This claim rests upon several distinct items of account, growing out of their contracts with the Post Office Department for the transportation of the mail of the United States; and no evidence being found with the claim, it was, by order of the committee, referred to the Auditor of the department for examination and report. That report, which has been prepared with great care by Mr. Washington, one of the most faithful and efficient officers in the public employment, is so full and satisfactory, that the committee adopt it as their report upon the subject.

From the official statement of the accounts of the memorialists, it appears that, instead of their being creditors to the amount of $23,196[.]34, they appear to be indebted to the department, on account of the transactions complained of, in the sum of $7,987[.]66.

The committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petition of Edwin Porter & Co. ought not to be granted.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, enclosing the petition of Edwin Porter, late contractor for carrying the mails, with certain accompanying documents, and requesting that you may be furnished with all the facts in the case, and the views of this office upon the subject of the said petition. The time that has elapsed since the transactions occurred on which the petition is founded, and the intrinsic difficulty of the points placed at issue, have rendered the investigation of them necessarily tedious, and will demand some detail for a full and proper exposition of the facts and principles involved.

The petition sets forth four specific items of claim—

1.	For a draft discounted for the use of the Post Office Department, im- properly charged to the petitioners	$10,000[.]00
2.	W. D. Stone’s draft, improperly charged	4,500[.]00
3.	Fines which should be remitted	6,684[.]00
4.	Balance admitted by department	2,012[.]34
		23,196[.]34

The last item mentioned arises out of so palpable a misconception, and is susceptible of so ready explanation, that it will, perhaps, be most convenient to dispose of it, before proceeding to the consideration of those in which differences of opinion may be supposed to be reasonably entertained. The ground of this item is more particularly presented in the petition in the following words:

“Your memorialist further represents, that for years he strove to get his account from the Post Office Department to make his claim, but could not until the last spring; and that now by it, which is enclosed, it appears that the department admits that the sum of $2,012[.]34 is due him, which it has not paid.”

In passing, I think it due to this office, which has been charged with the settlement of the accounts since July, 1836, to state that it has no knowledge of any application by Mr. Porter, or on his behalf, for the account, prior to the application that procured it; and that it seems impossible that any could have been made, as during the whole intervening period there has been a clerk exclusively employed to furnish statements of accounts to contractors when they demanded them.

Upon the application referred to, of the agent of Mr. Porter, the statement of the account, which was presented to the committee, and accompanies the petition, was promptly furnished, together with various verbal explanations, one of which had express relation to the balance of $2,012[.]34. It was then distinctly stated that this balance was only apparent, and was not really due. That the Bank of the Metropolis, having had money on deposite of the Post Office Department, and having, at a former period, discounted a draft drawn by said Porter on the Post Office Department for $10,000, which it had accepted, and the same having been protested at maturity, and held by the bank for non-payment, it had, on the 10th of October, 1837, charged over the said acceptance to the said deposite; and that the pretension of the bank so to discharge the draft out of the post office funds, having in an action of the United States against said bank, to recover said deposites, been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court, (Peters, vol. 15, p. 377,) the amount of said draft became a proper charge, as between Porter and the department, against his account; and when so charged, the balance of his account, instead of $2,012[.]34 due to him, would in fact be $7,387[.]66 due from him. It was also stated that the charge had not as yet been made, for certain reasons of a technical nature connected with questions of the liability of the appropriations to such debit, and having no relation whatever to Mr. Porter, touching his indebtedness or non-indebtedness to the department. The same explanation is now presented to the committee, and I think will leave it at no loss to come to a right conclusion in relation to the balance of $2,012[.]34, merely apparent on the account, considered

---

merely in itself; but I readily admit that the question may still properly remain, arising out of an allegation in the petition in regard to another item, whether the avails of said draft, when discounted, were not loaned to the department by Mr. Porter; and if so, whether Mr. Porter received the proper credit at the time, and was, therefore, properly chargeable when the draft was so paid.

The examination of the first item in the petition, will bring up the consideration of this question. This item is presented, in the petition, in the following words:

“Your memorialist claims that he has been debited with $10,000, which should have been credited to him at the same time, as the money was merely loaned to the department—$10,000.”

