Private Calendar No. 265. fN ok 61 st Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, f Report Session. j ( No. 640. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. February 28, 1910 — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed. Mr. Lindbergh, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 3638.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3638). to provide for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment or barred by limitation, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass. ' HOW THE CLAIMS AROSE. These claims originated under the act of May 24, 1888 (25 Stat. L., 157), an act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day. This act reads as follows: That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid for a day’s work of a greater number of hours. And if any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same in proportion to the salary now fixed by law. The Post-Office Department decided that it would only count the time that the carriers were employed on their routes in the actual delivery of mail; and also decided to charge the carriers with any deficiency in the time that they worked on Sundays. Suits were brought in the Court of Claims to test the correctness of the department’s rulings. On March 7, 1892, the Court of Claims decided in the case of Aaron S. Post that the carriers were entitled to be paid for all the time that they worked, and in the case of Gates it was decided that no deductions could be made because the carriers did not work eight hours on Sunday. The United States appealed both cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in both instances the Supreme Court sus- tained the Court of Claims and entered judgment in the claims, the opinion being written by Mr. Justice Blatchford (148 U. S., 124-134). Both opinions are printed in full in Senate Report No. 82, pages 10-15. 2 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. These opinions were rendered March 13, 1893, and on April 4, 1893, the Post-Office Department issued instructions with reference to carrying out the law as construed by the Supreme Court, to take effect April 30, 1893. In the report of the Postmaster-General for 1893 it is stated: In a circular which I addressed on April 4, 1893, to the postmaster at every free- delivery office I set forth as clearly as possible the construction given to the act by the decision of the Court of Claims of March 7, 1892, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Post, decided March 13, 1893, defining the rights of carriers under the act, and I instructed post- masters to pay no claim for overtime services until it shall have been submitted to and approved by this department. (Report Postmaster-General, 1893, p. xiv). Very little overtime was made after April 30, 1893, and none after January 1, 1895. HOW THE CLAIMS WERE SETTLED. Officers of the Post-Office Department and Department of Justice were appointed by the court, upon the motion of the Assistant Attorney-General, commissioners of the Court of Claims. They vis- ited the cities, examined the time records, the postmasters, superin- tendents, timekeepers, and such letter carriers as they thought nec- essary (the order appointing the commissioners will be found in Senate Report 82, p. 9). Each party had the right to object or take exceptions to the report of the commissioners. If no exceptions were taken, judgments were entered for the amounts found due, first deducting any amounts which had been earned more than six years before the suit was brought in the court. Attorney-General Griggs says : The various amounts were ascertained by commissioners of the Court of Claims, who were appointed by the court for the purpose of inquiring into the facts relating to the claims of letter carriers throughout the United States for overtime services, and the correctness of their work is evidenced by the fact that their reports have almost invariably been accepted, not only by the claimants but by the United States, as being just and fair. I am satisfied, too, that these reports were eminently con- servative. (Senate Rept. 82, p. 8.) Judgments were rendered by the court and paid to the amount of $3,323,418.39. (See detailed statement annexed hereto of appro- priations.) The amount deducted because of the statute of limita- tions is $282,943.88, as shown by the lists transmitted by the Attorney- General. (S. Doc. 216, 56th Cong., 1st sess., and S. Doc. 158, 56th Cong., 2d sess.) The Attorney-General says : This list was prepared under my direction by an expert employee of this department, who has, during the past five years, assisted the commissioners of the Court of Claims in preparing their reports to the court of overtime of letter carriers. The list was made out by him from an examination of each one of the 2,000 or more reports of over- time of letter carriers which have been made to the Court of Claims by the com- missioners appointed for the purpose during the past six years, and was based upon the statements contained in such reports of the amount and value of overtime service per- formed by letter carriers for which claim was barred by the statute of limitations govern- ing actions in the Court of Claims. These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an inves- tigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting upon claims not barred, and, in fact, are a part and parcel of each report. The result of this work is undoubtedly correct. (S. Rept. 82, bottom p. 7, top p. 8.) OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 3 i Tlie Attorney-General, under date of February 8, 1901, in trans- mitting the second list, says: As the investigation of this entire class of claims has now been completed, the present list, and that contained in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, comprise all claims of the description mentioned in the resolution of the Senate. (S. Rept. 82, p. 4.) WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE BAR OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The Post-Office Department invited the carriers to present their claims to the department in the belief that Congress would appropri- ate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims. No such appropriation was made. On November 8, 1893 the Postmaster-General reported to the Speaker of the House of Representatives : The adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the free delivery division of this department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a sufficient appropriation for their payment. (S. Rept. No. 82, p. 8.) No such appropriation was made and the claimants brought suit in t}ie Court of Claims, but that court has no jurisdiction in any matter accruing more than six years before suit is brought, and while these carriers had running accounts with the department for salary, they could not take advantage of that. (See statement of the law on p. 9 of the report.) The Postmaster-General told the carriers that it was unnecessary to go into the Court of Claims and sue the Government. The Post- master-General, in a letter dated April 14, 1900, says that under date of April 5, 1893, which was within the six years for filing claims, the Post-Office sent out a circular of instructions to postmasters, saying: “Letter carriers may be informed that a new, and it is to be hoped a correct, form of claim blank will soon be sent by the department for the benefit of claimants to the postmasters at all free-delivery offices whence overtime claims have emanated, upon which particular blank all claims heretofore submitted should be restated and upon which any subsequent claims may also be presented to the department for adjustment.” The intention of the department to adjust these claims is further shown in a com- munication of the Postmaster-General to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated November 8, 1893 (Ex. Doc. No. 8, 53d Cong., 2d sess.), and by letters sent out by this department in answer to inquiries from claimants. As a sample of these letters, I quote one written to J. F. O’Connor, Springfield, Mass., under date of March 21, 1894: “Yours of the 27th ultimo received. You can not present your claims for back pay to the Court of Claims without having counsel to represent you. It is not neces- sary, however, to present these claims to the Court of Claims. If they are sent to this department they will receive proper attention.” (S. Rept. No. 82, p. 7.) The Postmaster-General further says : As to the merits of the claims, I am of the opinion that the claimants are, as a matter of justice, entitled to relief in some form. (Ibid., p. 7.) On pages 16 to 20 of Senate Report No. 82 will be found a very large number of typical letters from claimants giving reasons why their claims were not presented in time to except the action of the statute. 4 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. The House Committee on Claims, in Report No. 1182, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, says: Under all the circumstances there would be no justice in the Government taking advantage of the statute of limitations (Rev. Stat., sec. 1069), which the parties in these cases were induced to disregard by the action of the department itself, however honestly the department acted itself, and in the full belief that Congress would confer upon it authority to settle the claims without the necessity of a recourse to the Court of Claims on the part of the claimants (p. 3). Statement showing documents containing lists of judgments of the Court of Claims in overtime claims of letter carriers , the amounts , arid references to the appropriation acts. Documents. Congress and session. Amount. Appropriation. S. Ex. Doc. 11 H. R. Ex. Doc. 102 S. Ex. Doc. 145 H. R. Ex. Doc. 283 S. Ex. Doc. 101 S. Doc. 70 H. R. Doc. 344 S. Doc. 277 H. R. Doc. 217 S. Doc. 167 S. Doc. 122 S. Doc. 165 S. Doc. 303 H. R. 197 S. 153 S. 99 H. R. 638 S. Doc. 211 S. 146 H. R. 592 S. 187 H. R. 275 Fifty-third, second. . . do do Fifty-third, third do Fifty-fourth, first do do Fifty-fourth, second. . do Fifty-fifth, first do Fifty-fifth, second Fifty-fifth, third do Fifty-sixth, first do Fifty-sixth, second. . . Fifty-seventh, first. . . do Fifty-seventh, second Fifty-eighth, second.. $4,453.58 906. 87 198.827.85 590, 253. 24 162.201.85 316,212.57 90,975.22 736, 199.33 249,485.91 311,620.63 103.226.03 150. 187. 03 185,460.43 21,007. 25 56,868.20 22,828. 72 14,559. 97 105,038.60 846. 00 58.52 232.40 1,968. 19 3,323,418. 39 28 Stat. L., 450-451. 28 Stat. L., 452. 28 Stat. L., 452-474. 28 Stat. L., 868. 28 Stat. L., 869. 29 Stat. L., 26. 29 Stat. L., 305. 30 Stat. L., 305. 30 Stat. L., 141. Do. Do. Do. 30 Stat. L., 690. 30 Stat. L., 1244. Do. 31 Stat. L., 27. 31 Stat. L., 315. 31 Stat. L., 1052. 32 Stat. L., 27. 32 Stat. L., 583. 32 Stat. L., 1070. 33 Stat. L., 41. This is a bill to provide for the payment of the overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation. Similar bills have heretofore been before the House and Senate and have received nine favorable reports, three in the House and six in the Senate, and have passed the Senate four times. The following is a statement showing the various reports and action taken in the two Houses of Congress : May 1 1900, Mr. Boutell, of Illinois, from the Committee on Claims in the House, submitted a favorable report on the bill to pay these overtime claims. (H. Rept. 1182, 56th Cong., 1st sess.) June 2, 1900, Mr. Warren, from the Committee on Claims in the Senate, submitted a favorable report. (S. Rept. 1623, 56th Cong., 1st sess.) Neither report was acted on. April 2, 1902, Mr. Graff, from the Committee on Claims in the House, submitted a favorable report. (H. Rept. 1316, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) June 27, 1902, Mr. Warren, from the Committee on Claims in the Senate, submitted a favorable report. (S. Rept. 2111, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) The bill (S. 2429) on which this last-mentioned report was made, passed the Senate January 31, 1903, but was not reached on the House Calendar. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 5 February 14, 1903, Mr. Graff, from the Committee on Claims in the House, submitted a favorable report. (H. Kept. 3773, 57th Cong., 2d sess.) January 31, 1907, Mr. Smoot, from the Committee on Claims in the Senate, made a favorable report. (S. Rept. 5834, 59th Cong., 2d sess.) The bill (S. 1181) was passed by the Senate February 27, 1907, but was not reported back in the House of Representatives. January 21, 1908, Mr. Smoot, from the Committee on Claims in the Senate, made a favorable report. (S. Rept. 82, 60th Cong., 1st sess.) The bill reported (S. 2802) was passed by the Senate January 28, 1908. March 16, 1908, Mr. Fulton, from the Committee on Claims in the Senate, reported an amendment to bill H. R. 15372, the omnibus claims bill, providing for the payment of these cases. (S. Rept. 382, 60th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 779-838.) The bill containing this amend- ment was passed by the Senate January 29, 1909, but the bill was not acted on in the House and died with the Sixtieth Congress. February 21, 1910, Mr. Smoot from the Committee on Claims in the Senate, made a favorable report. (S. Rept. 252, 61st Cong., 2d sess.) The purpose of these bills has been the payment of certain claims of letter carriers for sums due them as pay for work performed by them in excess of eight hours a day, under the provisions of the act of May 24, 1888, entitled u Xn act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day.” (25 Stat. L., p. 157.) The amount of pay due the carriers was ascertained by officials of the Post-Office Department and Department of Justice, acting as commissioners of the Court of Claims, and reported to that court, but when the court entered judgment on such reports it was compelled by jurisdictional limitation to deduct or except from judgment any amounts which had accrued more than six years before suit was brought in that court against the United States. Judgments were rendered by the Court of Claims for sums in excess of three million dollars ($3,323,- 418.39), which judgments were paid by appropriations by Congress. The sum carried by this bill is to pay the amount the court excepted from such judgments in the cases of 3,809 carriers in 371 cities in 43 States of the Union. This entire matter has been so fully covered by reports heretofore made that it seems hardly necessary to do more than quote from such reports and reiterate the recommendations for the passage of the bill heretofore made. In the report from this committee submitted by Mr. Graff (H. Rept. 1316, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) the following is stated as a summary of the facts as they appear: First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of precisely the same character as that of those upon which judgments have been entered and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly the same footing. Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invita- tion of the department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropriate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claimants that relief should be afforded them. Third. Some of the parties also failed to present their claims from the fact that their immediate superiors in office represented to them that to present their claims might jeopardize their official positions. 