Skip Skip The bill was orderengross and read a 3rd time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the 3rd time. The question being on the final passage of the bill, Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, called for the reading of the report. the Clerk read the report. It states that McFerran, bein an asst commissary in the U.S. rmy, stationed at Santa F6, in NewMexico, was, on or about the 1st day of November, 1850, required to receive of Lien tenant Francis J.Thomas, also an asst commissary in said Arm, a large amount of money beloning to the U.S., and to pass to said homas his official receipts for the same; that before the counting of said money was completed, there being several sealed boxes of specie with the amounts urportin to be contained in each marked thereon, the said Thomas, by representing that it was necessary for him to return without delay to the Atlantic States; that if compelled to remain until the whole counting was completed he should be subjected to great delay and inconvenience; I hope and that the contents of said remaining boxes. had been counted by himself or under his im; mediate supervison and the boxes correctly, marked, in need the said petitionerto take the said boxes by the marks thereon, and to receipt 1 to the said Thomas for the entire amount thus indicated; that said boxes of specie were placed in a Government vault at Sante Fe, an were taken out and the contents counted, from time to time, as the funds were required for the use of the Army. Save one box, which contained an excess of 2 dollars over the amount marked thereon, all the boxes were found to be correctly marked, except a box numbered 21, which was the last one opened, and the contents of which we found to fall short of the amount marked thereon by the sum of $1, 267. This box was opened and its contents counted by the petitioner in the presence and with the assistance of William. Gourlay, chief clerk of the subsistence Dept at Santa Fe in June, 1851, some 7 months after it had been received from Lieutenant Thomas. The committee has no doubt, however, from the evidence that it had in the mean time remained uno one and its contents undisturbed. the testimbny further shows that immediately after the discovery of said deficiency the petitioner transmittedto the chief of the bureau at Washington having charge and control of the subsistence Dept of the Army notice of the said deficiency, with all the attending circumstances, with a reuest that no settlement should be concluded between the accounting officers of the Government and the said Thomas until the matter should be fully investigated by the properauthorities. Yet the said Thomas was permitted to settle his accounts and to resign without any such investigation being had, and receive credit for the whole amount for which the petitioner had receipted as aforesaid, and which entire amount was charged to the petitioner on the books of the Treasury. It further appears that the said Thomas being the owner of valuable property in the Territory of NewMexico, the petitioner commenced a suit against him in the U.S. district court of said Territory, for the recovery of the amount of said deficiency, and sued out a writ of attachment which was levied on the lands and tenements of the said Thomas within the jurisdiction of said court; but on the hearing of said cause, the court dismissed the attachment on the ground that the money which the plaintiff was seeking to recover was the property of the U.S., and notthe property of the said petitioner, and that said Thomas was bound to account to the U.S. for the same, and not to the petitioner. It is shown by a certificate of the 3rd Auditor of the Treasury that at the time of the resignation of Lieutenant Thomas he was in default to the U.S. in the sum of $9, 161 48, in addition to the amount for which he improperly got credit as aforesaid. The committee is entirely satisfied of the integrity and good faith of the etitioner in the premises, and entertains no doubt that there was in fact the deficiency which he alleges in the contents of said boxes at the time e received them from the said Thomas. From the above statement of facts it will be seen that Thomas stands credited on the books of the Treasury Dept with the sum of $1, 265, as having been paid over to McFerran, which he never did in fact my over to him, and that McFerran stands chited with the same amount, which he never in factreceived. Admitting that Mr. McFerran was guilty of some degree of ne lience in not counting all the money for whicii T19 receipted to Thomas, that fact alone is not sufficient to charge him with the amount of said deficit. From the mere facts that an agent has been negligent, and his principal has suffered loss, it does not necessaril follow that the agent is bound to make the oss good. The urther fact should be shown, that the loss was a consequence of the n ligence. he mere fact that McFerran erroneously have a receipt to Thomas for money of the U.S. which he never received of him, changed none of the rights or remedies of the Government as against Thomas. The error in the receipt was explainable by parole testimony in an action at law, and when explained, the receipt could not operate as any bar to a suit by the U.S. against Thomas for the recover of said money. If the U.S. lost any of its remedies against Thomas, it was not because McFerran gave the erroneous receipt, but because the error was not discovered for several months after the receipt was given. If Thomas was solvent at the time the receipt was given, and became insolvent before the error was detected, it may be thatthe U.S. lost the money in consequence of the failure of McFerran to count the funds for which he recei ted to Thomas. But there is no evidence be ore the committee to show that the U.S. could have enforced the payment of said deficit from Thomas, at any time between the giving of the receipt and the discovery of the error, by any means that were not equally available afterthe error was detected. It appears from evidence before the committee that it has been the rnctice of many collecting and disbursing O com, in both the civil and military Depts of the Government, to receive from other public officers large amounts of specie in bags and boxes, and receipt for the same according to the labels thereon without actually counting the contents, in cases of emergency. under circumstances similar to those which influenced the conduct of the petitioner in this case. Bankers and other business men, reputed to be prudent, often receive and account for large sums of money in like manner, without actually counting the same, where they have reason to repose confidence in the person from whom the same is received. There is nothing in the evidence before the committee to show that McFerran had any reason to suspect the integrity of Thomas at the time he received said boxes of specie from him. If be exercised the same degree of care and diligence that public officers reputed to be prudent and faithful are accustomed to exercise under similar circumstances in respect to the public funds passing through their and s, and that bankers and business men are accustomed to exercise in the conduct of their OWn private afiairs, it may be questioned whether he should be required to make good a loss incurred by the Government in consequence of his omission to count the money. But admitting that McFerran was guilty of ladies that would Justly render him resonsible to the Government for any losses clear yresulting therefrom, the committee are of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence that the Government in fact lost anything in consequence of his failure to count said money to justify the Government in requiring him to pay into the Treasur said sum of $1, 265, which he never receive. Entertaining this view of the case, the committee are of opinion that said petitioner is entitled to be credited on the books of the Treasury Dept with said sum of $1, 265.