The process and effect of raising money upon drafts of contractors, practised by the department in 1834, and part of 1835, have not, it is apprehended, been well understood. The drafts used were drawn on the department on time, and accepted by the department. The draft being discounted in some bank, the amount was forthwith placed to the credit of the contractor on the books of the department, as cash; and when the draft reached maturity, and was paid by the department, the amount was then charged to the contractor. In the result—that is to say, after the whole process was concluded—it is manifest that the two entries, (one of credit, and the other of debit,) of equal amount, simply neutralized each other, and operated merely as counter-entries, having no effect upon the actual state of the contractor’s account, as it stood upon the other and real entries therein. But there was another effect upon the account of the contractor produced by the operation, that savored a little more of substance and reality. The amount being placed to the credit of the contractor’s account immediately at the time of discount, and not charged until the time of maturity and payment, the contractor had, of course, the benefit of the credit during the whole period, as against other debits or payments. Thus understood, is there ground for the allegation that the contractors sustained the department at the period mentioned? or for whose benefit, in fact, was this scheme of finance devised and practised? The principle stated may be illustrated by an actual transaction in the account of the petitioners, E. Porter & Co. That account, as exhibited to the committee, commences

with a balance due from them on the 1st January, 1835 of		$5,752[.]21
On the 10th of January, 1835, two drafts for $10,000 each, drawn, as will be shown, for the use of the contractors, were paid and charged		20,000[.]00
Making		25,752[.]21
The credits to which they became entitled, on the 1st of January, 1835, consisted of the first eleven credits entered in said account, amounting to	$8,970
And to the pay for one of the five quarters’ allow- ance credited in the twelfth item, being	6,250
		15,220[.]00
Which sum deducted from the former, left the contractors in- debted, on the 10th of January, 1835		10,532[.]21
Now, on the 14th of January, 1835, their draft for $10,000, <Page 6>
at 90 days, was discounted; and the amount being placed at once to their credit		$10,000[.]00
Left the balance against them of only		532[.]21

So far, therefore, from the contractors lending this money to the department, it is manifest that the department pledged its credit to raise the money, to replace the improper advance it had made them on the 10th of January; and that this pledge was not in name only, is evident from the fact, to be seen in the sequel of this report, that the department has thereby eventually lost the said sum of $10,000—less the apparent balance before mentioned, of $2,012[.]34; or, in other words, has sustained an actual loss of $7,987[.]66 by this operation.

Having thus explained and illustrated the mode and consequences of raising money on drafts of contractors, and showed to whose benefit it really enured, I proceed to give a particular and detailed history of every draft mentioned, or rather of every sum mentioned of $10,000, on either side of the account presented, in order to satisfy the committee that not only has the petitioner not been overcharged, as alleged, with a draft of $10,000, with which he should have been credited, but that he is in fact yet chargeable with a draft of that amount, which has not as yet been charged, as before stated. The sums on account of drafts of $10,000 in the said account, are as follows:

No. 1, draft paid January 10, 1835	$10,000
No. 2, draft paid January 10, 1835	10,000
No. 3, draft credited as cash January 14, 1835	10,000
No. 4, draft paid April 10, 1835	10,000
No. 5, draft credited as cash April 15, 1835	10,000

Draft No. 1, it appears from the books of the department, was drawn by E. Porter & Co., in favor of William A. Bradley, (one of the partners,) on the 7th of July, 1834, at 6 months; and that it was paid on the 10th of January, 1835, by check No. 3113, to Richard Smith, who held it for collection as cashier of the Branch Bank of the United States in this city. The draft is no longer in existence, having been destroyed, as is supposed, by fire in the department, on the 16th of December, 1836. The books of the Branch Bank show that the draft was paid to Mr. Smith, as stated, and that he had received it from, and collected it for, the Bank of Baltimore. Having written to Mr. Jameson, at present cashier of the Bank of Baltimore, he verifies, under date of the 23d of January, the statement derived from the Branch Bank; and states further, that the Bank of Baltimore received the draft from the Farmers’ Bank of Virginia, at Richmond; and having written to J. G. Blair, esq., the cashier of that bank, he in like manner verifies, under date of the 27th inst., the statement derived from Mr. Jameson, and adds, that the said draft was discounted by the Farmers’ Bank on the 13th of November, 1834, for Mr. Porter, and the proceeds were placed to his credit; and that, when paid, the amount was credited to that bank by the Bank of Baltimore.

