The committee on the Post Office and Post Roads to whom was refered the petition of Guion and M^cLaughlin

Report that the petitioners on the 26th November 1844 they entered into separate contracts with the Post Office Department to carry the mail in two horse coaches, the former from Raleigh to Fayetteville N. C., the latter from Fayetteville to Columbia S. C, at the rate of $60 pr mile making the aggregate sum of $12.340 per annum with the privilege of ordering the great Mail on the Routes at $41.120 per annum. That on the 3 December 1844, the great Mail was ordered on the routes, and on the 6th of Feby 1845 the great Mail service was annulled and two months extra pay was allowed on the amount saved Viz $28.280 being the difference between the great Mail service and the ordinary service. It is however unusual to allow more than one months extra pay when a route is reduced. In the copy of the contract ^with Guion^ filed with the papers too there is an express stipulation that “the Postmaster General may discontinue or curtail the service, he allowing one months Extra pay on the amount dispensed with”

In this case however there was two months Extra pay allowed on account of the peculiar service and the large outlay and expense to

be incurred to stock the routes, according to the universal rule of the Department, the extra pay was cast on the amount am saved or dispensed with Viz $28,280. The contractors claim it on the whole amount of ^the^ cost of the great Mail service including the ordinary or original service which was still continued and for which there is no pretence that they failed to get their pay. The amount allowed was $4,713,33 the amount claimed was $6,853,33; difference $2.140, this is the issue presented. The Committee are unanimously of the opinion that there is no ground of ^[for?] ^[...?] in this the passage of a bill to add to the compensation of the contractors who have already received or had awarded them by the Post office Department more than they were entitled to under their contract. In further proof of this position of the Committee they refer to the petition itself which admits that the petitioners knew when they entered into the contract that it would eventuate finally (as it in a few weeks) in a restoration of the original service only. They [present?] the petition therefore as part of their report and recommend that the claim be rejected.