that, after reducing the expenses to the lowest possible standard consistent with a due regard to the public interest, there remained for five quarters and thirty-seven days (the period of time to which this report refers, from 1st January, 1842, to 7th May, 1843,) a surplus of $681 42 only, for the postmaster’s compensation; that, at the rate of $500 quarterly, authorized by law for the postmaster’s compensation,1 had there been a surplus of commissions to pay him, he should have received, for the period mentioned, $2,703 29, instead of $681 42 which he did receive, showing a deficiency of $2,021 87 compensation; that,

---

in the year ending 3d September, 1842, and in part the succeeding year, viz: from 3d September, 1842, to 7th May, 1843, when Mr. De Buys’s term of service ceased, there was accounted for to the department, for box rent of the office, a surplus of $4,675 50; that, previous to the year 1841, the box rents of post offices were allowed as perquisites to postmasters; but, by the law of that year, each postmaster’s emoluments from that source were limited to $3,000 per annum, and the surplus was directed to be accounted for to the department; and the same law provided that in no case should a postmaster’s compensation, from both surplus of commissions and box rents, exceed $5,000; that the ground of Mr. De Buys’s claim avowedly is, that a fair and liberal interpretation of the law of 1841 would entitle him to make up, out of the surplus of box rents, the deficiency on commissions, for his compensation of $5,000 per annum. The department, however, without questioning the equity of this principle, contended that the law left it no discretion to adopt Mr. De Buys’s interpretation, and informed him that it was through Congress only he could obtain relief; that it is apparent the equity of Mr. De Buys’s claim has been considered adequate ground for the expectation that a bill would be passed for his relief, and that the department, upon receiving satisfactory security for the ultimate payment of his balance in the event of his claim being rejected by Congress, did not insist on immediate payment, but was willing to extend to him reasonable time for the prosecution of his claim; that the balance against Mr. De Buys, as late postmaster, is $2,060 63, which this claim, if allowed by law, would nearly liquidate; that the ground of this claim is substantially the same as that upon which Congress acted in passing the bill of 1843, (p. 33,) granting to Mr. De Buys $648 72 out of the surplus of box rents, to make up a deficiency of compensation from surplus of commissions, from 26th July, 1841, to 1st January, 1842; that, upon the present claim, the Senate on the 30th of May, 1844, passed a bill for Mr. De Buys’s relief, but it was not acted upon by the House of Representatives, in consequence of not being brought up in time that session.

The bill now introduced, and recommended by the committee, is similar to the Senate bill of 1844.

Mr. George W. Jones, from the said committee, submitted the following as the views of the minority:

The undersigned, minority of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the petition of William De Buys, dissenting from the report of the majority of the committee, respectfully submit the following statement as the reasons for their dissent. William De Buys was appointed postmaster at New Orleans, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office on the 26th July, 1841, and continued in office until the 7th May, 1843, a period of one year nine months and twelve days. The compensation of postmasters, as regulated and prescribed by law during this time, was not to exceed in the aggregate the sum of five thousand dollars per annum. That is, the postmaster should receive a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars per annum, from box rents; and all receipts from this source, over and above that sum, he was required to account for and pay over as revenue of the Post Office Department. Out of the commissions upon the amount of postages received, after paying clerks’ salaries, office rent, stationery, fuel, lights, and all other contingent expenses, he was allowed the sum of five hundred dollars per quarter, of two thousand dollars per annum, if so much remained; and if not so much remained after defraying the expenses as above stated, then he was entitled to that balance whatever the amount might be. But, by special provision of law, the Postmaster General was authorized to add to the commissions on the receipts of the post offices at Washington city and New Orleans, respectively, the sum of two hundred dollars per quarter or eight hundred per annum, should thec ommissions not amount, at either of those offices, to the sum of two thousand dollars, after defraying the expenses of the office as aforesaid. The petitioner, it is admitted, received during the time he was in office, the full sum of the $3,000 per annum from box rents; and the surplus from this source, amounting to some three or four thousand dollars during the time he was in office, he accounted for and paid over as the law required, or is now under bond to the department to pay the same over whenever this case shall be finally determined against him by Congress.