Draft No. 2 appears, from the books of this office, to have been dated 10th of October, 1834; to have been drawn in favor of the contractor’s own order; and to have been paid to George Thomas, cashier of the Bank of the Metropolis, on the 10th of January, 1835, by check No. 3126. By

---

the books of the bank, it appears that the draft was at 90 days; that it fell due on the 8th—11th of January, 1835, and was paid on Saturday, the 10th. It further appears that the bank discounted the draft for the use of Mr. Porter on the 11th of October, 1834, and that the proceeds were placed to his credit, and drawn out upon his check.

The history of neither of these two drafts furnishes any ground for the claim of Mr. Porter—one being drawn in his own favor, and the other in favor of his partner, Mr. W. A. Bradley. From the full examination made, I find no reason to suppose that the department received any part of the proceeds of either. If it did, it would be easy for Mr. Porter to show it. The next draft was, it is admitted, discounted, and the proceeds placed to the credit of the department, as has already been stated in illustrating the effect of raising money on drafts of contractors, and as will again be more particularly stated in carrying forward the history of the drafts of $10,000 entered in the account of the contractors.

No. 3 is a credit in the account, under date of 14th of January, 1835, of $10,000 as cash. The books of the Bank of the Metropolis show that the draft was drawn by the contractors on the department, and accepted by it in their own favor, on the 7th of January, 1835, at 90 days, for $10,000; that it was discounted by the bank on the 14th of January, 1835, the amount placed to the credit of Mr. Porter, and by him checked out and placed to the credit of the department. Upon this deposite, the department gave Messrs. Porter & Co. the credit stated, and, of course, can be asked to do nothing more in relation to this transaction.

No. 4 is the charge in the account under date of 10th of April, 1835, of $10,000; and this charge is founded on the payment of the draft described as No. 3. Being dated the 7th of January, 1835, at 90 days, it fell due the 7th—10th of April, 1835, and appears, by the books of this office, to have been paid on the said 10th of April, 1835, to George Thomas, cashier of the Bank of the Metropolis, by check No. 3633. Thus, for the said draft of $10,000, the account was both credited and debited. Whilst the draft was held by the bank, Messrs. Porter & Co. had the benefit of the credit in their account; but when it was paid, the debit and credit stood merely as counter-entries, and made the balance precisely what it would have been, in respect to other items, if the transaction never had taken place. The operation was, however, repeated in part.

No. 5 is a credit in the account under date of 14th of April, 1835, of $10,000. The books of the Bank of the Metropolis show that the draft was drawn by the contractors on the department, on the 14th of April, 1835, at 90 days; that it was discounted on the same day, the amount placed to the credit of Mr. Porter, and by him placed to the credit of the department; and upon this credit, the department gave the proper credit mentioned to the contractors in their account.

Such is a detailed history of the five entries in the account exhibited of $10,000 each. From this history, it is manifest that Nos. 1 and 2 were founded upon real transactions, for the payment of drafts drawn by the contractors for their own use; that Nos. 3 and 4, one of credit and the other of debit, were founded upon one and the same draft, discounted and placed to the credit of the department; and that for No. 5, being merely the credit upon the discount of the draft, the transaction is incomplete until the corresponding debit is made in the account, due upon the payment of the draft. From the books of the bank, it appears that the said draft of

---

14th of April, 1835, at 90 days, fell due and was protested for non-payment on the 16th of July, 1835; and that on the 10th of October, 1837, it was charged over by the bank to the money it held on deposite of the Post Office Department—the right of the bank so to charge being finally affirmed by the Supreme Court, as before stated.

Now, can there remain any doubt that the contractors are now properly chargeable with this draft of 14th of April, 1835, so paid by the department, as they were with the draft of 7th of January, 1835, charged as No. 4? or, in other words, being credited with the two discounts, are they not chargeable with the two payments? This draft of 14th of April, 1835, being charged, the apparent balance due to the contractors of $2,012[.]34, is extinguished; and there arises a balance against them of $7,987[.]66.

The next item of claim to be considered is set forth in the following words:

“William D. Stone’s draft, improperly charged to him—$4,500.”

William D. Stone was postmaster at Mobile, from the year 1828 to the 14th October, 1832. The liquidation of a portion of the balance due from him, by a draft on Messrs. Porter, is the basis of this claim. The account of Mr. Stone was sent to him, with a view to settlement, on the 8th May, 1833. On the 25th May, 1833, he acknowledged its receipt, in a letter dated at Portersville, containing the following intimation of his wishes in regard to the payment of the balance:

“It would greatly oblige me, if you would permit me to make the payment of whatever balance may be due, at Washington city, as my interest in the mail line between Mobile and New Orleans would make it more convenient for me to draw upon the mail pay.”

