In witness whereof, we have hereunto severally set our hands and soals, this 22d day of December, A. D. 1848.

[No. 9.]

REPORT of the committee on internal improvement on the claim of Patrick and Vrooman.

The committee on internal improvement to whom was referred the petition of Joseph A. Patrick and Martin Vrooman, for indemnification on certain contracts with the commissioner of internal improvement, have had the same under consideration, and have directed me to report a joint resolution providing for the payment to the petitioners a certain sum in full of their claim, but without expressing any opinion whether it should or should not be adopted. The committee has, however, requested me to report all the facts in the case in possession of the committee.

The committee had before them, 1st. The petition of Patrick and Vrooman, sworn to by them and dated January 10, 1848. 2d. The affidavit of Shubael Conant, late acting commissioner of internal improvement, dated February 21, 1848. 3d. A certificate of said Conant, dated January 14, 1848. 4th. A certificate of John M. Berrien. chief engineer of the C. R. R., dated March 31, 1846. 5th. A statement of the auditor general dated January 26 1849. 6th. An affidavit of said Vrooman, dated February 6, 1849.

From these papers it appears that the petitioners entered into contract with John M. Berrien, as chief engineer, who acted by the authority of said Conant, who was then acting commissioner of internal improvement, to build for the state, four stations and two turnouts on the central railroad. The contracts were made, one in August, anl the other in the latter part of November, 1841. The work was to be done by the first of June, 1842, and was completed to the satisfaction of the commissioner by the fifteenth of June 1842. They were to receive for the jobs about $2,720 31. The precise amount the committee cannot ascertain, as the contracts were oral and the commissioners are unable at this late day to say precisely what the sum was. The committee are however satisfied, that the price was not less than the sum above stated. They were to receive in payment, money or state scrip, and were to be paid along from time to time as the work progressed.

The petitioners received, shortly after the date of the contract, in state scrip or money, about $500. The balance being about $2,220, the petitioners state they were compelled to receive in internal improvement warrants, and it appears from the statement of the auditor general that there was issued to Patrick and Vrooman, of the 16th of February, 1842, in warrants, $1,171 85, and on the 5th of September, 1842, in warrants, the sum of $1,048 46, making in all $2,220 31, and being with the $500 received in state scrip or money, in full for the contract. The petitioners state that their necessities compelled them to receive warrants and that they could get nothing else in payment for their work or materials. They further state under oath that the sum they were to receive for the work was no more than a fair cash price. It further appears that at the date of the contract and during the fall after, state scrip could be used for many purposes at par, though in cash dealings it was worth only about 87 cents on the dollar. It further appears that scrip depreciated much during the winter, and in the spring of 1842, was not worth over 75 cents on the dollar. The petitioners further state that warrants were worth at the times they received them of the state only about 42 cents on the dollar. They however admit that they succeeded in getting, on an average 50 cents on the dollar for them.

The above are all the essential facts. The petitioners claim and ask the state to pay them a sum equal to the difference in cash value between state scrip and internal improvement warrants, at the times when the warrants were received by them, and also some interest on that sum when ascertained. They admit that they received for all their warrants, about 50 per cent. Now, in Feb. 16, 1842, they received in warrants $1,171 85, and admitting that scrip was then worth as much as 87 cents on the dollar, they lost 371 on the dollar, equal to $474 44. In Sept. 1842, they received in warrants $1,048 46, and admitting that scrip was then worth as much as 75 cents to the dollar, they lost 25 cents on each dollar of warrants, equal to $262 11. It is difficult to ascertain the exact cash value of warrants and scrip at the different times mentioned, but if the values above assumed, are correct, then if it should be determined on an examination of all the facts that the petitioners should receive any thing, it seems to the committee that the amount would be about $736 55, with perhaps interest on that sum for about

one year-that is, since their first application to the legislature for redress, which was at the last session. The committee have no reason to doubt that the petitioners have actually suffered loss by reason of the failure of the state to pay them as it agreed to do; but how much, the committee would not presume to conjecture. Many of the important facts are sustained by the affidavits of the petitioners, and though the committee have no reason to question their honesty and veracity, yet it is well known that the testimony of parties in interest is always to be taken with some allowances. For instance, the petitioners say the price they were to receive for their work was no more than a fair cash value, in their opinion, and yet entirely disinterested persons might have formed an entirely different opinion. This claim, if allowed at all, is to be allowed on equitable, not on legal grounds. If the petitioners had a claim of this kind against an individual and with the same facts, they could not sustain it in a court of law, for a moment, for at least two good reasons. First, because they have once settled and received warrants in full; and second, because they did not complete their contracts within the time agreed upon They were not bound to receive warrants, (except as they say, by their necessities,) and if they had not received them they would now have had an indisputable claim against the State for the whole amount of $2,220 31, and interest, and probably damages (if any) for the delay.

If the State should now pay the whole amount of their damages, it would loose the whole of the depreciation on the warrants, inasmuch as the State, if it now had them, could get their face. Yet in justice and equity the committee admit there appears to be some reasons in favor of making the petitioners some indemnification. It is, however, a difficult and dangerous subject. There are, doubtless, very many persons who have in the same way settled their demands against the State, by receiving paper of some kind, on which they have lost, and should this claim be allowed, it would open the door for many of the same or a similar nature. It is at least, in appearance, against the petitioners that they have delayed the presentation of their claim from 1842 to 1848, five years. The petitioners are laboring men, and as before stated there appears to be considerable merit in their claim, and were there not so many difficulties in the way, the committee would gladly advise its payment.

The committee have however endeavored to place the Senate in possession of all the facts and data in the case necessary to a just and fair determination of it, and they desire to leave it to the Senate without recommending the passage or rejection of the accompanying joint resolutions.

J. SUMMERS,

Chairman.