6 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. In the report from this committee submitted by Mr. Boutell, of Illinois (H. Rept. 1182, 56th Cong., 1st sess.), a very clear state- ment of the merits of these cases is made, as follows: The claims referred to in this bill arise under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled “An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day, ’ ’ which is as follows: “Be it enacted , etc., That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day’s work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid as for a day’s work of a greater number of hours. If any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same, in proportion to the salary now fixed by law. (1 Supp. Rev. Stat., 587.)” It is stated by the Postmaster-General in his annual report for the year 1895, page 118: “When the present administration assumed charge of the Post-Office Department it found in the files of the free-delivery division of this bureau fully 4,000 overtime claims of letter carriers, aggregating over $15,000,000, and overtime accumulating at the rate of $250,000 per annum. Five years had passed since the enactment of the eight-hour law, May 24, 1888, and the appropriations for the intervening years, nota- bly that of the fiscal year 1888-89, had been especially increased to enable the depart- ment to meet the requirements of the law, yet no appreciable decrease in the annual accumulation of overtime had been made.” Two cases involving test questions under the act were brought before the Court of Claims and decided favorably to the carriers on the 7th of March, 1892, and will be found reported in the twenty-seventh volume of Court of Claims Reports, page 244. These cases were taken to the Supreme Court on appeal, and the judgments affirmed March 13, 1893. The decisions of the Supreme Court will be found reported in 148 United States Reports, pages 124 to 137. The opinions of the Supreme Court in these two cases are annexed to this report as an appendix. At the session of Congress following the date of these decisions the House of Repre- sentatives adopted a resolution calling on the Postmaster-General to state in what manner these claims would be settled . The response of the Postmaster-General to this resolution is dated November 8, 1893, and constitutes House Ex. Doc. No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session. It is annexed to this report as an appendix. It will be seen from this report that the House was informed by the Postmaster- General that “the adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the Free-Delivery Division of this department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a sufficient appropriation for their payment.” No such appropriation, however, was made, either for the purpose of providing clerical force for the investigation of the claims or for their payment. In consequence all the carriers in the country who had claims of this character — and they included practically all letter carriers who were in service from 1888 to 1893 — had ultimately to present their claims to the Court of Claims. The manner in which these claims were investigated is shown by the following statement from the report of the Postmaster-General for 1896, page 173: ‘ ‘ To expedite a settlement in which the interests of the department as well as those of the letter carriers might be fully protected, an arrangement was made with the Department of Justice by which the assistant superintendent of the free-delivery system and another employee of this department were commissioned by the Court of Claims special commissioners in the settlement of overtime claims by letter carriers.” It is stated in the report of the Postmaster-General for 1897, page 95, that the total amount of these claims investigated and allowed by the commissioners, and in which judgments of the court have been entered and paid under the appropriations annually made in the deficiency appropriation act, have been over $3,000,000. Wherever, in investigating these claims, the commissioners ascertain that any portion of the claim was over six years’ standing before the petition had been filed, they nevertheless stated the amount that had been earned, and it was thereupon excluded or excepted from judgment by the court in entering judgment. It is these excluded or excepted amounts which the present bill proposes to pay. The Senate, on the 18th of December, 1899, adopted a resolution calling on the Attorney-General for a statement of the amounts so excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations. In response to that call the Attorney-General transmitted a list, which has been printed as Senate Docu- ment 216. Your committee, through the subcommittee to whom this bill has been referred, called upon the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General, respectively, for their OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 7 views on the propriety of this legislation. Each of those officers responded, and the purport of their statements may be summarized as follows: First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of precisely the same character as that of those upon which judgments have been entered and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly the same footing. Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invitation of the department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropriate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claimants that relief should be afforded to them. The letters of the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General here referred to are annexed in full as appendixes to this report. In addition thereto there have been laid before your committee a large number of statements from claimants whose cases are embodied in the present bill explaining why they failed to present their claims until a portion thereof had been barred by limi- tation. Extracts from some of those letters are embodied in an additional appendix to this report. As in a general way their statements are corroborated by the statement made in the letter of the Postmaster-General to your committee, it is believed by your committee, that the statements of the writers are entitled to credence. Under all the circumstances, there would be no justice in the Government taking advantage of the statute of limitations (Rev. Stats., sec. 1069), which the parties in these cases were induced to disregard by the action of the department itself, however honestly the department acted itself, and in the full belief that Congress would confer upon it authority to settle the claims without the necessity of a recourse to the Court of Claims on the part of the claimants. The amount of the claims, as officially footed up by the Attorney-General in his letter to your committee, is $220,674.24. Your committee therefore report back the bill (H. R. 10315) with an amendment inserting that amount in place of the amount $221,451.37, as contained in lines 9 and 10 of the bill, and as so amended recommend its passage. In the report of this committee in the Fifty-seventh Congress (H Rept. No. 1316) it appears that: Subsequently to the date of the report of the Committee on Claims, the Attorney- General transmitted another list of similar claims examined since the date of trans- mission of the first list, and found to be barred by the statute of limitations, stating also that the investigation of this entire class of claims had now been completed, so that this last list constitutes the final list, and the two together comprise all claims of this description. The letter of the Attorney-General transmitting that list is as follows: Department of Justice, Washington , D. C., February 8, 1901. To the Senate: I have the honor to transmit herewith a list in further response to Senate resolu- tion, No. 40, of December 18, 1899, calling upon this department for a list showing the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims, or found by the court, as representing services actually performed by letter carriers in excess of eight hours per day, under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled “An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day,” but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations. The list herewith transmitted represents claims of precisely the same character as those contained in the list transmitted by this department on the 10th of March, 1900, and contained in Senate Document No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. They were examined by a commissioner of the Court of Claims in precisely the same manner as those contained in that list, and are contained in reports filed by the com- missioner since the date of the transmission of that list, with the exception of a few cases accidently omitted from the first list, and which are herewith included. As the investigation of this entire class of claims has now been completed, the E resent list, and that contained in Senate Document No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, rst session, comprise all claims of the description mentioned in the resolution of the Senate. 8 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. My views on these claims, as stated in my letter of April 18, 1900, to the chairman the Senate Committee on Claims, printed in Senate Report No. 1623, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, apply equally to those embodied in the accompanying list. Very respectfully, John W. Griggi, A ttorney-Genera l . # The bill herewith reported provides for the payment of the claims contained in both lists. The list of amounts due, by cities and States, is appended to this report. [From House Report 1182, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] [Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1061. October term, 1892. The United States, appellant, v. Aaron S. Post. Appeal from the Court of Claims. March 13, 1893. 148 U. S., 124.] Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: This is a suit brought in the Court of Claims by Aaron S. Post against the United States by an original petition filed March 26, 1891. A traverse of the petition was filed May 23, 1891, and an amended petition January 11, 1892. In the latter it is set forth that the claimant was, from May 24, 1888, to December 31, 1889, a letter carrier in the post-office at the city of Salt Lake City, in the Territory of Utah, of the class entitled to a salary of $850 a year; that during that period he was from time to time actually and necessarily employed in excess of eight hours a day in the performance of the duties assigned to him as such carrier, aggregating an excess of a specified num- ber of hours; that by the act of Congress of May 24, 1888, ch. 308 (25 Stat., 157), en- titled ‘‘An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day, ’ ’ he became entitled to extra pay for all the time during which he was so employed in excess of eight hours a day, and that he had applied to the Post-Office Department for payment of the same and it had not been paid, and he claimed judgment for a specified amount and costs. A traverse of the amended petition was filed February 21, 1892. Eight other cases were before the Court of Claims and tried at the same time, with petitions in the same form and claiming various amounts, the claimants serving for various periods, and their classes and salaries being various. The Court of Claims found that Post was a letter carrier at the post-office at Salt Lake City between May 24, 1888, and December 21, 1889, of the second class, at a salary of $850 a year. The other findings were as follows: “2. During their aforesaid terms of service said claimants were actually employed in the performance of their duties more than eight hours a day, the excess over such eight hours being shown in the following finding: 3. “The manner, time, and nature of their employment was generally as follows: “They were required to report for duty at the post-office at 7 a. m. From 7 to 7.30 they were employed within the post-office in the distribution of mail matter; that is to say, in taking letters and papers from newly arrived pouches, assorting them, and placing them in the boxes for box and general delivery. “From 7.30 to 8 they were severally engaged in arranging their own mail matter for carrier delivery by streets and numbers, and where the residence of a person was not expressed in the direction of a letter and was not known or remembered in looking it up in the directory. “From 8 to 11 they were occupied on their routes in delivering and collecting mail matter. “From 11 to 11.30 they were engaged within the post-office building in making returns of persons not found and other things connected with their route delivery. “From 11.30 to 1 they were employed within the post-office in the general distri- bution of mail matter. “From 1 to 2 they were absent and off duty. “From 2 to 3.30 they were again employed on the post-office work of distributing general mail matter. “From 3.30 to 4 they were severally engaged in arranging their own mail matter for delivery. “From 4 to 6 they were again occupied on their routes in delivering and collecting mail matter and in making their returns. “From 6 to 7 they were again absent and off duty. “From 7 to 8 they were again employed on the post-office work of distributing general mail matter. “The above statement represents an ordinary or average day’s employment. The time of going out and the time of being out on the routes, in fact, varied with the size of the mail, as did the time of their being relieved from duty at night. But their reporting for duty at 7 in the morning, at 2 in the afternoon, and at 7 in the evening was constant. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 9 “The above statement does not apply to Sundays. On Sundays the carriers made no deliveries. They were employed, however, in the office; but the time of employ- ment did not exceed eight hours. During the time covered by this claim there were 9 carriers and 3 clerks employed in said post-office. “4. The carriers, by one of their number, remonstrated against the performance of work not connected with their duties as carriers. The postmaster, however, held that ‘under the regulations the postmaster could use them in that service.’ He therefore required them to perform it. “5. During the time embraced within the present claims the following regulations of the Post-Office Department were in force, all under the general title, ‘ Free-Delivery Service.’ (Postal Laws and Regulations, 1887, pp. 259, 261, 266, 268, 269): “ ‘Sec. 628. Postmasters to supervise carrier service. — Postmasters will supervise their carrier service, and are specially enjoined — “ ‘1. To see that superintendents, carriers, and clerks connected with this service are fully informed as to their responsibilities and duties. * * * “ ‘3. To frequently visit the stations and see that the regulations are there observed and proper order and discipline maintained. “ ‘4. To issue all necessary orders and instructions necessary to carry out the reg- ulations and promote the efficiency of the service. “ ‘5. To reprimand the carriers for irregularities or report them for removal to the superintendent of free delivery, as the nature of the offense may require. (See section 642.) “ ‘Sec. 642. Reprimand , suspension , and removal. — The due performance of their duty by carriers, and the observance of law, regulations, and orders prescribed for their conduct, will be enforced by reprimand for slight offenses; by suspension with loss of pay for more serious ones, not, however, to exceed thirty days; and by sus- pension and recommendations for removal for grave offenses, or persistent disregard of the rules herein prescribed, or of the orders of the postmaster not inconsistent here- with. In all other cases of recommendation for removal, carriers should not be sus- pended, but postmasters should await the action of the department. “All the following are under the subtitle ‘General Duties of Carriers.’ “ ‘Sec. 647. Duties generally. — Carriers shall be employed in the delivery and col- lection of mail matter, and during the intervals between their trips may be employed in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, but not as clerks. “ ‘The delivery and collection by them must be frequently tested at irregular intervals, to determine their efficiency. “ ‘Sec. 648. Delivery of mutter. — The mails must be assorted and the carriers started on their first daily trip as early as practicable. They must proceed to their routes with expedition and by the most direct way. A schedule of the order of delivery of each route should be made in a legible hand by names of streets and numbers of houses, and the mail delivered according to such schedule. Mail matter directed to box numbers must be delivered through the boxes. Mail matter addressed to street and number must be delivered by carriers unless otherwise directed. Mail matter addressed neither to a box holder nor to a street and number must be delivered by carrier if its address is known or can be ascertained from the city directory, other- wise, at the general delivery. “ ‘Sec. 649. Care in delivery of mail. — Carriers will exercise great care in the deliv- ery of mail to the persons for whom it is intended, or to some one known to them to be authorized to receive it. They will, in case of doubt, make respectful inquiry with the view to ascertain the owner. Failing in this, they will return the mail to the office, to be disposed of as the postmaster may direct. “ ‘Sec. 651. Directory to be used to ascertain addresses. — Where a directory is pub- lished it must be used when necessary to ascertain the address of persons to whom letters are directed, and it should also be used in the case of transient newspapers and other matter of the third and fourth classes, where the error in or omission of street address is evidently the result of ignorance or inadvertence; but when circulars, printed postal cards, or other matter, except letters, shall arrive at any post-office in large quantities, apparently all sent by the same person or firm, and from which the street addresses have been purposely omitted, the directory need not be used to sup- ply such omission, and all of such circulars, etc., which can not readily be delivered through boxes or by carriers, shall be sent to the general delivery to await call. ’ “6. In the case of Aaron S. Post, the claimant, between the 24th day of May, 1888, and the 31st day of December, 1889, was employed by order of the postmaster in excess of eight hours a day, as follows: “ Before 7 a. m., the regular hour when the carriers reported for duty, he arrived at the office and opened the eastern mail, which came at about 5 in the morning, in order to prepare the same for] the southern mail. This was done so that it would 10 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. not have to lie over twenty-four hours. The time thus employed was two hundred and forty-six and one-half hours. “During intervals between 7 a. m., when carriers reported for duty, and 6 p. in., when their work as carriers ended, he was employed in the office in opening the mail, stamping it, and distributing the same as hereinbefore stated, in excess of eight hours, nine hundred and eighty-six hours. “After his last trip and his returns as carrier were made — i. e., after 7 p. m. — he was employed on the post-office work of distributing general mail matter in the office four hundred and ninety-three hours.” On such findings of fact, the court found as a conclusion of law that Post was entitled to recover for 1,725£ hours of extra work, amounting, at the rate of 29.1 cents per hour, to $502.12. The opinion of the court in the nine cases, including that of Post, is found in 27 Ct. Cl., 244. A judgment was entered in favor of Post on March 10, 1892, for $502.12, from which judgment the United States appealed to this court. The act of May 24, 1888, reads as follows: “That hereafter eight hours shall con- stitute a day’s work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid as for a day’s work of a greater number of hours. Tf any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same in proportion to the salary now fixed by law.” The contention of the United States is that the statute has reference only to letter- carrier service, and that the claimant, to bring himself within its provisions, must show not only that he has performed more than eight hours of 'service in a day, but also that such eight hours of service related exclusively to the free distribution and collection of mail matter, and that the extra service for which he claims compensa- tion was of the same character. In this connection reference is made to sections 1764 and 1765 of the Revised Statutes. Section 1764 provides as follows: “No allowance or compensation shall be made to any officer or clerk by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other department; and no allowance or com- pensation shall be made for any extra services whatever which any officer or clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law.” Section 1765 provides as follows: “No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other per- son whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulation, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty whatever, unless the same is authorized by law and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation.” Referring to section 647 of the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1887, which were in force during the time embraced within the claim in question, under the head of “Free-delivery service” (and which section 647 is set forth in finding 5 of the Court of Claims), under the subtitle “General duties of carriers,” it providing as follows: “Carriers shall be employed in the delivery and collection of mail matter, and, dur- ing the intervals between their trips, may be employed in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, but not as clerks,” it is contended for the United States that the duties of letter carriers are a necessary incident to the creation of the free-delivery service; that the statute necessarily defines their services to be a distribution and collection of mail, and such other duties as are necessarily incident thereto, such as receiving the mail allotted to them by clerks in the post-office, arrang- ing it for distribution, and making a proper disposition of it, when not delivered, upon their return to the post-office; and that any other service which a carrier may perform is not contemplated by the act of May 24, 1888, and is an extra service within the meaning of sections 1764 and 1765 of the Revised Statutes, payment for which is not authorized by law. For the claimant, it is contended that, under section 647 of the regulations of the department, as set forth in finding 5 of the Court of Claims, the extra service for which the claim is made was an employment of the letter carrier, not only in the delivery and collection of mail matter, but also in the post-office, during the intervals between his trips, in such manner as the postmaster directed, but not as a clerk. It is not stated in the findings that the claimant was so employed as a clerk, nor does it appear what the duties of a clerk in the post-office in question were, but merely that, during the time covered by the claim, there were nine carriers and three clerks employed in that post-office. It is also found, by finding 4, that the carriers remon- strated against the performance of work not connected with their duties as carriers; but that the postmaster held that, under the regulations, he could use them in that service, and therefore required them to perform it. This, in view of the provision of section 647 of the regulations, is substantially a finding that they were not employed as clerks. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 11 The whole contention on the part of the United States amounts to this, that the Court of Claims has substantially found that none of the extra work for which com- pensation is claimed was incident to the general duties of the claimant as a letter carrier, and that the statute in regard to extra service relates exclusively to that which is connected with the general duties of the claimant as a letter carrier, and not to compensation for extra service, when he is not employed for eight hours a day in the performance of his general duties as a letter carrier. The statute of 1888 provides that eight hours shall constitute a day’s work “for letter carriers” in cities or postal districts connected therewith. It does not state what duties the letter carriers shall perform during such day’s work, but merely that they shall receive for such day’s work of eight hours the same pay that was then paid for a day’s work of a greater number of hours. It further provides that if a letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for such greater number of hours in proportion to the salary fixed by law for his compensation. This extra pay is given to him by the statute distinctly for his being employed a greater number of hours per day than eight. The statute does not say how he must be employed, or of what such employment is to consist. It is necessary only that he should be a letter carrier, and be lawfully employed in work that is not inconsistent with his general business under his employment as a letter carrier. The employment authorized by section 647 of the regulations is defined to be an employment in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, during the intervals between the carrier’s trips in delivering and collecting mail mat- ter, provided that he be not employed in the post-office as a clerk therein. The Court of Claims, in its opinion, arrived at the following conclusions: (1) That the letter carriers were entitled to recover, not only for all work done by them on the street, in delivering and collecting mail matter, but also for all work done in the post- office, in receiving and arranging the letters of their routes; (2) that, as to the dis- tribution of mail matter for the boxes and general delivery, as found in finding 3, during the times intervening between one trip and another in the same day, the regu- lations of the department, set forth in finding 5, could properly be construed as per- mitting such services; and (3) that, as to the services of the same character rendered after the termination of the last trip for the day of the carrier in delivering and col- lecting mail matter, they were services fairly within the power of the postmaster to prescribe. We are of opinion that, in respect for all such services, the letter carrier, if em- ployed therein a greater number of hours than eight per day, was entitled to be paid extra. To hold otherwise would be to say that the carrier was employed con- trary to the regulations of the department, when it clearly appears that he was em- ployed in accordance with such regulations. The statute. was manifestly one for the benefit of the carriers, and it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to con- tend that the employment in question was not extra service, and to be paid for as such, when it appears that the United States, in accordance with the regulations of the Post-Office Department, actually employed the letter carriers the extra number of hours per day, and it is not found that they were so employed as clerks. The postmaster was the agent of the United States to direct the employment, and if the letter carriers had not obeyed the orders of the postmaster they could have been dismissed. They did not lose their legal rights under the statute by obeying such orders. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the decision of this case. True copy. Teste: Tseal.] James H. McKenney, Clerk Supreme Court United States. [Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1060. October term, 1892. The United States, appellant, v. Frank Gates. Appeal from the Court of Claims. March 13, 1893, 148 U. S., 134.] Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: In this case Frank Gates filed a petition in the Court of Claims, May 27, 1891, set- ting forth that from May 24, 1888, to July 31, 1888, he was a letter carrier in the post- office at the city of New York, of the class entitled to a salary of $1,000 a year; that during that period he was from time to time actually employed in excess of eight hours a day in the performance of the duties assigned to him as such carrier, aggregating a specified excess; that by the act of May 24, 1888 (set forth in case No. 1061, just decided), he became entitled to extra pay for all the time during which he was so 12 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. employed in excess of eight hours a day; that he had applied to the Post-Office Depart- ment for payment and it had not been paid; and that he claimed judgment for a specified amount, besides cost. A traverse of the petition was filed July 14, 1891, and the case was heard by the Court of Claims, which, on the evidence, found the facts to be as follows: “1. The claimant was, during the months of May, June, and July, 1888, a letter carrier of the first class, salary $1,000 a year, in the city of New York, in the State of New York. “2. From May 24, 1888, to July 31, 1888, he was actually and necessarily employed in the performance of his duties more than eight hours a day, the excess over such eight hours being as follows: Hrs. Min. May, 1888 16 53 June, 1888 78 58 July, 1888 69 18 Total 165 9 “He has received no extra pay for the excess. “3. For the said period of time claimant performed only fifteen hours of service on the 10 Sundays, and four hours and thirty minutes on Decoration Day, and the same time on the 4th day of July.” On such findings of fact, the court found, as a conclusion of law, that Gates was entitled to recover for the one hundred and sixty-five hours and nine minutes of extra work performed by him, without being required to deduct therefrom the deficit of less than eight hours a day worked on Sundays and holidays, as shown by finding 3, amounting, at 34.2 cents per hour, to $56.48; and for that amount a judgment was entered for him, to review which the United States has appealed. In the opinion of the Court of Claims, reported in 27 Ct. Cls., 244, 259, it is stated that No. 1061 (just decided) embraced, with a single exception, all the questions presented by the present case, No. 1060, besides many more questions; and that No. 1060 presented one question which was not presented in the other cases. That ques- tion is stated in the opinion as follows: “On week days the carriers were employed more than eight hours, but on Sundays less, and the deficit of the latter nearly equals the excess of the former. The Post-Office Department, by its circular February 19, 1891, has directed postmasters ‘To determine the time a letter carrier may have been required to work during any month in excess of eight hours per day, as follows: ‘ ‘ ‘ Ascertain the aggregate hours worked during the month . Multiply the number of days worked during the month by eight, and substract the product thus obtained from the aggregate number of hours worked, and the remainder will be the extra time for which the carrier is entitled to pay at the following rates: Salary. First quarter. Second quarter. Third and fourth quarters. Average quarter. $600 $800 20 1 cents per hour. . . 27f cents per hour. . . 29i cents per hour. . . 34| cents per hour. . . 20f cents per hoor. . . 27| cents per hour. . . 291 cents per hour. . . 34| cents per hour. . . 20f cents per hour. . . 27| cents per hour. . . 38| cents per hour. . . 