Here Mr. Stone asserts an interest in the contract pay, and a right to draw upon it; and the testimony in the case furnishes the strongest possible presumption that he had the interest alleged.

In the original letter to Major Barry, addressed by Mr. Porter, in April 1835, asking a remission of certain fines, he ascribes the failures to his agent at Mobile: “I selected an agent at Mobile, whose high standing was then such as to be your postmaster at Mobile. That agent was furnished with all needful money to execute his agency. That I failed in the fulfilment of my contract, through him, I have but too much reason to deplore.”

On the 27th December, 1834, Wm. A. Bradley, esq., of this city, a partner in the company, was examined by the committee of the Senate appointed to investigate the affairs of the Post Office Department, and gave the following testimony:

“Question 8. What was supposed to be the condition of that company, as to profit and loss, at the time you first heard that Mr. Brown had ceased to have any interest?

“Answer. At that time the stock was considered by me to be worth not more than seventy-five per cent. upon the par value, and that the portion bought by Mr. Porter was about equal to what it cost him. The bad management of our agent, who was also a partner of one-fourth of the stock, was supposed by us to be the occasion of our losses.”

How long Mr. Stone had been the agent and partner in this route before he ceased to be postmaster, I have no means of knowing. It is to be presumed that his interest in the route could not have been known to the department, as it was in conflict with the provisions of the post office act of

---

1825, and was calculated to interfere with that supervision over the performance of service on the route, which it was his duty, as postmaster, to exercise.

In reply to his letter of 25th May, 1833, Mr. Stone was informed, by direction of Mr. Brown, then acting as treasurer of the department, that his draft on E. Porter & Co., if accepted by Mr. Porter, would be passed to his credit; the presumption being that he would draw at sight. Instead of this, Mr. Stone transmitted a draft at six months’ sight. The draft was received at the department on the 13th August, 1833; and on the same day Mr. Porter was written to at Staunton, Virginia, to say if he would accept the draft, and from what time. He replied, under date of 20th August, that he would be in Washington by the 15th of September, when (using his own language) “I will accept the draft of W. D. Stone;” adding, “I am at a loss how to act, as I have not heard from him.” On the 24th September, 1833, Mr. Porter was written to at Washington city, and requested to call at the department the next day, in order that a reply might be given to a letter of Mr. Stone, just received. It would seem that he did not call until the 1st October, 1833, for on that day Mr. Stone was informed that Mr. Porter had just accepted his draft, and that it would be passed to his credit when paid. By the terms of the acceptance, the draft was to become payable on the 1st April, 1834; and it appears from a memorandum in the handwriting of Mr. Hand, then acting as solicitor of the department, that the draft “remained in this state until February, 1834, when Mr. Porter came to the department, and gave notice that he should not honor the draft; and that Mr. Brown then ordered Mr. Hand to bring suit immediately, which was done,” viz: against Mr. Stone. The draft, however, was not protested, but was retained in possession of the department, Nor was the suit prosecuted to trial, there appearing to have been some expectation entertained that Mr[.] Stone and Mr. Porter would come to an understanding upon the subject; but this expectation was not realized. Mr. Stone insisted upon his right to the credit; that the acceptance had been made the property of the department; and upon his preparing himself to defend the suit, and doubtless upon a conviction of the sufficiency of his legal defence, the department, in May, 1836, discontinued further proceedings against him. Upon this abandonment of the suit against Mr. Stone, Mr. Porter was charged with the amount of the draft, and I think he was rightfully and properly charged. Not to insist upon the right or duty of the department to withhold money due to its debtor, so far as Mr. Stone’s interest in the contract extended, I think that Mr. Porter was fully bound by the acceptance of the 1st October, 1833. It is in proof that to about this period the operations of the company were profitable; and although the change in the affairs of the company might have furnished a motive, it surely did not give Mr. Porter a right to discharge himself, by a bare notice to the department, from his obligation, in February, 1834.

The last claim to be considered is presented in the petition in the following words:

“Fines charged, which should have been rescinded—$6,684.”

