Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-03-27

hitherto prevented restoration vet il will be seen from
the above that has been strongly urged by eight ho
noabe members of Congress, whose constituents were
lntcrestc in its restoraon and among the honor
able Elisha Whittlesey of Ohio, of the minority of
the committee who signed that report which sets down
the whole OF this expense belonging to the
OF appropriateness" When an honorable representative
can earnestly recommend highly beneficial
to his constituents and to the public and then report
the nation that same of mpr
1t is not difficult to estimate the of credit which
IS due to his slnccrity yet this is but fair specimen of
the general candor OF that Report But the attention of
the undersigned more Immediately directed to the Re-
port OF the majority of the Committee, from whom he
had anticipated justice and candor
The committee complain of two three cases in which
contractors have received credit the books for
greater amount of services than they have performed
The rule of the Department is, when additional services
are required or the contractors obtain certificates of
Postmascrs the evidence of such performance before
payment is made, credit given them their accounts
So carefully is this rule observed that many large
amounts withheld from the credit of contractors for
many months together, when know that their claims
are Justa least, in pastbecause of the want of some
Formally in establishing them, in asceraining the
exact TO which they entitled and this cfcun-
stance alone is the why the books of accounts do
not in all cases exhibit the true condition of every per-
son account; circumstance which the committee have
so highly coored and proiusely ccnsured But with
all this has happened in the great mass of busi
ness done IN the Department that, IN few cases
that formaty has been neglected; and in two or three in
stances there have been placed the credit of contract
ors larger sums than they entitled to- But is an
lnvariable rule, in every such case when is dis
covered TO re-charge such credits and deduct their
amounts from subsequent payments becoming due to the
contractor. Tins has been uniformly and with
such promptness, that not one cent is known have
been lost by of such errors certainly not since
the administration of the undersigned.
David Dorrence from June l. 1881 10 Decembcr
81 1872 contractor for transporting the mail between
New York and New Haven, compensation of 10 600
dollars n year. The Committee comnnin of h;s b,yn,r
received additional allowance of ZOO dollars wear for
supplying NillRivcr posoilce and for running in the
night In this statement, they have confined them
selves TO matters of fact They may not have known
that their statement true; their secrecy WAS
the cause of their ignorance of the fact for if they had
informed the undersigned of their approximations of an
eNravagant allowance ON this route they could have
been put in possession of the particulars There was
posolce at Mill River which the conrict did not re-
qurc HIM to visit 1t increased the distance and reour-
ed an increase of expedition TO perform the trip within
the same time For this increased service the contract
or received additional allowance of s4U0 n wear
and not 500, stated in the Report They also com
plain of the allowance having been made without GER
tifcate of the Postmaster certifying TINT the contract
or supplied that office The best of all evidence was in
the Department that the contractor did supply that Of
flee The Postmaster at Mill River rendered his nc
count OF postage on letters regularly at his of
hce, and paid his balance the Departments and
this was stronger evidence than any certificate could fur
"sh Hat nie mail regularly visited Ais office The mi
norty OF the committee p il9 also state that after the
proposal contract with Loveoy and Wilmington to car
ry the mail from New York to New Haven was apuuled
verbal contract tor the same service made with
David Dorrence, of Pennsy lvana No such verbal con-
tract was made for the service represented by the
horly but on the contrary, written contract in the
usual form, made with said Dorrcnce on the 9th of
May, 1881 and executed the 3lsi of the same month
which contract is now on the records of the
and the book containing it, is believed have been in the
possession OF the committee when this was inves
gated Doubtless however the contract itself escaped
their observation but an inquiry into the case would
have brought 1t under their examination
In 1929, contract made with f. Porter and
others, to transport the mall for the four years
from the 10Th November, 1929, between Mobile and
New Orleans, IN steamboats, three times week for
$29OOO year 1t represented by the contractors
TO be a losing concern. Many disasters had attended
their enterprise and they DESTROYS be released
from IT. The Committee do not pretend that the com
pensation extravaganza but they say the contract
IS - unlawful and wrong" 1t is TO be regretted
that the committee in this case should have been SO
bent on ccDsuTe lavish their ANNA rsions upon
point that had no existence This contract they
say, Che contract made in 1920 "was made without
Advertising. The allegation is not correct This
route was regularly advertised, and the advertise
mcn several proposals received among which was
the proposal OF the company with whom the contract
was made ana the contract was made the
ceped proposal which had been received in conformity
with the advertisements If the committee did not know
the fact of its having been advertised was because of
the veil of secrecy which they had drawn around their
proceedings Had they informed The UNDERSIGNED ofthci
doubt on ths subject or made inquiry him concerning
he would have shown them the printed adj for
TINS route, bed IN the book Of recorded proposals. When
but hall the term of this contract had expired it was
deemed cxpedient to give TO New Orleans daily mail
10 eiect thS object upon the most economical terms
agreement was entered into with Mr.. Porter who had
become the proprietor of more than half the stock en-
pOyed IN the performance of the route to increase the
number OF trips from three to in week at an in
creased compensation of year. raising The whole
amount from 125,C to $4,000. A DrO r0fg iucreose
which might have been lawfully made would have
amounted TO S33 333; making for the entire service
Se333 year; but the object secured for an increase
OF only $l3OOO, which much less than half The
pro Tdtd The first contract not annulled The ar
ragement Tor the increased service made by consent
OF majority OF the interest involved in IL and new
contract was drawn and executed by mutual consent for
the purpose Of securing the individual responsibility of
the person. who from his amount Of interest could con
troll the whole
In the many cases referred TO by The Committee not
an instance IS gwen IN which increased COMPENSATION
has been allowed to contractor, except for additional
services and IN no instance, where the pro can be
ascertained has the allowance exceeded the pro rata
The construction given to the law by the committee il
entirely novel and contrary to the concurrent opinions
OF the undersigned and all his predecessors and accord
ing to the general construction and the usapes founded
upon IT. there rs not instance pointed out in which
the law has been violated.
The mail contracts kept and preserved in the man
her uat tie last twenty years Of experience the De.
patmtn has approved the best They are ARRANGED
IN alphabetical order and bound in books This is neccs
sary to give facility to reference which has constantly
TO be made by bc officers and clerks Of all the various
branches Of the General Post Office To give greater
publicity to all orders making changes the contracts
eurcsOf such changes made on the contracts them
selves Where frequent changes have been required up
on routes, numerous entries necessarily made on the
contract especially whore several embraced in
INC same contract The making oftcse entries instead
Of being the subject Of rcprchemsion is nohino moro
nor less than faithful performance of duty on he mart
OF the clerk keeping tie contract books Other records
OF contracts aud The alterations ordered upon them are
keptln the department, Of which the committee were i
norant, as IS evident from their femafksvybicb ,vouId
nave been readily exbibitcdH they had been required
The minority oithc committee comment npon the CON
tracts OF John Aagec q Co for the purpose Of foryinO
hcir assertion, that the difference paid to these
he INA lI4fr f ~ Ger ft..