34 cents per hour 20f cents per hour. 27f cents per hour. 29 5 \ cents per hour. 34£ cents per hour. $850 $1,000 “ ‘The time necessarily consumed in the performance of the service between “report for duty” and “end of duty” is the “actual time” to be allowed, and the interim between deliveries is the carrier’s own time, and can not in any case be charged against the United States.’ “The carrier’s eight-hour law declares ‘that hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day’s work,’ but it allows compensation to continue in the form of an annual salary, and requires no deduction to be made if the duties of the day do not extend through the prescribed time. It also declares that ‘if any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same.’ To sustain the interpretation given to the act by the department, it will be necessary to read in it by construction the words ‘on an average,’ i. e., if any letter carrier is employed on an average a greater number of hours per day than eight, he shall be paid extra for the same. This the court is not at liberty to do. The carrier is entitled to eight hours’ work, and to his pay if work is not furnished to [him. For any excess on any day he is entitled to extra pay. The only set-off that can be maintained is when he is absent from duty without leave. The department is at liberty to keep a carrier OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 13 employed eight hours every day, but not to give him a deficit of work one day and an excess another.” In the brief of the Solicitor-General in the present case, it is stated that in his opinion the decision of the Court of Claims was correct; that he is prevented from dismissing the appeal only by the fact that another department of the Government has differed from that view and declines to follow it until the question is decided authoritatively by this court; and that justice to the letter carriers seems, therefore, to require that the case be submitted to this court for its determination, which he does without argument. The conclusions which we have reached in No. 1061 cover the same questions arising in this case which are presented in that; and as the appellant does not chal- lenge the decision of the Court of Claims as to the question presented in this case which is not presented in No. 1061, it is sufficient to say that we concur with the views of that court above stated as to that question. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the decision of this case. True copy. Test: [seal.] James H. McKenney, Clerk Supreme Court United States r Department of Justice, Washington , D. C., April 18, 1900. Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your communication of April 16 inclosing a copy of bill S. 4018, for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation. You request that I will cause to be forwarded, for the use of your committee, all papers on file in my department relating to these claims, and also that I will favor the committee' with my opinion as to the merits of the same. In reply I have the honor to state that the list of persons and amounts to which this bill is intended to apply, contained in Senate Doc. No. 216, Ffty-sixth Congress first session, to which the bill refers, was made out in response to a resolution of the Senate of the date December 18, 1899, calling upon the department for a list of the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims as representing services actually performed by letter carriers in excess of eight hours per day. This list was prepared under my direction by an expert employee of this depart- ment, who has during the past five years assisted the commissioners of the Court of Claims in preparing their reports to the court of overtime of letter carriers. The list was made out by him from an examination of each one of the 2,000 or more reports of overtime of letter carriers, which have been made to the Court of Claims by the commissioners appointed for the purpose during the past six years, and was based upon the statements contained in such reports of the amount and value of overtime services performed by letter carriers for which claim was barred by the statute of limitations governing actions in the Court of Claims. These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an investigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting upon claims not barred, and in fact are a part and parcel of each report. The result of this work is undoubtedly correct, and the total amount of such claims, as ascertained by careful computation, is $220,674.24. There are no papers on file in this department relating to these claims, and the papers from which computation of the same was made are part of the files of the Court of Claims; hence I am unable to forward, for the use of your committee, any papers in the premises. As regards the merits of these claims, they were excluded from the consideration of the Court of Claims solely by reason of the statute of limitations above referred to. The various amounts were ascertained by commissioners of the Court of Claims, who were appointed by the court for the purpose of inquiring into the facts relating to the claims of letter carriers throughout the United States for overtime services, and the correctness of their work is evidenced by the fact that their reports have almost invariably been accepted, not only by the claimants, but by the United States, as being just and fair. I am satisfied, too, that these reports were eminently conservative. As the only objection that I am aware of to these claims is a technical one, it is my opinion that, provided the failure of the claimants to present their claims to the court before the statute of limitations commenced to run against the same can be satisfactorily explained, these claims are as meritorious as any of those upon which judgment has heretofore been rendered by the court. 14 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. In reply to your request to be furnished with papers on file in this department showing the reasons, if any, that existed for the failure on the part of any of the claimants of the class proposed to be relieved for not presenting their claims to the Court of Claims until barred by limitation I have to say that there are no ^papers in this department bearing upon this question, nor have any such papers ever been presented to this department, nor to the Court of Claims; but I have the honor to suggest that the information asked for in this connection can undoubtedly be obtained from the Post-Office Department, in which department these claims originated. Very respectfully, John W. Griggs, Attorney-General. Hon. H. S. Boutell, Chairman Subcommittee No. 2 , Committee on Claims , House of Representatives. Post-Office Department, Office of the Postmaster-General, Washington , D. C., April 18, 1900. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 4th instant, inclosing copy of House bill 10315 and requesting that your committee be furnished with papers or information on file in this department bearing upon the subject-matter of said bill. In reply I have the honor to state that between the years 1889 and 1894 numerous claims for overtime were filed in this department by letter carriers and ex-letter car- riers. These claims were made out on blanks furnished by this department to post- masters, and postmasters were required to certify on the blanks to the correctness of the claims. It was clearly the intention of the department at that time to adjust and pay these claims, and an unexpended balance of an appropriation having been made available for this purpose in 1890 (26 Stat. L., p. 676), a number of such claims arising at Washington and Philadelphia were adjusted and paid. No further appropriations were made to enable this department to pay the claims and there arose also questions as to the proper interpretation of the act of May 24, 1888, “An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day.” These questions were judicially determined by decisions of the Court of Claims in the case of Post v. United States (27 Ct. Cls. R., 244) and by the Supreme Court in United States v. Post (148 U. S. Reports, 124) and in United States v. Gates (148 U. S. Reports, 134). After the decisions of the Supreme Court were announced the Postmaster-General issued an order to prevent the further making of overtime in the light of the decisions above mentioned . This order was followed by a circular letter of instructions to post- masters, dated April 5, 1893, and signed by the First Assistant Postmaster-General, in which the following reference to overtime claims is made : “In this connection, with a view to minimizing the correspondence, confusion, and delay incident to an equitable adjustment of valid claims for overtime services actually and necessarily performed, letter carriers may be informed that a new, and it is to be hoped a correct, form of claim blank will soon be sent by the department, for the benefit of claimants, to the postmasters at all free-delivery offices whence overtime claims have emanated, upon which particular blank all claims heretofore submitted should be restated and upon which any subsequent claims may also be presented to the department for adjustment.” The intention of the department to adjust these claims is further shown in a com- munication of the Postmaster-General to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated November 8, 1893 (Ex. Doc. No. 8, 53d Cong., 2d sess.), and by letters sent out by this department in answer to inquiries from claimants. As a sample of these letters I quote one written to J. F. O’Connor, Springfield, Mass., under date of March 21, 1894: “Yours of the 27th ultimo received. You can not present your claim for back pay to the Court of Claims without having counsel to represent you. It is not necessary, however, to present these claims to the Court of Claims; if they are sent to this department they will receive proper attention.” As to the merits of the claims, I am of the opinion that the claimants are, as a mat- ter of justice, entitled to relief in some form. Very respectfully, Ch. Emory Smith, Postmaster-Genera l . Hon. H. S. Boutell, Chairman Subcommittee No. 2, House of Representatives. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 15 [House Executive Document !No. 8 ( Fifty-third Congress, second session.] Office of the Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C., November 8, 1898 . Sir: Replying to resolution of inquiry on the part of the House of Representatives, dated November 3, 1893, as to whether the claims of letter carriers for compensation for services in excess of eight hours per day, under act of May 24, 1888, as construed by the Court of Claims March 7, 1892, are being received, and whether in the settle- ment of these claims the services of attorneys are necessary, I have the honor to state: (1) That claims are now, from time to time, being received, which are additional to a large number already on file in this department, including those adjudicated by the honorable Court of Claims, but not yet paid. (2) I am of the opinion that the services of attorneys are unnecessary, either in behalf of claimants or the Government, for the reason that the settlement of these claims will, necessarily, be made from records kept in the several post-offices, in con- nection with the departmental records, and will be a matter for clerical rather than legal capacity. It is true that in very many, perhaps nine-tenths, of the claims on file, powers of attorney were filed simultaneously with the claims, but no action has yet arisen in the settlement thereof in which attorneys have been recognized, except informally, by the department. The adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the free-delivery division of this department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a sufficient appropriation for their payment. The adjudication of similar claims heretofore paid was effected in this manner. Very respectfully, W. S. Bissell, Postmaster-General. Hon. Chas. F. Crisp, Speaker of the House of Representatives . The foregoing document is quoted in the last Senate report on this bill (S. Rept. 82, 60th Cong., 1st sess.), and the following statement is made by the committee: No such general appropriation as was suggested by the last paragraph of this response was ever made, either for the purpose of affording a sufficient clerical force or for the payment of the claims. All claimants, therefore, necessarily had to take their cases into the Court of Claims. Wherever the claim was presented more than six years after the rendition of the services the carrier was unable to obtain judgment for such part as accrued more than six years before the filing of the petition, under the provisions of section 1059 of the Revised Statutes, which is in the following words: “ Every claim against the United States cognizable by the Court of Claims shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court * * * within six years after the claim first accrues. ” In order to facilitate the settlement of this very numerous class of claims, com- missioners were appointed to examine and report fully the amounts due the several claimants. The form of their commission will be found printed in the report of the case of Adams v. United States (33 Ct. Cls. R., pp. 411, 415), as follows: “Upon motion of the Assistant Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, it is hereby ordered that be, and is hereby, constituted a commissioner of this court in the above-entitled action and such other actions as may be brought before him by consent of the parties or order of court. “He shall investigate such claims, upon any books, records, or documents relating thereto, and upon such evidence, oral or written, as he may deem material, and shall report the facts found by him to exist, together with a computation of the amounts due the several claimants therefor. “ He shall have power to examine claimants and other witnesses, at any place within the county of their respective residences; to exercise the powers of a commissioner of the court; he may in any case where he deems it material, or at request of either party, attach to his report any depositions or other evidence taken by him. In case any claimant shall in writing request of such commissioner opportunity to be repre- sented by counsel upon the taking of testimony, said referee shall allow reasonable time for procuring the attendance of such counsel . _ “Upon the coming in of any report of such referee, either party shall have the right to object to any detail of such report and computation and to take any evidence in support either of the claim or the defense in the same manner as if no such report had been made. “This appointment may be revoked at any time by order of this court.” 