That they have examined the same, and are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to relief, and recommend the passage of the bill. The committee refer to the petition filed in the case, and to the two letters of P. G. Washington, Auditor of the Post Office Department, which will be herewith printed as a part of this report, and which will explain the case.

Your petitioner

Respectfully represents:

That suit has been instituted, and judgment obtained, against H. S. Edington, late post master at Napoleon, and Thomas Moore and your petitioner, for $338 01, the amount of the said Edington’s defalcation, and penalty $378 30, and interest and costs of suit, making in all about $900, of which judgment your petitioner has paid the sum of $535 26; and in consideration that the said Edington and Moore are wholly and entirely insolvent, and that the residue,

---

if paid at all, will have to be paid by your petitioner, respectfully asks of your honorable body to pass an act authorising the Postmaster General to remit the penalty of $378 30, with interest, now composing a part of said judgment.

And, as in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray, &c.

Your letter of the 7th instant to the Postmaster General, in relation to the judgment obtained against Creed Taylor, esq., as one of the sureties of Haley S. Edington, late postmaster at Napoleon, Arkansas, has been referred to this office, and I have the honor now to reply.

The particulars of Edington’s default may be stated as follows:

Judgment was obtained for this sum, and interest, and for $52 21 costs, on the 10th of October last, and, as it would seem, against Mr. Taylor alone: Edington and his other surety, Thomas Moore, being regarded as wholly insolvent.

Since the reorganization of this department, and the establishment of this office, in the year 1836, it has disclaimed any authority to remit the penalties imposed on postmasters for failing to render accounts. You will find its views on this subject, including the principle applicable to the case of the sureties, as distinguished from that of the principals, incorporated in a report made to the House of Representatives, by the Committee of Claims, at the second session of the twenty-fifth Congress, vol. 3, report 652. The case of Mr. Taylor is precisely similar to the case of Agee, which was the subject of that report; and I shall be happy if you request it to do for his benefit what the office did on that occasion, namely: upon his paying $338 01, with interest from the 31st of December, 1843, and the costs, to direct the marshal to suspend the collection of $378 30—the amount of the penalty—until Congress can

---

act on the application he may make for a release from that portion of the said judgment.

I may here add, that the recommendation of the committee in the case of Agee, has never been carried out by the passage of an act for his relief, but acts, predicated on the same principle, have passed in favor of A. A. Paska, 3d of March, 1839, Laws of the United States, vol. 9, p. 1052; in favor of A. G. Wright, surety of Smoker, 27th of May, 1840, Pamphlet Laws, p. 64; and in favor of Eli Wheat and Stephen White, sureties of Carter, 11th of August, 1842, Pamphlet Laws, p. 97.

In reply to your letter of this date, I have the honor to state, that the portion of the judgment obtained against Creed Taylor, as surety of Edington, for the amount of his default, exclusive of penalty, and which should be paid, agreeably to the principle stated in my letter of the 11th of March, 1846, is as follows:

From this statement you may perceive that the object of the committee, as stated in your letter, will be fulfilled by enacting that the above $62 48, paid on account of penalty, be refunded, and that the residue of the judgment, being also on account of penalty, be released.