But it is alleged, and appears from the evidence in the case, that the commissions upon the receipts of the office during the time he was in office, with the sum of eight hundred dollars per annum allowed by special provision of law added after paying clerk hire, office rent, and other expenses, amounted only to the sum of $832 70; which, together with the sum of $648 72, allowed him by act of Congress of February 18th, 1843, making the sum of $1,481 42, was all that he received, exclusive of the box rents, for the whole time he was in office. As before stated, he was in office

---

one year nine months and twelve days, for which he received for box rents the sum of $5,350 67 for commissions, and under special act the sum of $1,481 48, making together the sum of $6,832 09 for the time he was in office; which was about the sum of $3,830 50 per annum during his service, was all the law allowed, and is within $170 of the maximum compensation at present allowed by law to any postmaster in the Union, and in the opinion of the undersigned was full and ample compensation at the time. But the petitioner alleges in his petition, that as there was a surplus from box rents more than sufficient to pay him the deficit in his commissions, and as the law provided that his compensation from box rents and commissions should not exceed the sum of $5,000 per annum, that he is entitled to an amount out of the surplus box rents sufficient to make, with the amount of commissions which he has received, the sum of two thousand dollars per annum, being about $2,021 which he claims, and asks that an act be passed allowing him that amount.

Postmasters at the offices of the character of the one at New Orleans are permitted to determine the number of clerks to be employed in the office, and to regulate and determine the salary or rate of compensation to be paid to them; subject, it is true, to the revision and approval of the Postmaster General, but which is seldom or never interfered with by that officer. It is further alleged by the petitioner, that, in consequence of the decrease of business at New Orleans, from the pressure in the business of the country, the receipts of postages were too small to afford the requisite amount of commissions to pay him the maximum commissions to which he was entitled by law.

The undersigned are of opinion, from the investigation they have given this case, that with the exercise of a prudent regard to the economy on the part of the petitioner in the employment of clerks and the salaries paid them, and the other expenses of the office, with a view to his own interest and that of the Post Office Department, the commissions while he was in office would have been sufficient, after paying all reasonable and necessary expenses, to have secured to him the maximum amount of compensation to which he was by law entitled from commissions.

The gross amount of commissions, including the $800 per annum allowed by law, from the 26th July, 1841, to May 7th, 1843, the period the petitioner was in office, was $22,168 51, and the expenses for the same period, amounted to $21,335 81; of this sum $17, 790 09 was paid for clerks in the office.

It appears that the petitioner, not only failed under the alleged decreasing business of his office to effect a corresponding decrease in the expenses also, by decreasing the number of clerks employed, or a moderate reduction of their salaries, but he actually increased the salaries of several of them. From a statement furnished from the auditor’s office, it appears that for clerks from the 26th July, to the 30th September, 1841, the petitioner paid $1,702 31, which was at the rate of $2, 337 50 per quarter; for the 4th quarter of 1841, he paid $2,380; for the 1st quarter in 1842, he paid $2,449 50;

---

and for the remainder of the time he continued in office, he paid $2,550 per quarter, except one quarter, for which he paid $2,560: thus paying for the services of clerks, during the period he had charge of the New Orleans post office, $1,050 more than would have been paid had the salaries which were paid them at the time he took charge of the office been continued; which sum, added to the amount which it is admitted he received from box rents and commissions, would have nearly made the largest sum which under the law he could receive. But regardless of his own interest; he increased the salaries of the clerks in his employ, and thus by his own action deprived himself of a large amount of what he should have received as his individual compensation; and now asks Congress to make good this deficiency, by appropriating a sum sufficient out of other funds of the department, or rather out of the treasury.

The only check, practically operating on such postmasters, as to the number of clerks employed, and the amount of compensation paid them, is their own interest, which should prompt them to save so much of the commissions as will compensate them for their own services. Destroy this most salutary incentive to economy, by permitting the postmaster to consume the entire commissions in clerk hire and other expenses of the office, and then appeal to Congress, and receive out of the treasury the maximum compensation to which there are limited by law, and we at once virtually make them salaried officers, and hold out inducements to them to absorb the entire commissions in the compensation of relatives and favorites as clerks at exorbitant salaries.

Every postmaster in the United States was, at the time, allowed $2,000 per annum, provided the commissions upon the receipts of the office, amounted to that sum after defraying the expenses of the same. And yet, by reference to the official register or blue book, it will be seen, that very few of the whole number of postmasters in office, between the 1st July, 1841, and the 30th June, 1843, including the period for which additional compensation is asked in this particular case, received the maximum compensation of $2,000 per annum, from commissions. For the simple, but sufficient reason, it is supposed that a sufficient sum was not left after defraying the expenses of the respective offices; and yet, we hear of no ap-application, in any of those cases, for additional compensation. Why make an exception in the present case? And by granting the desired additional compensation to the petitioner, do we not invite similar applications from all those similarly situated? Most assuredly. And this being granted, upon which principle could others be rejected? None. And being granted, would in effect, make them salaried officers, at the rate of $5,000 per annum.

Upon a full investigation of the subject, the undersigned, with due deference to the majority of the committee, respectfully submit as the conclusion to which their minds have arrived, that the prayer of the petitioner is unreasonable, and ought not to be granted.