16 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. The commissioners in the examination of the claims reported on the amount of overtime made by the carriers and the statutory compensation therefor, and judg- ments were entered upon these reports for all amounts which had been earned within the six years before the time the petition bad been filed in each case, respec- tively. Wherever a portion of the claim was over six years old, the amount repre- senting such portion was excluded or excepted from judgment under the bar of limitation enacted by section 1059 of the Revised Statutes as above quoted. The report of the Attorney-General, contained in Senate Doc. No. 216, contains the tabu- lated statement of the amounts thus reported by commissioners as having been actually earned for overtime made under the act of May 24, 1888, but excluded or excepted from judgment on the sole ground of limitation. The Attorney-General states that the reports of the commissioners were eminently conservative, and have almost invariably been accepted, both by the claimants and by the United States, as just and fair. Also that — “These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an investigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting upon claims not barred, and, in fact, are a part and parcel of each report.” The total amount for which judgments have been entered by the Court of Claims is about $3,000,000, as shown by the Report of the Postmaster-General for 1897, page 95, leaving as excluded or excepted from judgment, for the sole reason that the claims were barred by limitation, the amount of claims contained in Senate Document No. 216 and provided for by the present bill, aggregating $220,674.24. As the inves- tigation upon which these claims were found due was of precisely the same char- acter as that which resulted in the entry of the large amount of judgments which have been paid by appropriations in the regular deficiency bills, and as the failure of these claimants to present their claims to the Court of Claims in time was not due to their own fault, but to the belief, for which they had a good apparent foun- dation in many written statements of the department itself, that the claims would be settled by the department without contest, and without the necessity of suing in the Court of Claims, it is evident that the facts fully support the opinion of the Post- master-Genbral “that the claimants are, as a matter of justice, entitled to relief in some form.” Since January 1, 1895, no appreciable overtime has been made by letter carriers. This fact is stated in the Postmaster-General’s annual report for 1897, page 95. Your committee annex to this report a copy of the opinions delivered by the Su- preme Court of the United States on March .13, 1893, in which the act of May 24, 1888, under which these claims arise, is set forth and fully construed. These opin- ions are reported in 148 United States Reports, pages 124 to 137. The examination of these claims by commissioners of the Court of Claims, upon which the judgments were based, from which the amounts provided for in the pend- ing bill were excluded or excepted, were all made subsequently to the rendition of these opinions by the Supreme Court and in accordance therewith. Your committee therefore report back the bill, S. 4018, favorably and recommend its passage. The following appears in House Report No. 1182, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and is embodied in all later reports on this measure : [Extracts from letters received from claimants concerning reasons why their claims were not presented in time to escape the action of the statute of limitations. These are typical of a very large number.] Davenport , Iowa . — In regard to this claim I will say that I sent it to the First Assist- ant Postmaster-General, on a blank that was supplied by him for this purpose, in December, 1893, I think. This blank had a part of the overtime which I had made on it and was signed by Postmaster as being correct and just. This claim was returned to me by the first assistant, for the reason that I had only the overtime made each day made out, instead of having all of the time consumed each day shown; with the sam^ envelope he returned me new blanks with instruc- tions to properly fill out and on receipt of the same he also said that the department would take action, he also informed me that it would not be necessary to employ the services of an attorney. Acting under these instructions, I made out another blank and had it signed by Mr. Fred A. Lisher, who was then postmaster, and forwarded it to the department in the month of March, 1894, and since that time I have heard nothing from them. In regard to the other claims that you have from this city, I will say that at the time the overtime was made it was impossible for any of the men to file any claims and hold their positions. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 17 Pittsburg , Pa . — In connection with the matter I will say at the time a post- office inspector visited this city and told us he was representing the Post-Office Depart- ment in the matter of settling our claims for overtime. He told us the department would settle with and pay us and that was the surest, safest, and perhaps the only way by which a settlement could be reached, as it might be twenty years before our claims would be reached before the Court of Claims. As he was recognized by the local post-office officials as an officer of the department, I believed he spoke with authority and truthfully and thought any other than the plan he suggested would be useless, as well as likely to be considered discourteous, and when no relief came from the department, and as the statute of limitations was working against my claim, I at last tried the Court of Claims. Peoria , III . — At the time the postmaster at Bloomington, where I was employed, Hon. John Eddy, took my papers, after I had made out my claim for overtime, and sent them to the Post-Office Department instead of sending them to the claim depart- ment. My claim was sent in there in plenty of time. The inclosed letter will explain itself and show what the condition of affairs was at Washington. If you do not need this, please return same to me. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C., March 18, 189 A- Sir: Yours of the 12th instant, in reference to your claim for overtime now on file in the Post-Office Department, has been received. In reply I have to state that it is impossible to give you any information concerning the probable date upon which the department will take up these claims for settle- ment, as this is a matter depending entirely upon the action of Congress. Your claim will, however, have the same consideration shown others of like char- acter. Very respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster -General. Newarh, N. J . — Referring to the claims in question as presented by the carriers of this office, we wish to state that in 1894 the carriers concerned presented, at the suggestion of the then superintendent of free delivery, their claims to the Post-Office Department. We were assured at the time that the claims would receive proper consideration, and those authorities being our highest superiors, we felt assured that our claims would be properly filed and given the consideration merited under the law. It appears, however, that those claims were permitted to remain on file and were never properly presented to the disbursing officers of the United States, and when a second claim was filed we learned through you that the claims originating prior to a certain time were outlawed by limitation. You will observe that as far as we are concerned we filed our claims in ample time to prevent the raising of the question of limitation of time, and it does not seem that in justice to us we should be deprived of what is legally and equitably our due simply because our superior officers of that time neglected or overlooked the matter. Paducah, Ky. — I, with four other carriers, sent our claims to the Post-Office Depart- ment at Washington. They were returned, saying that there would be a commissioner call on us to adjust the claim, so I did not think it necessary to take any further steps until he came. So when the commissioner did come my time was debarred. I have no letters of any description, they all being destroyed . Lexington , Ky . — My claim for overtime as letter carrier in this city was filed in the Post-Office Department at Washington, D. C., about April 24, 1894. The claim was prepared and made out upon a blank furnished by the Postmaster-General, and by his instructions was filed, and acknowledgment of same received about May 1, 1894. Thinking that I had done as I should do, I allowed the claim to remain on file until December 12, 1894. I called upon the Postmaster- General for status of the claim, and in reply received notice that the claim would have to be filed in the Court of Claims, which was done, not, however, before the statute of limitations had been running for several months. In April, 1895, I filed an application with the Post- master-General to assist me in getting the part of the claim which was barred, covering the period from May 24, 1888, to January 1, 1889. I have had several communications from the Post-Office Department since that time, which I will forward to you. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assitant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C., April 20, 1893. Sir: Yours of the 14th instant, asking for a blank on which to make out a claim for overtime, has been received. In reply you are informed that the department is now H. Rep. 640, 61-2 2 18 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. having an overtime blank prepared, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, a supply of which will be furnished to postmasters at free-delivery offices as soon as printed, when you can procure a copy from the postmaster at Lexington. Very respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster-General. Post-Office Department, • Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington , D. C., June 30 , 1893. Sir : * * * In compliance with your request we inclose you herewith a ‘ ‘ claim ” blank, as requested. Very respectfully, , Acting First Assistant Postmaster -General. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington , D. C., March 17, 1894. Dear Sir: Yours of the 8th, referring to claim for overtime, has been received. In reply you are informed that the matter will be carefully attended to at the earliest opportunity and you will be duly informed of the action of the department. Very respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster-General. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C., April 17, 1894. Dear Sir: Yours of the 24th, referring to claim for overtime, also statement of same, has been received. In reply you are informed that the matter will be care- fully attended to at the earliest opportunity and you will be duly informed of the action of the department. Very respectfully, , First Assistant Postmaster-General. Scranton, Pa. — One reason why this claim was not prosecuted in time was because I, with others, was under the impression that it would be recognized and paid by the Government without presenting it through a regular legal process before the Court of Claims, and when I found out to the contrary this portion of my claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. We thought if our claims would be paid simply upon their presentation we could save the legal expenses. Altoona, Pa . — The reason why I did not file my claim for overtime before it was barred by the statute of limitations was that the then postmaster said that any car- rier who attempted or would file any claim for overtime during his term as post- master of this office he would report them to the Post-Office Department and recom- mend their dismissal from the service. This was the rod he held over us. And to further display his unkind and unjust disposition in the matter, after , our attorney, who visited our office and took up the claims, he called me into his private office and took my name as one of the applicants, and stated to me that any carrier who had filed an overtime claim he would report him to the department and use his efforts to have him dismissed from the service. It was his intimidating and unkind disposition toward the carriers that kept them from filing their claims at an earlier date, because no carrier cared to lose his place on that account. Paducah, Ky . — This claim, in connection with others, was entered in April, 1893. * * * They were sworn to before Postmaster Ed. Farley and made out upon sheets furnished by the department and forwarded by Postmaster to Washington; I think to the First Assistant Postmaster-General. Little Rock, Ark. — Was given to understand by officials of the department that it would not be necessary to put the claim in hand of a lawyer for collection nor in Court of Claims; that it would be paid without this. Indianapolis, Ind4 — The general impression that these claims would be adjusted by the department and a delicacy in bringing suit against a department where you had OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 19 worked for years and hoped to continue was the cause of delay in my case as in many others. Lynchburg , Va. — We, the undersigned carriers, beg leave to say that the nonpresen- tation of our claims for our overtime was due to the prevailing impression made upon us by the ex-postmaster of this city, Mr. , that we would jeopardize our posi- tions. Therefore we deemed it not necessary. Lynchburg , Va. — I had several conversations in regard to the matter with , who was then superintendent of carriers, and he informed me that the Government would not pay the claim. I was also advised by my friends not to press my claim, as it would likely have some effect upon my position. Wilkesbarre, Pa. — I handed my claim to our postmaster for approval, and he came to me about a month after and told me that he received a letter from the Post-Office Department at Washington stating that my claim had been received and would receive prompt attention. Owensboro , Ky. — We were under the impression these claims would be paid with- out the services of an attorney. Portland, Me. — The postmaster gave my overtime to me on a paper signed by him; told me to mail the same to the First Assistant Postmaster-General. I did as requested by the postmaster. Nearly six years later I learned the Court of Claims was the place to obtain judgment on the same. I wrote the Post-Office Department for my papers. They were mailed to me. I mailed them to my attorney, . I was informed by him sometime later that my claim was barred by lapse of time. Pittsburg, Pa. — There was a government inspector here who told us that he was here for the purpose of fixing our claims, and we need not do anything as the Gov- ernment would pay us. So you can see why we did not get our claims in. Macon, Ga. — Some years ago the carriers interested appointed a com- mittee of one to wait upon our then Postmaster and ask his advice as to what steps we should take in the matter, which was as follows: That he did not object to our getting the claim paid, but he was afraid we would lose our positions if we per- sisted in pushing the claim. Being governed by this advice we were afraid to act in the matter until visited our city and assured us that we would not jeopardize our positions in presenting these claims. New Britain, Conn. — My claim was presented in time and it was not, or any part of it, barred by limitation. If there was any delay it was no fault of mine, because my claim was sent in time, and if it was not filed in the Court of Claims it was because it must have been pigeonholed or neglected in some department of the Government. In the first place the Postmaster-General sent papers to the postmaster in New Britain asking or making inquiry if any of the employees or letter carriers had any claims against the Government for overtime work. I filled out the papers and returned them to the Postmaster-General long before my claim was barred by limitation. After I had sent the papers to the Postmaster-General, and I assumed that was all that was necessary to be done, but it seems that instead of the Government repre- sentative presenting them to the Court of Claims that they were pigeonholed as above referred to. As nothing was being done I asked to have my papers returned, and I then forwarded them to the attorney who was acting for me and others at the time in Washington, and I was then told that part of the claim was barred by limita- tion. There has been no neglect upon my part, and it seems to me that the neglect was upon the part of some of the government employees at Washington. Chattanooga , Tenn. — Five carriers write as follows: “In regard to the reason or question why we did not present our claims before we were barred by the statute of limitations, we beg leave to state that soon after the passage of the “eight-hour” law our claims were presented, having just been made out by our superintendent at this post-office, or made by us and verified by him. The Government sent an inspector here to examine nto the matter, and he decided unless we worked eight hours per day for seven days in each week, including Sunday, we could not recover pay for our time. This decision caused us to make no further effort for the time being then. Soon afterwards a declaration or statement was made by our Postmaster-General that these claims would be paid, and that it would not be necessary for carriers to employ counsel or attorneys, as the Government would pay the claims without this expense. So the claims did not become barred because we had not made the demand, but because we had not demanded them through an attorney in a legal way. We claim the lapse of time was caused, first, by the decision against us by the inspector on account of his idea of fifty-six hours constituting a week’s work; second, on account of statement of Postmaster-General that the claims would certainly be paid without it being necessary to put them in hands of an attorney.” These claims were promptly filed on blanks furnished by the Post-Office Depart- ment for that purpose. Chief District , in Charge of Carriers. 