I find but little information on the books of the office, except the debit in the account, in relation to these fines. No register, giving the dates and the nature of the failure in the southern contracts, was probably kept at that time, or, if kept, must have been destroyed in the department, in December,

---

1836. It appears that, on the 9th of January, 1834, a resolution was adopted by the Senate, requiring the Postmaster General to report the number of failures which had occurred in the preceding twelve months, in carrying the mails between Washington city and New Orleans, by the southern route, and the amount of forfeitures enforced against the contractors; and that the said report was made on the 3d of February, 1834. In this report, the failures of Mr. Porter, on the route between Mobile and New Orleans, are enumerated and described as entire omissions of service, as follows:

“For the route from Mobile to New Orleans, route No. 1972, (should be 197 a,) Edwin Porter is the contractor. The failures to arrive at Mobile, causing a disconnexion of the mails, were seventy-eight: In January, five; February, two; March, three; April, eighteen; May, six; June, three; July, eight; August, eight; September, fourteen; October, six; November, two; December, three. The failures to arrive at New Orleans, being entire omissions, were seventy-two: In January, six; February, two; March, three; April, fourteen; May, six; June, four; July, ten; August, seven; September, twelve; October, five; November, two; and December, one. The penalties ordered to be enforced are deductions from the pay of the contractor for the amount of sixty-one trips each way.”

From this statement, it is manifest that there were seventeen failures one way, and eleven the other—making twenty-eight half trips—for which no penalties were ordered. The committee of the Senate had complained that one hundred and fifty failures had occurred on this route, for which the contractor alleged he had been fined, on the books of the department, six thousand eight hundred dollars; yet that no part of this sum appeared to have been retained out of his pay. (Doc. 422, 1st session, 23d Congress, Senate vol. 5, p. 19.) The testimony of that period shows that pains were taken to induce the belief that the fines had been deducted; and, moreover, that the Postmaster General had been applied to, in 1834, to remit the fines, and had refused or failed to do so. Major Barry’s report to the Senate, before recited, is explicit in the declaration that the deduction had been ordered to be made. Mr. O. B. Brown, who had been first the superintendent of mail contracts, and afterwards acted as treasurer of the department, in his address to the public on the 7th February, 1835, published in the Globe, comments upon this complaint of the committee as follows: “The majority of the committee state, that on one of these contracts there were one hundred and fifty failures in a single year, and no penalties enforced. The books of the department show the fact that penalties to the amount of some thousands of dollars were enforced, and are still remaining against the contractor.” In Mr. Porter’s examination before the committee of the House (Reps., 2d session 23d Congress, vol. 2, p. 475) is the following testimony:

“Question. Are you charged with penalties for failures on your contract from Mobile to New Orleans? And if so, to what amount, and when?

“Answer. We were charged with (I think) the sum of $6,800, in the summer and fall of 1833.

“Question. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Barry, or any officer of the department, in relation to the collection or remission of the same?

“Answer. I have requested Major Barry, at sundry times, to have these fines remitted, which applications he holds under consideration. My last application was made within a month.”

This testimony was taken about the 1st January, 1835. It appears that on the 10th October, 1834, several remissions of fines and allowances were made; the fines remitted having been imposed previously to the fines of 1833, now in question; and without knowing, certainly, his reason for not remitting these fines at the same time, the fair conclusion, from all the circumstances, appears to me to be, that he did not remit them because they had been reported to the Senate, and presented to the country, as fines that had been actually enforced. In point of fact, the said fines had not been deducted from the pay of the contractors, or even charged to their general account, until after Major Barry had left the department.

On the 4th of April, 1833, Mr. Porter was informed of the rule of the department upon the subject of the remission of fines; and that, under it, no fines imposed would be remitted, unless upon evidence (say of a postmaster upon the route) of the cause of the failure, and accounting for it satisfactorily to the Postmaster General. In the present case, there is no such evidence produced; nor is it pretended that the contractors can, or ever undertook to account, in a satisfactory manner, for the said failures. Indeed, Mr. Porter, in his letter of 23d April, 1835, before quoted, admits the non fulfilment of his contract, without qualification. And the report of Major Barry to the Senate shows that the failures were entire omissions of service. Now, as for these omissions for these trips not performed, Mr. Porter has been fully credited in the account, precisely as if they had been duly performed according to his contract; and if these fines (the cost precisely of sixty-one trips) be remitted, then is he paid for services which he never rendered, and which he does not pretend to have rendered.

But, as Major Barry certainly expressed a favorable opinion on the claim to remission, I should deem this report incomplete unless I took some notice of the grounds of that opinion.

