where the legality of similar charges was brought before the circuit court for the district of New York, and sustained by Judge Betts, (which decision was confirmed by an equal division of the bench of the Supreme Court,) the charges of Major Blaney were allowed by the accounting officers, so as to leave a balance to his credit of $1,606 50, which sum was paid to the petitioner on the 15th March, 1847. On this sum, so withheld for a period of nearly twelve years, interest, amounting to $1,156 68, is claimed.

The petitioner urges, "in behalf of herself and her orphan children," that her case is not the ordinary one of a debt due by the United States for services performed, but one in which money belonging to her was forcibly taken by a high officer of the government and applied to the public use, and "wrongfully and illegally withheld from her" for a long pe

riod of time.

The petitioner also prays the passage of a law directing that such further allowances be made in the accounts of her late husband, as come within the rule laid down in the decision of the Delafield case. These appear

to consist of charges for additional compensation for services as assistant commissary of subsistence at Oak island and Cape Fear river, at $20 per month, amounting to $2,744, and a difference of $210 45 between the sum claimed and that allowed for disbursements at Cape Fear river.

As these items have been rejected by the accounting officers, after a 'careful revision of the subject, subsequently to the decisions in the cases of Major Delafield and General Gratiot, and have decided that "the duty [of acting assistant commissary of subsistence, for which the charges are made] constituted an essential branch of the extra service assigned him, for a faithful performance of which, on his part, the regulations provided a specific compensation, in the form of a per diem or commission," the committee do not perceive any good grounds for a special allowance in this case, so far as the extra compensation is concerned; but your committee are of opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, the claimant is entitled to interest on the amount withheld by the government, and report a bill accordingly.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Daniel Winslow, report:

This case has twice received the favorable action of the Committee of Claims, and once of the Senate. Its merits are fully stated in report No. 318, Second Session, 31st Congress, which is hereto annexed and adopted as a part of this report.

The Committee recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

IN SENATE March 3, 1852.

Mr. BRODHEAD made the following Report:

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Daniel Winslow, report:

This claim was examined by the Committee of Claims of the last Congress, who made a favorable report thereon, accompanied by a bill; but it failed, for want of time, to receive the action of the Senate. The committee having again examined the case, concur fully in the report above referred to, and adopt the same as a part of this report.

They recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.

IN SENATE March 3, 1851.

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Daniel Winslow, in behalf of himself and his sureties, David Winslow and James N. Winslow, report:

The facts in this case are substantially as follows: On the 29th September, 1846, Daniel Winslow as principal and the only party in interest, and David Winslow and James N. Winslow as sureties, entered into contract with the Chief of the Bureau of Provisions and Clothing to deliver at the navy-yard in Charlestown, Massachusetts, 1,800 barrels of navy beef, between the first of January and the 15th of June, 1847, at the price of $7 874 per barrel.

It appears that the regular business of the said Daniel Winslow and of his father had been that of packing beef for forty years, and that upon an average price of navy beef for twenty-five years next preceding the year 1846, this contract would, upon that basis, have afforded a moderate profit only. That the said Daniel Winslow entered into this contract as a part of his regular business, and not on a speculation. That he had a competent knowledge and acquaintance with the business, and, as far as appears, managed it with ordinary prudence and discretion.

In November, 1845, the year preceding the contract, Winslow was able to pack beef at $7 per barrel; but soon after the execution of this contract, in the fall of 1846, prices began to rise, and in October of that year beef was worth $8 to $8 25 per barrel; in December, from $11 to $12 per barrrel; and in January and February, 1847, it went up to $13 50, and soon after to $14 and $15 per barrel. It is stated that this rapid and unusual advancement of prices was induced by the progress of the Mexican war, and the occurrence of the famine in Ireland, which produced an extraordinary and unlooked for demand for provisions for exportation.

It further appears that Mr. Winslow, with the view of fulfilling his contract, whatever might be the consequences to himself, continued to purchase all the cattle he could obtain, until the actual cost of the beef reached $12 per barrel, making a less to the contractor of $4 12 upon each barrel, or about 33 per cent. He had not the capital required to enable him to overcome these difficulties, and after having furnished about 350 barrels he failed and became hopelessly insolvent. In furnishing the residue of the beef embraced in the contract, the United States paid $8,061 75 more than the contract price-having paid from $12 94 to $14 50 per barrel and for that sum, with costs and interest, judgments have been rendered, by consent of parties, to satisfy which the entire property of the aged father of the contractor, consisting of a small homestead farm, has been set off to the United States. The object of the petition is to relieve this property of the surety, and avoid the necessity of turning an aged and venerable family, chargeable with no fault, houseless and penniless upon the world.

Believing this to be a case of unusual hardship, the committee are. anxious to afford relief if it can be done upon safe and equitable principles. In cases of contracts like the present, the committee are of opinion that the following rules may be safely observed, to wit:

1st. Where the contractor enters into the contract in good faith, with a reasonable assurance, founded on competent knowledge of past and present prices of the article contracted to be furnished, that the contract can be performed by him in strict accordance with its terms; and

2d. Where the rise in prices is such as could not have been foreseen or anticipated by prudent persons acquainted with the business, and

3d. Where the contractor performs his contract in good faith, and with due skill, energy and diligence, to the extent of his means and ability; that then an equitable case arises for relief.

In this case the government suffered no other loss than the failure to realize the entire profits of a good bargain. The beef which the contractor

failed to supply was purchased at its fair market value. The government paid no more than individuals were paying, at the time, for the same article ; and the contractor not only did not make a profit on the quantity furnished by him, but on the contrary, he lost not merely his time and trouble, but a large amount of money, by which he was rendered insolvent. He appears to have used every effort in his power faithfully to fulfil his contract, and was prevented by circumstances wholly beyond his control, and which could not have been foreseen. He does not, however, ask to be remunerated for his losses, but that his sureties, to whom no fault can be attributed, shall be saved from utter ruin, after he has sacrificed his entire property, and from which the government has derived a benefit.

The committee think the case comes clearly within the rules laid down above, and within the principles recognised in the case of the sureties of Peter Yarnell, for whose relief an act was passed in 1844. They therefore recommend the passage of the accompanying bill.