20 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Warren , Ohio . — The advice I got from our postmaster at that time was not to send in any claim, for the Post-Office Department had out spies looking up carriers that made claims for overtime, so I did not make any claim, as I would have liked to. Philadelphia , Pa. — I was in the post-office at the time the claims were first made out. We had a committee of the carriers and two of them went to Washington to represent us in the matter of overtime, and they told us they got it from good authority that we should file our claims for overtime in the Post-Office Department at Washing- ton, and we were not informed differently until almost half of our claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Bradford , Pa. — Will say I wrote direct to the department and received answer that as soon as there was any appropriation made for payment of said claims I would be paid in full. They also entered my claim. Lexington, Ky. — Will inform you that I was told by a first assistant postmaster at Lexington that it was not necessary; that the Post-Office Department would have claim properly filed without it. Trinidad, Colo. — I was informed by the postmaster that if such application were made it would not be allowed, and that it would jeopardize my position in the service. Danville 111. — I carried mail from July 4, 1889, till about the middle of January, 1892, remaining in the office till April 4, 1892, leaving on this date for Managua, Nica- ragua. Some time while I was in Nicaragua some of my friends notified me that I was entitled to overtime. I wrote to them and made all the inquiries possible, but as it took some four or five months to get an answer and sometimes not any at all, I could not do anything until I returned here in December, 1897. Beaver Falls , Pa. — The reason the claims of the carriers were not filed before the limitation had cut out part of the time was because the postmaster, , advised us not to file our claim for overtime, as we might lose our positions by so doing. Scranton, Pa. — My case, with several others, was presented at the Post-Office Department, office of First Assistant Postmaster-General, Superintendent Free- Delivery System, Washington, D. C., October 3, 1890, and they were filed for con- sideration when reached in their order. Middletown, Ohio. — The Postal Department forwarded to me a blank form upon which to make out the claim. I called upon — , then postmaster of Middletown, and showed him the form and requested permission to examine the time sheet in order to get the data. While I was at work upon that Mr. said to me “that I had not better file my claim, as it would not amount to anything, and might cause the department to secure our dismissal from the service.” As he was my superior officer at the time, and I presumed that he knew the postal laws, or had information which was reliable, I refrained from making out the claim for the reason that I could not afford to lose my position, particularly if the claim would not be allowed. This occurred on several occasions, and my sole reason for not presenting my claim at that time, or until the same was barred by the statute, was that through my postmaster’s influence I was persuaded not to do so, and feared that if I did either that he or some other person in authority would cause my dismissal from the service. Philadelphia, Pa. — In August, 1890, I sent my claim to Postmaster-General, Wash- ington, D. C., with the understanding that he would see that I got my claim. On August 13, 1890, I received a letter from Acting Superintendent Free-Delivery System that my claim had been received, and that I would be paid in my turn. New Orleans, La. — I consulted superintendent carriers, New Orleans, La.; he told me I could do what I thought best, and gave me as his opinion that any overtime that was due me would be recognized by the Department when the commissioners came down to examine the records, and then it would be time enough to file my claim. To my surprise you informed me about the limitation clause. Sheboygan, Wis. — When the letter carriers throughout the country were notified to send in their claims, the carriers of this office also took action preparatory to sending in said claims. Mr. , who was then our postmaster, disapproved of our inten- tion in a very decided manner, even going so far as to send the false statement to the Department at Washington that the question of overtime had been settled by him in this office, and that we had agreed to drop all claims of overtime. His actions placed us in a dilemma, and for the time being we delayed sending in our claims. With the advent of another postmaster we again took up the matter. He also ex- pressed his disapproval of our intention, and so it was that much valuable time was lost before we finally decided to send in our claims. But for the opposition of our postmasters our claims would have been presented in time. Atlanta, Ga. — I was informed I was to put the claim in through the First Assistant Postmaster-General, which I did. I received his receipt for the same. I then went down in Crawford County, Ga., in the sawmill business (in the backwood) for seven years and did not hear any more from my claim until it was put in with others. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 21 CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, barred by the statute of limitations , called for in Senate resolution , December 18, 1899. No. Name. Amount. BIRMINGHAM, ALA. 18414 James D.Bell $129.44 MOBILE, ALA. 20528 Frank J. Leary 134. 65 21027 Edward C. Cato 26. 87 Percy W. Beck 10. 81 Nathan Jessie 7. 63 Charles Lewis 10. 81 William H. Larkin 2. 68 Josh W. McCloud 10.81 John T. Marshall 10.81 Reuben R. Mims 10.81 Charles H. Nichols 10. 81 Thomas W. Payton 7.63 James T. Peterson 10. 81 Alfred S. Smith 10.81 William H. Schneider 10.81 Thomas W. Tobin 10.81 Charles H. Williams 2.68 Nathaniel Wilson 10.81 Total 301.05 MONTGOMERY, ALA. 17578 William E. Elmore 129. 68 David B. Westcott 98. 46 Total 223.14 SELMA, ALA. 18861 Benjamin M. Russell 2.27 John A. Russell 31.51 Charles S. Wise 28. 40 Total 62.18 FORT SMITH, ARK. 18369 William L. Jackson 82,91 William E. Joshenberger 6. 55 William D. Lunsford 6. 19 Total 94.65 HOT SPRINGS, ARK. 16968 Joseph Coffer 22. 89 William G. Hilliard 58. 37 Louis L. Smith 45. 38 Total 126. 64 LITTLE ROCK, ARK. 18026 James Belcher 94. 92 George M. Farr 106. 73 Justin Morgner, widow Daniel Hoeltzel, deceased 136.40 Total 338.05 PINE BLUFF, ARK. 19538 Edgar Fletcher 17.74 Ottaway W. Gurley 84.05 De Witt N. Hope 17.74 Arthur B. Knight 5. 15 Taylor J. Patilo 5.15 Madison F. Treadwell 15.26 Horace A. Williams 25. 15 Total 170. 24 No. Name. Amount. FRESNO, CAL. 20360 Charles L. Harrison $221. 28 21068 Henry Johansen 8. 66 Total 229.94 LOS ANGELES, CAL. Harry Angell 63. 88 George N. Barnes 158. 09 John Baugarter 53.42 Thomas M. Barron 141. 83 Howard B. Beers 163. 30 Fred’k R. Brandt 132. 89 Charles C. Brower 15.06 William R. Carter 82. 66 Joseph Farrell 82. 66 Solomon Froman 68. 84 Dora Edgar, widow Charles E. Gale 7. 63 Rolla O. Gill 154. 51 Charles Hawthorne 153.48 Charles E. Hutchinson 6.81 Peter Marion 75.20 Delos Millsap 53.42 James B. Riddick 149. 00 Charles A. Robb 75. 68 Orville L. Robertson 175. 54 Winfred J. Sanborn 7.84 William A. Shields 106. 66 William H. Stuart 121. 13 Ernest W. Stuart, deceased Edward Tvnan 74. 53 154. 51 John W. Whitely, jr 106. 47 John Woods 138. 33 Total 2,523.37 OAKLAND, CAL. 18425 George F. Collyer 155 39 John W. Hearst 241. 27 Daniel J. Hollahan 93.76 John Y. Morrison 30. 32 Eldon R. Parsons 247. 40 Frank H. Pollard 129. 65 Edgar Weider 3.51 18726 Horatio F. Jenkins 76.53 Oliver F. Perigo 64.04 Total 1, 031. 86 SACRAMENTO, CAL. 19199 Chester H. Agner 99.01 Michael Butler 99. 01 Lee A. Devine 38.36 George B. Eldred 99. 01 Thomas Holden, administrator Henry B. Humphreys, de- ceased 52.00 John W. Toomey 74. 12 19424 George G. Brentner 21.08 Charles B. Wilson 21.32 Total 503.86 SAN DIEGO, CAL. 17980 David Carson, father of William Carson, deceased 148. 91 19111 Joseph E. Coulthurst 113. 65 John W. Foote 7.63 Total 270. 19 22 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24 , 1888 , etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. LEADVILLE, COLO. 17696 Charles H. Cushman $130. 74 16969 William T. Allen $42. 57 80. 86 James R. Madigan 42. 57 9 90 William Farrell 36! 91 Total 85. 14 4 54 William Laird 9! 28 PUEBLO, COLO. William A. O’Connor 14. 23 45. 17 18062 Merrie S. Carter 61.05 9. 28 Adam Walk 4. 13 237. 24 Howard M. Shoup 58.42 HI 11 70! 13 Total 123. 60 £44 £6 William S. Bousliey 240. 55 TRINIDAD, COLO. Edward J. Colter 53. 90 Amy Ehinger, administratrix 21152 Edward H. Day 89.44 Edward A. Parker, deceased . . 141. 11 Harry D. Pearson 47. 94 Edward D. Finley 240. 55 W. S. Phillips, next of kin John Hession , 182. 53 Thomas G. Phillips, deceased. 22.55 412. 00 E. Joy Rice 89.44 Bridget Kinucan, administra- Phiney E. Snodgrass 17.74 trix Michael A. Kiniican, de- 240. 79 Total 267. 11 John J. Lynch, executor George F. Myles, deceased 106. 74 BRIDGEPORT, CONN. John F. McGeough, adminis- tratorThomas W. McGeough, 17957 James Kelly, brother Timothy 222. 67 Kelly, insane 87. 91 79.66 Edward F. Nevins 26. 60 fin fi4 Elizabeth C. Roche, adminis- Total 114. 51 tratrix Walter E. Roche, de- ceased 166. 73 DERBY, CONN. Sarah A. Scott, administratrix Richard H. 0. Weber, de- 21168 Jacob F. Yocker 220. 46 ceased 339. 21 HARTFORD, CONN. Total 3, 620. 83 18408 George E. O’Neil 378.54 SAN JOSE, CAL. 18666 John P. Carmody 15. 47 Eugene G. Austin 60. 76 18335 Oha.rles FT. Amidon 157. 31 John J. Brennan 15. 26 Fred D. Ashworth. 3. 92 Waldo B. Brewer 60. 76 Oscar D. Brown 60. 76 Total . . . 161.23 Aaron D. Cook 20. 21 Thomas F. Daly 60. 76 STOCKTON, CAL. DeWitt C. Graves 60. 76 Charles H. Halladay 60. 76 18320 John S. Burros 24. 75 Thomas F. Hayes 60.76 John G. Newman.. 66. 62 Julius Herzfeld 60. 76 George G. Poole 40. 42 Charles Jackson . ; 60. 76 William G. Whiting 66. 62 Henry Jonas 60. 76 Clyprian .T MnlhVa.n 20. 21 Total. ... 198. 41 John O’Farrell 60.76 William 0 presten 20. 21 ASPEN, COLO. Adolph C. Renthe 60. 76 Garrett Roach 60. 76 19778 Harry .T. Sea/rs 22.47 Lloyd E. Seymour 60.76 Patrick E pheehan 82. 37 COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. John F. Smith 60. 76 Lewis W. Smith 82. 37 17933 AnpnRt.ns P, Everett, 30.31 Franklin Taylor 60. 76 18786 Shesh B. Gamble 28.93 Samuel E. Waters 60. 76 Robert TT Magee 53. 37 Total 1, 667. 56 Total . 112. 61 DENVER, COLO. MERIDEN, CONN. 18051 John Ti. Rra.ssee 22. 69 18753 Gottlieb A. Baver 89.37 Joseph E. Brassee ... 7. 43 Albert L. Bartlett 89. 37 Joseph S. Foulke ... 67. 66 Patrick J. Fitzpatrick 89. 37 John H. Rhinehart 5.78 Patrick J. Ford 132. 02 Joseph Cha.mherla.in 37. 95 Charles D. Lewis 89. 37 Frank E. Houts. 40. 42 Hugh Malley 39. 60 Robert, B. Forsythe. 3.92 John Reynolds 89.37 18400 James D. Jordan .. 41.66 William Seymour 89.37 Total 227. 51 Total 707. 84 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 23 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. MIDDLETOWN, CONN. Washington, d. c. — continued. 1 18772 $28. 87 17901 Harry S. Barrick $70. 39 79. 11 Arthur J. Beall 71.07 79.11 Charles D. Bond 69. 01 79. 11 S. D. Boss 30. 51 Henry .T Bradley .82 Total ... 266. 20 Charles S. Busby 1. 65 JohnD Butler .21 NEW BRITAIN, CONN. Albert Crew 63! 51 Charles A. Champ .61 16965 31.84 John F. Clark 19. 23 22. 47 Howard Clements 97.17 18811 48.49 James W. Coles 1.03 32.51 Harry E. Connor 1.24 31. 84 William S. Crawford 65. 57 John W. Curry 99.57 Total 167. 15 Herman W. Davis 12. 70 John E Dennison 41.20 NEW HAVEN, CONN. Henry D. Dickson 29! 53 Richard T. Donovan 20.51 17941 30.52 Charles S. Douglass 24.01 99. 01 Webster Downing 8. 46 Thomas F. Clark 63. 12 M. P. Epplev 30. 13 Wallace I. Foote 21.03 French L. Floyd 71.66 99.01 Arthur Fowler 30.21 Samuel Pagter.* 43.23 George T. Gallagher 44.29 43. 23 John S. George 85. 50 George A. Butler 99. 01 Teresa A. Gozenbauch, widow Henry M. Cummings 43.23 Henry C. Gozenbauch, de- Thomas H. Gill 9.64 ceased 10. 99 Thomas P. Granfield 30.52 William F. Gross 1.03 William M. Hvde, jr 53.45 John W Gunning 39.82 Leonard E. Peck . V 43. 23 William H. Hazzard 83.78 Frederick C. Upson 10. 81 Henry M. Hewlett 28. 30 Oscar L. Woodruff 43.23 John T. Hoge 61.80 AIpy M Holm ps 70. 73 Total 732. 27 Joseph B. Johnson 30! 67 John J King 19.03 NEW LONDON, CONN. Edward Kines !41 William M. Larcomb 22. 92 18912 Cornelius S. Holmes 77. 39 Edgar G. Leapley 78.28 Joseph F. Kennedy 290. 57 Benjamin F. Martin 54. 58 Henry C. Winthrop 77.39 James B. McFadden .82 Luther H Middleka,nf 4. 54 Total 445. 35 Arthur A. Monroe !82 William F <~>’Rp“irne 75.78 NORWALK, CONN. George S. Perrott 2l! 29 Richard B. Peters 1. 24 18884 John F. Healey 4.94 Clayton C. Osborn .41 E Eiftenbonse 85. 49 NORWICH, CONN. Charles F. Rose 10! 31 Joseph Schultz 12.70 18346 James M. Kelly 99.89 Charles W. Sharwood 10.30 James M. McGuire 99. 89 George F. Smith 13. 39 James M. Kelly a 74. 19 John H. Smith 45. 66 James McGuire a 66. 30 Frank B. Swiggard 1.03 William D Tahier 35. 36 Total 340. 27 Henry A. Tolson 53! 21 P 1 03 SOUTH NORWALK, CONN. William E. Waggener 74! 51 Eugene L. Walter 46.60 18874 Aaron R. Tyler 16. 91 Charles Webel 88. 24 William 0. Merritt 6*1. 80 Jacob A. Weigle 81.72 G. Fred Flynn 37. 43 Emery A. Wilber 97. 17 John B Wood field 61. 80 Total 115. 14 John W. K. Young 9 ! 64 TT o pt <1 Ambrose 37. 92 WILMINGTON, DEL. John S. Bain !41 George L. W. Bain 48. 75 16949 Joseph Duffy, deceased 42.94 James A. Darnall .21 Linton Howett 67. 47 George E. Dorn .21 18462 Thomas H. Barden 64. 85 Michael .T. Hennessey 1.03 19056 Frank P. Phalan 109. 82 John C. King *41 William H Marshall 15. 26 Total 285. 08 John B. Moses... i!o3 Daniel O’Neil . 82 WASHINGTON, D. C. Dorsey F. Seville 26! 40 Lemuel J. Shaw 1.03 17901 Charles K. Allen 29. 18 .Tnhn H Tn.rney deceased 57. 33 Jacob S. Allen 42.43 Joseph Van Fleet l! 24 i Andrew Barnes 30.21 19803 William H. Oliver 39.33 a In addition to amount reported in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. 