It has been seen that, on the 23d of April, 1835, (a few days before Major Barry left the department,) Mr. Porter presented a written application to him for the remission of the fines. Upon this letter Major Barry made the following endorsement:

“I consider the claim for the remission of the fines, in this case, well founded. It was a difficult and hard service, in which, by the perfidy and mismanagement of agents, the contractors have lost immensely. Under existing circumstances, I do not think it proper to act in the case. If I did, I should grant the application; but recommend it to the favorable consideration of my successor, and of the President.

The “existing circumstances” mentioned, I think, rather refer to the fact of the fines having been reported as deducted from the pay of the contractors, than to the fact of Major Barry’s withdrawal from the department; as it has been shown that he had had the subject frequently brought to his notice when this latter difficulty did not exist.

Now, it can be shown by the testimony of the parties interested, that Major Barry was in error; that during the year 1833, in which these failures of service took place, the route was highly profitable, and, of course, was well paid for by the department, whatever may have been the difficulty of the service. As to the perfidy of the agent of the contractor, even if

---

established, I do not think it a legitimate ground to allow him for service not performed.

At page 255, Senate Document 86, 2d session 23d Congress, Mr. Brown having been questioned as to the loan made for the heirs of Doctor Jackson to Mr. Porter, with the privilege of making it an investment in the stock of the company, if he thought fit, states: “The matter thus rested for, I believe, more than a year; when I told Mr. Porter that I desired to have nothing to do with the contract, but to regard the money as a loan from the time he received it. I did then believe that the contract was making, clear of all expenses, more than fifty per cent. per annum on the whole capital invested.”

At page 334, Mr. Porter states the period when Mr. Brown declined being a partner as the early part of the summer of 1833.

Page 335—”Question 10. From January, 1832, until the summer of 1833, was the New Orleans contract a profitable or a losing concern?

“Answer. From letters which we had from our agent, we considered it a very profitable business until the winter afterwards.”

The testimony of Mr. Bradley has already been recited, ascribing the losses sustained, not to the inadequacy of the compensation, but to the mis-management of their agent.

The complaint of bad treatment, in relation to this claim, made at the close of the petition, induces me to notice one or two particulars not before referred to.

It appears that, from the 15th February to the 30th March, 1834, Mr. Porter performed no service at all. This was probably the time when his boats were levied on; to relieve which, he went to New Orleans with authority to draw on the department for $20,000 or $25,000, as mentioned in the reports of the two committees of investigation. During this interval (say of one-half a quarter) the agents of the department procured special service, for which it paid $6,750. This sum was charged to Mr. Porter, at the same time that he was credited with the regular contract pay for said half-quarter, say $5,000. The difference charged against him, by way of penalty or damages, being the amount actually paid by the department—being $1,750.

On the same 10th October, 1834, on which other allowances were made, as before stated, Mr. Porter is credited: “For restoration of excess of amount paid by W. H. Kerr, postmaster, New Orleans; and S. H. Garrow, postmaster, Mobile, charged 29th April and 22d May, 1834, for having the mail carried between New Orleans and Mobile, from 15th February to 30th March, 1834 over their pro rata pay for the same period, $4,339.”

Now, it is clear enough that the true excess was only $1,750; and that, by error or intention, he was allowed $2,589 more than the excess. To relieve the contractor from the actual damages incurred by his failure, by crediting him with the $1,750 merely, would have been an act of uncommon liberality; but the giving him, over and above this, the sum of $2,589, can be considered nothing less than a gratuity.

This route between New Orleans and Mobile had been previously, and to the 1st January, 1832, carried by a company (of which Mr. Porter was a member) three times a week, for $25,000 per annum. From the 1st January, 1832, the department made a new contract with him and other associates, for $40,000 per annum, to carry the mail daily. But it seems, as I now find, that there was an agreement or permission given to run only three times a

---

week, for nine months from the commencement of the contract; they receiving, however, (as they did receive,) the full pay. On the 27th August, 1832, Mr. Porter was required to run daily, according to the contract. Whether this order was complied with, I have no means of ascertaining; but, connecting the fact with the remarkable failures or “omissions” of service in 1833 unexplained and unaccounted for, the presumption does not seem to be violent or unreasonable, that Mr. Porter had not provided himself with the adequate stock to fulfil his contract by daily service. It seems impossible that so many failures could have been accidental; but that they must have arisen out of something in the circumstances or interest of the contractors, sufficient, in their judgment, to countervail the apprehension of penalties to be enforced.

The petition and papers are returned.