Minority Report

Mr. George W. W. Jones

[Minor?]

Minority Report on the petition of William De Buys late Postmaster at New Orleans.

The undersigned, minority of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads to whom was refered the Petition of William De Buys, dissenting from the report of the ^Majority of the ^ Committee, Respectfully submit[s?] the following statement as the reason[s?] for their dissent. William DeBuys was appointed Postmaster at New Orleans and [...?] entered upon the discharg[e] of the duties of the Office on the 26^th July 1841 and continued in office untill the 7^th May 1843 a period of one year nine months and twelve days. The compensation of Postmasters as regulate[d] 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 Post master should receive a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars per1 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 pay^ing^ Clerks salaries, offic[e] rent, stationary, fuel, lights and all other [central?]

govt expenses he was allowed the sum of five hundred Dollars per quarter or 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 of commissions, ^whatever the amount^ whatever it might be. But by special provision of law the Post Master General was authorised, 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 the commissions 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 $3000 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 when ever this case shall be finaly determined against him by Congress.

But ^it^ is alledged and appears from the evidence in 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 cents allowed him by act of congress of February 18th 1843, making the sum of $1481.42 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 $5350.67 for commissions and under special act the sum of $1481.42 making together the sum of $6832.09 for the time he was in office. Which was about the sum of $3830.50 per annum during his service, was all the law allowed, and is within $170.2 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 $5000 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^ $2100 ^2021.^ which he claims and asks that an act be passed allowing him that amount

^Jack^ 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 f determine the salary or rate of compensation ^to be^ paid to the clerks ^them^, subject it is true to the revision and approval of the Post Master General, but which is ^seldom or^ never interfered with by that officer. It is further alleged by the ^F^ petitioner that in consequence of the decrease of business, ^at New Orleans^ from the pressure in the business of the county 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 ^regard to^ economy, [un?] on the part of the petitioner, with a view to his own interest 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 this service ^commissions.^ The gross amount of commissions, [...?]including the $800. per annum allowed by law, from the 26th July 1841 to May 7^th 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 alledged decreasing business of his office to effect a corresponding decrease in the expenses of his office ^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 26^th July to the 30th September 1841, the petitioner paid, $1702.31 ^which^ was at the rate of $2337.50 per quarter, for the 4^th quarter of 1841. he paid $2380. for the 1^st quarter in 1842 he paid $2449.50. And for the remainder of the time he continued in office he paid $2530. per quarter except one quarter for which he paid $2560.

Thus paying for the services of Clerks during the period he had charge of the New Orleans Post office $1050. more than would have been paid had the salaries which were paid Clerks when ^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 was could receive. But regardless of his own interest he d 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 the deficiency by appropriating a sum sufficient out of other fun[ds] ^of the Department or rather out of the Treasury^

To the undersigned, this seems not only unreasonable but unjust and in their opinion should not be allowed.

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 [then?] are limited by law, and you ^we^ at oncee, virtually make them salaried officers and hold out inducements to them, to absorb the whole ^entire^ commissions in the salaries ^compensation^ of relatives and favorites as clerks at exhorbitant salaries

Every Postmaster in the United states was at the ^time^ allowed $2000. 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 1^st 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 $2000. 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^ application in any of those cases for additional compensation. Why make an exception in3 the present case? And by granting the desired additional compensation to the petitioner, do we4 not invite similar applications from all those similarly situated? Most assuredly. And this being granted upon what principle could others be granted ^rejected^? None. This ^And^ being done ^granted^, would in effect, make them salaried officers at the rate of $5000. per annum.

Upon a full investigation of the subject, the undersigned with due defference 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.