24 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24 , 1888 , etc . — Continued. ) No. 20922 17638 18847 17907 18813 18813 18927 39061 20749 17087 20908 20897* Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. Washington, D. c.— continued. Brunswick, ga.— continued. Charles W. Swingle Joseph W. Blumer Philip H. Branson James W. Carroll William A. Clements.. Robert B. Hamilton. . . John J. Hill Oscar M. Huguely Edward B. Maroney . . . John T. Sanderson Henry G. Tegeler Charles L. Ulrich Adolph Van Reuth, jr. William E. Vogelson .. James A. Wormley William H. Douglass . . James A. Gordon George H. Malone J. William Murphy Frank A. Rebstock Rufus B. Stokes Williams. Van Fleet.. Frederick A. Wilker. . . George E. Winkelman. 825. 41 1.44 76.22 14.76 14. 49 37.76 55.62 70.39 39.32 58. 71 17.51 .41 41.20 23.35 .82 37. 45 38. 11 14.03 .61 22. 60 12.36 15.45 1.03 3. 71 Total 3, 281.20 208971 Worth H. Myers Arton F. Pyles.. 8207. 16 193. 14 17792 20568 Total COLUMBUS, G A. Howard E. Hall Minnie Johnston, sister William H. Johnston, deceased Sandy A. Jones John H. Parks Elbert Wilson Robert Lee Reese 1,077. 20 85.05 17.39 75. 67 23. 25 1.24 Total 203.42 17041 MACON, GA. John C. Allen Andrew J. Ryals.. William A. Dewberry. Charles H. Holley Joseph J. Higginson . . Lee J. Michael Edward Cassidy Newton S. Outler John W. Kimbrew 78.28 178. 17 170. 62 178. 17 220. 81 200.08 133. 99 70. 12 18.36 JACKSONVILLE, FLA. George H. Mays Aaron T. Hopkins 171.45 17. 74 Total SAVANNAH, GA. 1,248.60 Total PENSACOLA, FLA. 189.19 18940 George Jolly Charles Le Baron William Steele Robert C. White, father Beverly C. White, deceased Thomas G. W. Tuttle 64.20 248. 38 62. 10 44.76 60.60 Total 476. 04 ATLANTA, GA. Augustus M. Anderson , Yancey Bryant John H. Elder Artway J. Tabb George W. White J. T. Lynch Rufus Adair W. H. Simpson Thornton Greenwood . Thomas McDonald A. E. Bearden H. S. Stanley C. B. Ralls W. S. Rea Robert M. Lockhart ... John T. King Herschel M. Upshaw John W. Jackson 29.79 35.05 70. 10 14.85 12.85 24.02 48.68 126.47 70.39 64.26 64.26 64.26 64.26 80.80 164.15 47.03 80.62 11.34 18448 18664 19319 Total 1,073.18 19625 AUGUSTA, GA. Crawford E. Alexander 41.48 Mark J. Deween 187.22 Total 228.70 Joseph D. Baughes 316. 03 245. 33 316. 03 316. 03 71.45 316. 03 316. 03 4. 94 316. 03 186. 07 316. 03 316. 03 77.23 316. 03 287. 37 316. 03 17. 74 71.45 314. 74 277.73 Mac B. Branham John D. Campbell Shem B. Cooper. Frank L. Curley Peter A. Denegal Charles C. Deveaux Thomas A. Houlihan John J. Howlett Henry S. Hymes Matthew J. Jones Albert La Fayette Joseph L. Mirault John O’ Donovan Richard C. O’ Driscoll George A. Lord Lewis M. Pleasant, jr Lachland M. Pollard George F. Tyson James P. Murphy Total 4, 714. 35 AURORA, ILL. liian T. Colbert 40.62 6. 60 45. 56 102. 51 124.13 Edward O. Peterson Joseph Wulf John Dillenburg William Trigg ' Total 319. 42 BELLEVILLE, ILL. Martin J. Herzler 61.44 61.44 90. 04 100. 91 John W. Mueller Samuel J. Swancutt Frederick Weber Total 313. 83 BLOOMINGTON, ILL. BRUNSWICK, GA. Thomas M. Sellers. George Abbott Oliver M. Briggs. . . Henry Molding 12.79 207.16 249.79 207.16 16987 John W. Terry Houston P. Fielder John N. Pitsch 37.74 67.45 194. 24 Total 299.43 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 25 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. ! No. Name. ^ CAIRO, ILL. Amount. No. Name. Chicago, ill. — continued. Amount. 19635 Joseph L. Abell James Barrow Andrew J. Kline, deceased Frank W. Koehler Isaac Walder Albert V. Coleman Casper L. Sander % Total CHICAGO, ILL. $101.31 10. 11 76. 19 12. 58 106. 57 96. 62 98. 26 501. 64 17858 17858 John B. Cotter Thomas J. Garrity William G. Lozier Charles Stevens John Britz Fred Dippe Helen Renich, administratrix Emil Renich, deceased Helen Stolt, administratrix Jo- achim R. Stolt, deceased Charles J. Burnman John J. Casey - John Dahl Olaf M. Dahl f$55. 06 l 95.45 Bernard J. Ford Andrew J. Gowanlock Owen E. Murphy, deceased Josoph C. Patzke Nels P. Rasmussen Eugene W. Sullivan James Connell Edward H.Krapp Jacob M.Bonga William T. Clayton William A. Corning Richard Cullen John D.Gallivan William F. Gray Clifton W. Griffing Wesley A. Hammond Robert A. Hart Will S. Hawkins Joseph L. Hazen John J.Healy (2) John J. Hopper Joseph R. Howe Joseph R. Lynn, jr William F. Mahon John J. Martin Thomas J. Maroney John A. Meeker James F. Metcalf Edward Mugvain Herman A. Naper Frederick Nelson Swain Nelson, deceased Henry E. Buckmaster Charles W. Burns Abram C. Christian Timothy E. Collins Michael Conlin Stephen Crosse John Cummins John W. Cunningham, jr Lawrence E. Donohue William Dunlop William A. Edwards William Fern Joseph Fischer George J. Foley Charles E. Cook, administrator Thomas J. Foley, deceased... William Gavin Edwin R. F. Hart George Herzberg Patrick J. Hunt Olaus Jentoft Gustave F. Joucke I J 1.24 47.23 47.23 2.06 3.78 1.37 1.37 234.50 70. 96 257. 70 40.42 150.51 239. 99 156. 80 1.85 45.38 26. 78 2.49 2.48 49. 78 2.06 73. 17 10. 11 14.43 14. 08 6.39 10.52 2.76 40.21 3.43 1.24 36. 69 14.08 8.25 4.13 3.04 179.91 121.54 .61 30.89 78.63 4.13 73.27 71.41 8.46 196.43 53.56 6.19 50.53 39.80 80. 03 19533 24. 75 25.78 63.12 9.28 3.09 18054 73.13 1.44 214. 58 38. 14 209. 72 134. 59 6.19 18508 18407 19533 John Weidmann, administra- tor Joseph Kaiser, deceased .. Albert C. Ormsby, deceased James Palmer Henry R. Ravenot, deceased... William H. Sclundt James H. Shurtleff Henry H. Smith Jasper T. Stafford, deceased Dennis T. Sullivan Jeremiah W. Tierney Winfield S. Williams Edward A. Wilson William Winter Timothy Falvey, administrator John J. Falvey, deceased Edwin C. Hearn Michael J. Kennedy George V. Levander Charles Schoenthaler Robert E. Bock Charles Boland John Badershaw George R. Bent Joseph P. Buckley James J. Keegan John W. Kinsley Nicholas C. Knerr Louis H. Knodell Robert C. Krelle Theodore E. Lange Henry M. Lauderdale Margaretta Leesburg, adminis- tratrix August Leesburg, de- ceased Joseph F. Lotz Elizabeth Marty, administra- trix EmilJ. Marty, deceased. . Charles E. Morrison Patrick O’ Mahoney Robert W. Owen August Paaren Peter G. Pinter Andrew Quaid Thomas J.Ryan Albert Schreiber... James F. Slattery James Speirs John L. Stacker Charles L. Tantow Nels Turrell William J. F. Utes Arie H. Vermeulen Charles G. Walgren Edward Ward Edward W. Warner Joseph B. Weil Charles F. Wright Peter O’Leary William Beekman Frank H. Beers William H. Marsh Michael Morarity George E. Rowe Edward J. Fitzgerald James H. Gage Timothy Culliname Mrs. F. C. Merritt, widow F. C. Merritt, deceased Michael J. Sarsfield Will L. Clifford George H. McMunn William H. Rickert Adolph J. Wilkie Jacob P. Winner Peter McAniff Christian Yeackley Thomas H. Lally John Burns Charles D. Burroughs Smith P. Colby $51. 34 18. 56 33. 92 30. 89 6.81 4.13 3. 43 14. 92 36.69 . 63.83 2.06 1.44 36. 69 40.42 89. 61 55.62 25. 36 52. 53 2.06 39. 14 349. 85 311.40 45.17 60. 64 52.11 105. 78 3.30 210.41 10.52 3.09 76.91 6. 19 ! 3. 51 46. 13 5. 15 57.13 1.44 129.78 311. 40 123.25 302. 82 160.02 105. 64 60. 60 378. 99 355. 69 3.09 67.75 34. 23 111. 99 36. 71 71.91 3.09 14. 64 260. 93 21.63 .41 1.03 ' .21 75. 21 5.15 3. 92 97.90 100.05 1.85 2. 06 5. 15 16. 91 2.06 2.27 2.27 71.27 159.83 117. 90 37.67 26 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc.— Continued. No. 19533 18801 17559 Lee S. Hall August Labhardt. Total 3. 30 59. 59 62. 89 Name. Amount. Chicago, ill. — continued. Charles W. Cook 873. 13 Dillard W. Dempsey 170. 63 Harry F. Gates 30.52 Samuel Goldsmith 26.60 Charles W. Griffith 135. 09 William Harper 42.07 John Heron 88. 48 R.P. Hogan 238. 96 James D. Jensen 67. 29 Myron H. Norton, jr 183. 31 Watson Rich 42. 57 Stephen Rinehart 36. 69 Samuel B. Shaw 40. 01 Owen Sheridan 238. 29 J oseph J. Simmons _ _ 36. 69 Total 10, 126. 79 DANVILLE, ILL. Frank L. Natho 63.94 Eugene Shuckrow 63.94 William S. Dillon 74.95 John W. Williams 95.57 Total 298.40 DECATUR, ILL. No. EVANSTON, ILL. 17489 Annie Cunningham, widow James Cunningham, de- ceased 205. 00 17. 12 226. 74 Alex. H. Hallstrom James McDonough Total 449. 86 FREEPORT, ILL. 18545 John E. Hogan 19. 18 19. 18 19. 18 19. 18 9. 90 Henry J. Keller David W. Sanderson Louis Schilling 20045 Henry Lenz Total 86. 62 GALESBURG, ILL. 20359 Horace L. Arnold 661.86 166. 19 111.78 80. 33 94. 92 67.08 Chris. H. Geisler William H. B. Jones Daniel G. McCarthy John C. Saunders O. L. Ridgely Total 1,172. 16 JACKSONVILLE, ILL. 18833 William Carroll . . 117. 20 49.62 122.12 William H.Milburn.jr 19604 Harry Platt Total 288. 94 JOLIET, ILL. 18538 J oseph F. Benson 140. 60 28. 33 28.33 28. 33 28. 33 Jacob Bierchard Charles C. Haberer Thomas J. Bvron Michael F. McCarthy 18538 19392 20878 21013 18882 18218 19304 21017 18951 19552 18837 16991 Name. joliet, ill. — continued. Michael R. Smith. . Charles G. Garrett . William Cushing.. Elmer F. Edgerly.. Total KANKAKEE, ILL. Alfred Bernier Otto Birr Byron M. Haslett La Fayette Hollenbeck Sanford M. Wright Total LASALLE, ILL. Louis F. Grube Frederick Snow . . . Joseph J. Wittliff .. William A. Young. Total MATTOON, ILL. George W. Eldridge . . Michael F. O’Connor Total MOLINE, ILL. Frank Suman William G. Baker. . Robert M. Benell .. Charles O. Hanson. Total MONMOUTH, ILL. Oscar Henry James Herdeman, father Ralph Herdeman, deceased Swan Watson Roland E. Saville Total OAKPARK, ILL. Andrew Luetke Alverdo A. Bassett . . Albert L. Blessman . . Edward T. Huxham . Total Amount. OTTAWA, ILL. Charles A. Klink PEKIN, ILL. Charles W. Edds Charles F. Holland Louis Louick Total PEORIA, ILL. John Kavanaugh John W. Schmitt . Charles J. Speck . . John A. Sutter William H. Zoller J28.33 87. 86 268. 71 268. 71 907. 53 103.58 11.14 103. 103. 103. 425. 15. 68 32.79 16. 91 49.70 57. 55 254. 16 93.02 254. 16 658.89 24.13 9.90 16.29 16.29 66. 61 16. 91 34.52 34.52 34.52 120. 47 240. 10 38. 27 90. 72 33.60 162. 59 74. 48 74 48 71.86 74.48 74.48 llslsss OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 27 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. Continued. No. 16991 18576 17859 Name. peoria, ill.— continued. John Cather Robert F. Davis Charles Haungs Charles C. Hartwick. Louis Netter... Richard A. Weis Samuel Solomon — Total QUINCY, ILL. Amount. Horace Farrar Patrick R. Ahern. Total ROCKFORD, ILL. 18074 W. T. Ferrin ROCK ISLAND, ILL. 19443 19306 16971 18839 16971 18004 18688 20782 Edward Burrill, jr. Jay E. Elliott Total SPRINGFIELD, ILL. John W. Barrett Carrie De Frates, administra- trix of Edward De Frates — Hugo Thomas, administrator of Albert Kuehn, deceased John F. Obrien Lawrence J. Seifert Gustavus Spies, jr John P. Stanley Archie Hensel Philip H. Hofferkamp Alfred Mottar Katharine White, administra- trix John E. White, deceased John S. Schmitt Total STERLING, ILL. Henry W. Carter. Robert T. Hill ... Total STREATOR, ILL. 21165 Charles Mackey John Riordan George Clay James C. Hunter Patrick M. McCall William Price John F. Shoap Jeremiah G. Westwood Andrew Gilyun George Huber $84.17 67. 54 74.60 65.27 45.09 137.59 28.04 872.08 Tot.fl.1 969. 05 1 CQAA loyoo WAUKEGAN, ILL. AnrlrpwTT Rpnodiot 55. 48 17086 pphpr IT Bnrnet.t. . __ 55.48 Fred A Miltimore. .. 45. 38 L B Milt.imore 50.53 18921 Total 206.87 77.41 63.38 140. 79 33.62 No. 18176 18330 16950 Name. ELKHART, IND. Louis T. Rutter Nelson Bressan William C. Livengood . Total EVANSVILLE, IND. 301.13 153.66 454. 79 227. 83 116.24 116.24 14.03 151. 66 18. 56 82. 09 2.89 129. 10 73.43 129. 68 123.26 18676 18949 17873 Louis W. Duesner Annie M. Balz, administratrix of George H. Balz, deceased.. Total FORT WAYNE, IND. Thomas J. Shlevey . . . George J. Alter Paul C. Richter William A. Zimmerly Total GOSHEN, IND. Charles W. James. William E. Miller 1,185.01 189.44 100. 86 290.30 64.97 121. 15 192. 73 42. 57 34. 65 64.92 53. 29 38. 36 214.26 142. 15 Total INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 18621 16967 20726 William A. Balk James E. Cantlon John T. Carroll Ellis W. Crane William Darby Edward D. Hume . . . John W. McDonald. . Robert H. McGinnis. James L. Moore George W. Reid Richard O. Shimer. . . John J. Turner Charles E. Wagner. . . Pat Ward John Wren Total . KOKOMO, IND. David A. Megrady LAFAYETTE, IND. Anthony B. Schilling. . . LA PORTE, IND. Adelbert D. Barnes. James M. Morse John L. Swanson ... Hiram N. Harrison . George Koenig Total LOGANSPORT, IND. George W. Boerger NEW ALBANY, IND. John E. Mitchell Elmer E. Miller Harry Shipman Montgomery W. Lewis Total Amount. $17.75 42. 15 41. 12 102.02 31. 14 42.20 73.34 10.31 64.26 10.73 18.56 103.86 27.01 19. 80 46.81 104.17 139. 05 60. 64 81.03 81.03 17.53 81.03 81.03 81.03 139.05 80.44 83.83 82.09 163. 42 262. 91 1,538.28 18.36 7.01 32. 38 24. 75 27. 84 47.85 79.21 212. 03 27. 73 25.44 38. 23 7.01 51.29 121. 97 28 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 18658 SOUTH BEND, IND. Mahala Ammons, administra- trix of Albert Ammons, de- ceased 8150.49 Andrew Chilberg 40. 42 Gus A. Clarquist 249. 79 Frank T. Grey Hiram E. Jackson 90. 75 263.81 Leonard Kalmajski 76.53 Fred T. Kemble 90.54 Charles V. Korpal 76. 53 Caspar G. Krauser 90. 54 Charles W. Krueger 42. 90 Thaddeus T. Matlock 221. 75 Joseph Mikolajewski 263. 81 John W. McGraw 60. 73 Hugh F. Farnsey 90. 54 William S. Weaver 90. 54 John A. Lamb 211.75 Total 2,111.42 183G8 TERRE HAUTE, IND. George M. Dunn 234.10 17261 BURLINGTON, IOWA. A. P. Adolphson 102. 95 Ed. S. Campbell 29. 92 Joseph B. Davis 37.02 19984 Harry E. Drogemyer 125. 01 19180 F.W. Haskell 65. 21 20897 Arthur J. Holinquist 2. 06 17261 C. F. Le Brock 63.31 Frank E. Morgan 221. 40 Dennis J. Quinn 135. 82 A. H. Swindler 98. 43 P. F. Thienes 92. 88 S. L. Tigg 8. 25 20897 Issac Ward 174. 66 Daniel C. Young 301. 72 Total 1,458.64 18533 CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA. Martin P. Healey 108.94 John W. Kouba 2. 04 Joseph Kouba 124. 72 18692 William E. Bixby 33.88 Judson A. Merrill 33.88 John Montillon 14.85 Total 318.31 19302 CLINTON, IOWA. William Devine 94. 48 Jerry A. Keefe 94.48 Cornelius S. Peterson 94.48 Total 283. 44 17081 COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA. Fred Johnson 247. 69 William D. Nichols 153. 94 19323 Charles N. W. Watts 141. 95 Benjamin J. Weber 125. 42 19128 George Hamilton 96. 94 Anthony B. Klein 68.07 Samuel Leonard 120. 92 Fred Myers 120. 92 17081 Phillip Betz 420. 88 F. M.Mithen 234. 29 Total 1,731.02 17954 DAVENPORT, IOWA. Sue E. Gardner, administratrix of James N. Gardner, deceased . 29.28 No. Name. Amount. 17954 davenport, low A— continued. Edward Griffith 8219. 06 19125 James H. Farrand *61. 23 Daniel E. Keeler 39.60 Edward J. Lawton 73.67 Frank B.Toher 167. 07 18686 William O. Meisner 90. 54 19276 Spencer M. Howe 175. 25 William J. Orendorff 175. 25 Bert S. Tomson 18. 15 Total 1, 149. 10 17942 DES MOINES, IOWA. Henry J. Childress 170. 28 John Conoly 132. 51 Charles E. Lyon 189. 85 Edwin H. Baker 10. 11 Samuel L. Mash 63.59 18492 John H. Bachman 98. 07 Thomas J. Rogers 68.01 William L. Settlemyer 2. 89 Total 725. 31 17750 DUBUQUE, IOWA. Frank F. Spahn .< 151. 59 Herman Ternes 12. 37 18825 Thomas Reilly 115. 95 Thomas Sweeney 98. 72 19126 William H. Wilson 125. 01 19303 James P. Carter 142. 99 Joseph W. Collinson 47.44 Joseph Margadant 64. 15 John C. Murphy 64. 97 Total 823. 19 18497 IOWA CITY, IOWA. Daniel Barry 166. 48 Richard Hennessey 188.85 Charles A. Smith 215. 14 Total 670. 47 KEOKUK, IOWA. 18566 Hugo Anschutz 19.80 Charles J. Dickie 28.04 James R.Mreen 62. 70 William Long 28.04 Frank J. Smith 28.04 James Ward 28.04 19781 James F. Brerton 44. 76 18900 George Sanderson 53.83 Total 293. 25 19000 MUSCATINE, IOWA. Joseph R. Anson 127.93 19305 George W. Richie 10. 11 Will A. Appel 32. 37 20773 William W. Ewing 161. 76 19305 John O’Brien 170. 34 Total 502.51 19496 OSKALOOSA, IOWA. Talbert M. Wells 256. 