The Petition of W^m B. Stokes surviving partner of J. N. C. Stockton & C^o respectfully represents, that at the late session of Congress, a bill for the relief of said Stokes accompanied by a Report was passed & became a law.

Your Petitioner states, that at the time the bill was passed, the Report in the case was not printed & altho’ he used diligent means to procure a printed copy, he could not procure one until the 11^th Sept. Your Petitioner states, that before he could receive the amount awarded by law, ^—altho all the parties stand greatly in need of it—^ he thought it prudent to ascertain the ground on which the compensation was made, because the law declared the sum allowed by it, should be in full satisfaction for all claims on the part of J. N. C. Stockton & C^o & there being the widows & heirs interested in the law, it was a most solemn duty on his part to take no step which could injuriously affect their rights & interests.

Your Petitioner in his memorial presented to the last Congress prayed remuneration in the nature of damages for the loss of passengers occasioned by a service, which he was not bound by his contract to perform & [y^r?] Petitioner then conscientiously thought still thinks, that this

---

mode of compensation was the proper standard of remuneration. Your Honerable Body, however, has decided otherwise & therefore it is not necessary to say any thing further on that point.

The ground of compensation adopted by you Honerable Body as expressed in the Report was “to give the Petitioner the same sum which was actually paid to the contractors on the upper route for services rendered by the Petitioner during the supervision.”

On this basis, the Committee in making the calculation of the sum which should actually be paid to your Petitioner allows for 73 days during which the mail was carried over ^the lower route ^ which is correct. The Committee assumes the gross sum paid on the upper route at $23.875 & on this amount they have allowed — what the sum of $4.775 as the pro-rata amount for 73 days.

It is on this point, that your Petitioner thinks it his duty Respectfully to present to you the following facts. The starting point for carry the mail in 4 horse [post?] coaches on the upper route was Augusta in Georgia and this was also the starting point for carrying the mail on the lower route, In other over which your Petitioner carried it. In other words, the starting point for the great Northern & Southern mail was Augusta in Georgia. If this fact be so, which

---

the papers on file in this case will establish and that too on the authority of the Post-master General (see paper marked W endorsed” a mere detailed statement of the particulars than is given in the letter of the P. M. Gen^l), your Petitioner respectfully thinks, that according to the rule of compensation adopted by your Honerable Body, the compensation paid on the entire upper route commencing at Augusta ought to be included.

Now the papers in the case & that too on official authority (see the same paper W) will establish, that the sum of $23,875 assessed by the Committee as the amount paid for carrying the mail on the upper route applied only to the sum paid for carrying it from Columbus to Mobile. But there was a link of this route—the whole Eastern portion of the upper route from Columbus to Augusta a distance of 220 miles, over which the great Northern & Southern mail was carried, for which no compensation has been allowed to you Petitioner by the Committee. Over this link i.e from Augusta to Milledgville, from Melledgville to Columbus, the mail according to a report of the Post Master General was carried in 4 horse [post?] coaches daily & for which, including a branch 2 horse tri-weekly line from Macon to Elleslie, the annual sum of $10.400 was paid.

Your Petitioner with this state of facts in view respectfully thinks, that according to the principle of compensation adopted by the Committee, the amount of compensation on the whole upper route between Augusta & Columbus should be paid to him on the pro-rata for 73 days in the same manner that the compensation from Columbus to Mobile has been allowed & this the being [...?]expressed in the report that “the same sum which was actually paid to the contractors on the upper route for services rendered by the Petitioner during the suspension” will be secured to them.

Your Petitioner therefore respectfully asks of your Honerable Body to ^apply &^extend this principle of justice to him & he will as in duty bound &c.