The Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, to whom was referred the memorial of Rufus Dwinel, praying compensation for services for carrying the mail, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

It appears in evidence, that in the year 1832, James Thomas, of the State of Maine, entered into a contract with the Postmaster-General for carrying a daily mail between certain points therein specified, which contract was intended to remain in force for four years from the time of its date. It further appears that subsequently, in consequence of the embarrassed condition of the Post-office Department, the service to be performed was made tri-weekly, and that for several months of the year there was no service whatever, with a view to a reduction of the expense. The contractor had, in the meanwhile, made all of his arrangements with a view to the transportation of the mail daily, and had for that purpose procured the best carriages and horses, in order to give satisfaction to the public. The change ordered by the department not only reduced, in a corresponding degree, the profits of the contract, but it also made it necessary for the contractor either to keep constantly upon the road a full force half employed, or to sell off his stock at a great loss, at a season when this description of property is not in demand. Under these circumstances, the contractor felt bound to hold himself in readiness to carry out his original contract at all times, and presented his accounts to the department in the same form as if the full service had been performed. The charges for service during the periods of suspension were not allowed; owing to which fact, there appeared a balance against the contractor of nine hundred and ninety-one dollars and nineteen cents. Colonel Thomas, the contractor, requested that a suit should be brought, with a view to a thorough investigation and settlement of the matter, and accordingly an action was instituted against him for the balance claimed to be due. The trial took place before the circuit court of the District of Columbia, at the March term, 1841, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the contractor, for thirteen thousand and thirty-seven dollars and seventy-two cents, with interest from the 4th day of March, 1837. To this judgment there was no exception taken on the part of the Government.

Hamilton, print.

The plea offered at the trial, on behalf of the Government, for having disallowed a part of the contractor's account, was, that there had been a change in the service with the assent of the contractor, and that consequently he could not claim under the original contract. In support of this plea, letters from the contractor were produced in evidence, in which, as they insisted on the part of the Government, he acquiesced in the change. In answer to this, it was proved by the evidence of Mr. Brown, an officer of high rank in the Department, that he had been instructed by the Postmaster-General to inform the contractors, and Colonel Thomas among others, that the change was made in consequence of the embarrassed state of the Department; and that so soon as the Department should be in condition to do so, any losses would be made good which he had sustained.

Your committee do not recognize the right of either party to a solemn contract under seal, to modify or cancel the contract, except by mutual consent, in which case they think it can only be done by an instrument of equal solemnity with that in which the original contract was set forth. In the present case, no such formal modification took place; and although it is alleged that the contractor acquiesced in the change made by the department, and went on to perform the contract as modified, it is evident that he could not have done otherwise without entire ruin to himself. In addition to this, the acquiescence took place, as appears, under assurances from an authorized source, that any loss incurred in so doing should be made good so soon as the condition of the department would permit. In other words, the contractor was willing to waive his right to the payment of a part of his remuneration under the contract, until the Government should be relieved from difficulties which were temporary in their character.

Owing to the refusal on the part of the Government to allow for the entire service as stipulated for in the original contract, on the presentation of his accounts by the contractor, there appeared to be a balance against him, of nine hundred and ninety-one dollars and nineteen cents. At his instigation, a suit was brought against him to recover the above amount, in the circuit court of the District of Columbia; and at the trial term in March, 1841, the jury, under the direction of the court, returned a verdict in his favor for thirteen thousand and thirty-seven dollars and seventy-two cents, with interest from the 4th day of March, 1837.

Although, in the opinion of your committee, the verdicts of juries do not furnish, in general, safe standards by which to be governed in estimating the liabilities of the Government, the circumstances of the present case are such as to induce them to believe that no better guide can be found in forming a correct judgment. The jury which rendered the verdict was composed of men whose integrity, intelligence, and respectability are attested in the strongest manner by high authority, whilst the court is universally admitted to have been one of great experience, extensive legal knowledge, and entire impartiality.

For the amount of this verdict, which had been assigned by the original contractor to secure a friend for advances made to him in money to enable him to carry out the contract, a claim is now urged. The present petitioner, also a friend of the original contractor, having also made advances to a large amount for the same object, was, as appears, obliged, in order to save himself, to purchase the assignment, paying therefor the entire sum due to the first assignee. When these advances were made, the contract, as it was originally made, was in all probability looked to as the source of

reimbursement; and your committee are unwilling that the good faith of the Government, which was impliedly, if not directly pledged, should be forfeited. It is clear that not only the advances above referred to, but all of the preparations in the way of horses, carriages, &c., were based upon the assurance that the contract would be carried out in good faith, and your committee do not think it would be just, or even politic, to disappoint the expectation which appeared to be well-founded.

After mature consideration, the committee are of opinion that the prayer of the memorialist is just, and should be granted, and therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.