34 Edmund A. Barnes 281.17 19135 Thomas Maloney 112. 41 Total 649. 92 17903 OTTUMWA, IOWA. Charles E. Benson 80.73 James H. Buncutter 102.81 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 29 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. 17903 18224 18644 19136 19345 17718 Name. ottumwa, iowa.— continued. Edward Lowenberg John Sheehan John H. Stoessel J. F. Dings, administrator Geo. W. Dings, deceased Total SIOUX CITY, IOWA. Egbert R. Mousseau William H. Coburn William A. Lindsay Louis W. Palmer Francis L. Reddy Joseph M. Tibbitts Total FORT SCOTT, KANS. Cyrus F. Chapin James C. Cuthbertson Catharine S. Firestone, admin- istratrix James R. Firestone, deceased Oscar M. Morse Eli Thomas Total HUTCHINSON, KANS. Grant W. Prather KANSAS CITY, KANS. Matthew J. Burke James DeGoler WATERLOO, IOWA. 19129 George P. Beck 82. 86 62.39 62.39 20. 62 11.34 22.68 John P. Von Lackman Frank J. LandgrafT 20636 Charles W. Stillson Claude V. Bodell William E. Kuhn Total 262.28 ABILENE, KANS. 19678 Alva V. Nutt 25. 36 107.54 Howard P. Seeds Total 132. 90 ARKANSAS CITY, KANS. 19658 John S. Daniels 3. 92 27.94 Joe T. White Total 31.86 ATCHISON, KANS. 13292 Fred Duehren 249.23 51.12 66.31 George W. Dunkin James Walsh Total 366. 66 EMPORIA, KANS. 18617 Charles K. Salsbury 42.41 21. 32 96. 57 77. 75 Walter Birdseli Phineas II. Cowan 18852 Charles J. Beckwith Amount. $44. 76 207. 09 32. 42 155.22 623. 03 140. 78 45.86 68.89 68.89 11.14 26.60 18743 William L. Beeler 5. 57 Samuel D. Brown 21.14 Frank Van Schwiack 31.76 19494 Claude I. Holiday 9. 69 Josiah W. De Tar 67.27 238. 05 83. 91 112. 88 114.05 114. 05 106. 75 531. 64 160. 22 69. 62 48.88 No. 18697 19624 19621 19321 18471 18017 19656 18186 19335 19657 W. B. Townsend 54.62 Charles M. Fenning 47. 61 Charles Ferguson 47. 61 Louisa Helbing, administratrix of Frank Helbing, deceased . Palmer Hotchkiss 47. 61 47. 61 Patrick H. Mullen 47.61 Richard V. O’Connor 47. 61 George W. Ulrich 47.61 Total 387.89 Name. Kansas city, KANS.— continued. James M. Gray Robert T. Jackson Oscar B. Johnson Eugene P. Osborne Frank M. Sturgeon Charles C. Hull Total LEAVENWORTH, KANS. NEWTON, KANS. John H. Fugate. OTTAWA, KANS. Total TOPEKA, KANS. George A. Yount S. A. Cook, widow Virgil A. Cook Oscar R. Molz Total WELLINGTON, KANS. Alezius F. Eichelberger George M. Rarey Robert Hamilton Total WICHITA, KANS. William Bartrim William E. Barlow Harry F. Dean Charles G. Lilly Ezekiel B. Smith Thomas J. Whitaker George T. Chouteau Cary D. Davis John T. McDonald Edwin B. Walden 1 Total WINFIELD, KANS. William S. Beck Thomas C. Cochran Daniel W. Salmans James H. Vance Total Amount. $48. 88 57.34 62.61 48.88 20. 62 125.88 482.71 20.42 135.43 154.57 103. 97 24.24 282. 78 96. 06 102. 89 176.48 375.43 209. 98 116.78 176. 95 7.43 245. 94 64.56 142. 24 142. 24 30*31 142.24 1,278. 67 97.82 223 60 24.98 1.65 348.05 18697 30 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc . — Continued. No. 17788 19193 17000 16948 16948 17944 18447 21009 17542 Name. COVINGTON, KY. Frank Scheinhofif John L. Thobe Total FRANKFORT, KY. Edwin L. Banta Owen M. Furr Henry Davis Harrod Benoni Jeffers George B. Thompson J. Pierce Williams . . . J. W. Graham Total LEXINGTON, KY. Andrew J. Fain.. Robert L. Evans . Thomas J. O’ Day Total LOUISVILLE, KY. George W. Evans John F. Fossee Maggie Fowler (now Pauley), administratrix Robert Fow- ler, deceased M. J. McAuliffe James F. Sage Total OWENSBORO, KY. William H. Alexander .. Peter Hugger, jr Frederick G. Kollenberg Felix B. Routon Total PADUCAH, KY. John W. Baynham Edward K. Bonds . Peter Derrington . . Frank Dunn Charles A. Grimm. Charles Holliday . . Lee A. Reynolds .. Joe M. Yarboro Frank P. Earhart. . John W. Moore Total NEW ORLEANS, LA. Patrick J., father of Thomas M. Glynn, deceased David Glass Louise K., administratrix Her- mes A. Gerard, deceased Antoine Hammer Ambrose Kuhn, jr William Egan John Gri vaud William H. Flaherty James H. Beggs Frederick T. Coburn John T. Conway George J. Cousin William F. J. Donnelly John L. Dubuc Edward H. Hanler Emile E. Johnson Amount. $131. 43 5. 55 136. 98 133. 90 155.22 7. 63 94. 05 128. 45 7. 63 187. 34 714. 22 78.87 52.80 169. 70 301.37 22. 66 2. 68 26.09 12. 69 62.67 126. 79 47. 10 21.03 47.10 35.47 150. 70 341. 67 295. 52 313. 05 185. 56 214. 16 260. 68 185. 54 108. 84 228. 76 25. 16 2, 158. 94 68.32 100.00 17.42 41.04 29. 49 2. 68 52. 96 10. 31 10.31 61.88 22. 28 61.88 10. 31 9.28 31.14 No. 17542 17679 18828 18449 18823 17714 18574 17714 17902 Name. new Orleans, la. — continued. Henry Schnatmann . . , Joseph B.Donlon John T. Hart Lawrence H. Johnson , Total , SHREVEPORT, LA. Beauregard E. Wagner . AUBURN, ME. Alfred F. Lamarche Charles E. Merrill Hammond B. Murdock. Erlon J. Mower Total BANGOR, ME. James E. Dolan Charles H. Cullinane John F. Ford William F. Holden .. Patrick McNamara.. Michael Collins Total BATH, ME. Edward H. Biggins. . John W. Jordan Frank W. Ramsey . . . Total PORTLAND, ME. William A. Perry John T. Flaherty George O. D. Soule Harry B. Bachelder Joseph Winslow Jeremiah Callahan George R. Kane Michael T. Ragan Edwin H. Mariner Owen C. Murray George M. Fernald David A. Donovan Florence J. McCarthy Frank R. Jones Eben S. Burns Michael H. Cunningham. Frank J. Jordan William L. Bishop Total BALTIMORE, MD. Amount. Alexander H. Allen Austin E. Arrington James E. Burke Frank J. Carpenter Lama C. Chason Charles J. Philbrin, administra- tor John S. Deegan John P. Dignan Henry Doeller Thomas B. Eareckson Wilbur H. Gorsuch Joseph W. Haupt gg Frank G. Kiel. John F. King, Alva H. Linthicum. Rosetta Moran, widow Wil- liam F. Moran, deceased $10. 31 44.34 13.00 7.63 604. 78 1. 65 94. 20 86. 29 49. 29 237. 97 467. 75 36. 91 63.21 60. 64 26. 19 37. 95 112. 86 337. 76 142. 06 136. 90 142. 06 421. 02 26.87 18.98 26. 87 56.08 24.54 24.54 24.54 56.08 56. 08 21. 44 56.08 15. 26 56.08 15.26 20. 15 29.50 45. 56 147. 60 721. 51 34. 17 46. 41 22. 10 25.98 27.47 39.14 67.68 57.68 57.68 57.68 12.99 57. 68 46. 41 43. 26 46.41 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 31 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. j No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. Baltimore, md. — continued. boston, mass.— continued. 17902 $27. 47 16744 John McCarty $38.11 34.17 Wiliam S. McGue 38.11 25.98 John A. McKie 38. 11 William R. Timbs 57.68 Fred J. Mezger 38. 11 2. 48 Austin C. Sheerin 38.11 Alfred S. Bull 1.65 William E. Sherman 38. 11 1.03 Alex. B. Wilson 10.11 13. 61 Phineas S. Wood 24.72 60. 22 Henry E. Brockbank 76.22 8.04 William I. Kyte 13. 73 31.14 Dennis Meehan 76. 22 Charles A.Isensee 1.24 George F. Alley 74.51 3. 71 John J. Coughlin 15. 06 Charles Nuttendorf, deceased .. 57. 18 Ernest J. Cambridge 104.03 William M. Mueller, deceased . . 71.07 Estate of Patrick J. Daily 45.56 2.89 Eonah C. Harris 91.67 7. 01 William R. Jeffords 64.54 William A. O’Neill 1.24 Charles A. Plummer 30.56 John E. Kuark 66. 82 Edward J.. McHugh 15. 19 Charles A. Smith 1. 24 Arthur R. Torry, administrator Henry W.Stange 2. 68 John H. McLaughlin, de- Louis J. Sudsburg 2.06 ceased 54.07 Charles D. Warfield 37.22 George W. Little 49.44 3.71 George F. Clarke 26. 81 William J. Eckel 80. 60 Frederick E. Horr 44.63 4. 94 Daniel H. Hall 44.63 Wilbur W. Jubb 47.64 James P. Lawless 44. 63 20760 Horatio Beale 8. 87 Michael J. Gallagher .82 Ambrose Furst .61 Daniel W. F. Kerr 76.22 18196 William H. Wood 2. 89 John Gill, jr 34. 23 Andrew F Lawler 29.70 Total 1, 299. 83 John F. Dee 21 ! 44 Daniel M Kimball 76. 22 CUMBERLAND, MD. John J. Leahey 28'. 05 Edward K. Baker 12.36 19783 Joseph M. Reichart 116. 68 W. J. Hennessey 101. 63 James R Daly 107. 57 FREDERICK, MD. Dennis J. Dougherty 28^05 Walter J. Bartlett 3. 09 16993 James E. Duvall 10. 78 Alva C. Jacobs 32.96 Edward M. Eader 10.41 James C. Spencer 50. 81 Edmund F. Moberly 10.41 Daniel J. Hagarty 28.06 Charles H. Roberston 7.86 Thotnas J. Hurley 32. 37 j Donoehne 11. 96 Total 39. 46 A. E. Butterfield 24! 18 George H Cutler 33. 65 HAGERSTOWN, MD. George H. Davis 12 . 70 18643 James P. Duffy 22.89 18043 Martin H. Gruber 5. 78 Albert H. Williams 49.21 M i eb r el T r h erty ’£. 63 AMESBURY, MASS. Horace E. Bridden .69 19202 Everett Collins 11.39 Timothy F. Callahan . . . } 58.37 Woodbury F. Frisbee 11.39 Micheal Dunlavey .41 Frank M . Swett 10. 37 Parron C. Paine .69 James H. Morril 11.39 John H. Williams ... .69 George M Wolf .69 Total 44. 54 John .T. Dowd 24^72 Mark T. Hatch 102.32 BEVERLY, MASS. Frank I. Fellows 1.10 Charles F. Collins 1.37 18747 William P, Hanners 5.15 John F. Dunton 1.37 Josiah Woodbury 5. 15 Patrick J. Sullivan . 1.37 Thomas H. O’Shea, administra- Fred W. Blanchard 12.70 tor John J. Foley 82. 25 Jeremiah T. O’Leary 13.73 Timothy Quinn 13.73 Total 92. 55 Hnraee E Ttridden 32.62 Samuel ^tisDRrtlett 39.48 BOSTON, MASS. Peter J. Brown 39A8 John D. Carey 15 26 16744 William H. Allen 14.76 Pierce F Cass 7.63 Alfred C. Belcher ' 24.72 John Coleman 39! 48 Eugene F. Blossom 24.72 William J Coveny 22.68 Calvin S. Carter 31.59 George TT. Crook et.t. 39M8 Charles E. Chapman 31.59 Peter A. Cunningham. . 39.48 Edward F. Coolidge 31. 59 George H Davis 39.48 Charles Gooding 30. 55 William J. Dee . . . 39.48 Emery C. Hathaway 24. 72 Theodore C Dennis 39.48 John R. Haywood 14.76 Andrew -L Dooley 39 ’48 William H. Lamphrey 38. 11 Charles F. Duffy . 39 48 William H. Langdon 41.54 Michael Dunlavey 1 11.14 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 32 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. boston, mass.— continued. 18643 Joseph F. Eichorn Charles Everbeck James G. Farrell George A. French George W. Goodell Frank S. Goodwin Timothy F. Haggerty, jr Charles H. Haines Joseph B. Hatch Thomas C. Henderson P. William Hickey William R. Hogan John J. Loring George F. Low George F. Marden William T. Maybury James J. McCarthy Andrew C. McDonald James L. Mitchell John J. Mulhern Benj amine F. Nourse Charles J. O’Brien William H. O’Brien John Owen Charles H. Packer Charles H. Paine Alonzo A. Peasley John H. Petersen Timothy G. Pitman Ebenezer K. Pratt Parron C. Paine John F. Riley John F. Roche, jr Andrew B. Shat tuck Charles H. Shaw Oliver D. Sherwood John J. Sullivan Frank Thorp Charles C. Topham Ivon P. Horton Edward J. Houghton Peter J. Hutchinson Moses W. S. Jackson Joseph W. Jenkins William T. Kendall James A. Littlefield Thomas L. Mitchell John H. Williams George M. Wolff • Theodore P. B. Clarke George H. Cutler Thomas F. Dillon Herbert N. Hanson Frank E. Loomis Chari es A . PI ummer John E. Day Michael Duffy Frank I. Fellows Michael J. Gallagher (2) John J. King John Nolan Nathan C. Paul Henry E. Burton Charles H. Cutler Florestan Fish William Gay John C. Horne John F. Kilfoyle Otis K. Tribble Francis P. Trumbull Warren H. Tucker Walter F. Welch Walter Whelan Andrew B. Williams John J. Welch Isaac Brockbank Charles F. Collins James B. Daly John F. Dun ton Charles H. Fox James H. Holland Amount. No. Name. Amount. $39.48 18643 boston, mass. — continued. Ezra B. Kenah $78. 63 39. 48 John C. Langdon 37. 35 27.56 George H. Marden 78. 63 39.48 Patrick J. Sullivan 57. 18 39.48 James E. Weeks 78. 63 39.48 Frank D. Woodbury 53*56 39.48 George H. Appleton 63.56 39.48 Charles E. Bassett 63. 56 39.48 John H. Chadbourne 53.56 39.48 Charles S. Marsh* 53.56 26.48 William F. Murphy 45. 57 39. 14 Aaron H. Ridley 63.56 39.48 Robert H. Skelly 15. 06 39. 48 Timothy J. Sullivan 37.29 39.48 Henry J. Templeton 78.63 26. 78 John Webber 63.56 24. 97 James W. O’Brien 53. 12 39.48 Theodore Prentice 71.42 39. 48 Everett S. Savory 71.42 15. 26 39. 48 Robert J. Taylor, administrator of Charles J. Taylor 40.42 15. 26 Simeon E. Campbell 78. 63 15.26 A. Otis Chamberlain 78.63 39.48 vY alter Cutler 78.63 23. 71 Henry C. Hackett 53.56 26.78 Edward D. Kirley 15.26 39.48 Charles R. Mulhern 47.23 7. 63 John H. Peters 40.42 39. 48 Frank H. Silkes 27. 01 39.48 Asa M.Capen 62.48 39.48 Daniel W.Coffill 62.48 35. 45 Arthur A. Dodge 62.48 28. 90 Charles E. Gerrold 62.48 39.48 Lyman P. Harding 62.48 39.48 John F. Hasson 22.68 39. 48 Patrick H. Lane 62. 48 23.71 John H. Norton 17. 74 39.48 Fred R. Sweeney 62.48 26. 78 J. Sturgis Wright 62.48 15. 26 Fred. W. Blanchard 66.26 39. 48 Jeremiah T. O’Leary 53. 56 39. 48 Timothy Quinn 53. 56 39. 48 Thomas Cleary 78. 63 39. 48 John R. Dickson 53. 56 32.62 John F. Tuckett 78. 63 39.48 Joseph P. Conboy 21.44 39. 48 William H. Cowdin 70.04 32.62 William H. Dillon 70.04 32. 62 Thomas N. Dunnican 70.04 53. 56 Francis X. Flusk 7a 04 53. 56 John S. Lucas, jr 71.42 15.06 John B. McGovern 62.93 78. 63 53.56 Mary J. Moore, administratrix of Lewis Moore, deceased Edward Morrissey 62. 93 53.56 58.50 46. 35 Patrick J. Mulry 70.04 39.80 Elmer E Shepard 77.84 46. 19 Edwin R. Jenness 63. 56 38.98 William H. Lavey 53.56 78. 63 John H. McEleney 37.35 64. 89 Hugh McEwen, jr 15. 06 64. 89 George A. Pushee 53.56 71. 42 George M. Stiles 63.56 71. 42 Ambrose S. Fallon 71.42 105. 06 William George 71.42 71.42 Edwin S. Barrett 53. 56 122. 23 William A. Bowers 37.29 45. 79 William H. Burnett 78.63 39.48 Joseph L. Gilman 53. 56 15.26 Frank N. Lewis 53. 56 39. 48 S. Herbert Appleton 78. 63 39.48 S. Willard Babcock 53. 56 39.48 Horace M. Bartlett 78. 63 39. 48 Michael F. Brennan 53. 02 39.48 Jonathan B. L. Bartlett 66. 26 78.63 Frank A. Duffy 78. 63 64. 89 Lewis H. Richardson 66. 26 53. 56 Arthur I. Tavener 66.26 21.86 Alvin A. Bullin 71.42 37.35 William A. Cleveland 71. 42 30.31 Charles F. Raymond 71.42 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS 33 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued. No. 18643 16747 18913 21753 17706 Name. boston, mass. — continned. Noah E. Rollins Thomas H. Leavey James W. Bartholomew George Butcher Charles G. Clark James A. Clasby Benjamine R. Cleary Michael Dolan, jr Frank J. Dunn George Goode Henry H. Hersey Dennis J. Fahey Richard Fitzgerald John R. Fleming William H. Gould Timothy Horgan Orlando H. Johnson William T. King Edmund B. Meehan Fred. S. McCarthy John W. McGaregill Alfred Lewis, administrator of Phinea3 Lewis James A. Crudden Isaac S. Fish George A. Gray Francis X. Hennessey James H. Kelley William H. McClare Joseph A. McVey. John S. Norton Michael J. Peters Charles J. Rhoades Frank M. Richardson Alpheus A. Robinson Daniel J. Rull Joseph J. Smith David L. White William White Eugene Whittemore John Conboy Charles H. Webster Charles F. West William A. Carter Mathew B. Westgate John T. Bradlee John Curran John J. Condon Thomas M. Dundon James P. Mitchell Philip Marchington Frank W. Eldredge John E. Furfey Albert C. Parker James H. Peabody George M. Saunders Cornelius E. Mahoney Michael J. Donohue Henry F. Swett Orrin H. Gallagher Total BROCKTON, MASS. William S. Packard CLINTON, MASS. Fred W. Green David B. Whitcomb Total FALL RIVEK, MASS. John F. Geagan , Charles A. Fish.. Mary Mahar, administratrix Andrew J. Mahar, deceased.. John J. Powers Amount. 835.70 71.42 53. 56 53. 56 53.56 53.56 15.06 30. 31 30. 31 53.56 15. 06 15.06 53.56 30. 31 53. 56 32. 17 63.56 53. 56 53.56 63.26 53.56 115.01 32. 17 53.56 53. 56 32. 17 15.06 45. 57 53. 56 53. 56 37.35 53. 56 66.26 53. 56 45.57 53. 56 53.56 78.63 53.56 32. 17 45.57 53.56 47.23 62. 53 70. 73 70. 73 30.31 70. 73 34.02 70. 73 94.42 50. 81 53. 56 78.63 15.06 51. 84 15. 26 53. 56 75.59 13, 915.40 189.85 215. 31 185. 19 400. 50 28. 25 103. 40 26. 81 168.24 No. 19218 19382 19219 17692 19057 18684 18729 17977 18163 20772 Total . Charles H. Blunt. Warren B.Cluff... Total HOLYOKE, MASS. Herman G. Burkhardt ... William E. Webster Fred S. Whitney Eli W. Beach Clifford R. Thomas William A. Aiken Edward B. Thomas George W. Gibson Total HYDE PARK, MASS. Thomas Mulcahy John A. Jackson Charles G. Sloan Total LAWRENCE, MASS. Charles F. Lang William A. Summers Jeremiah J. Desmond Total LOWELL, MASS. William H. Wood John Watson .! John Slack Ida Baxter, administratrix of Charles Baxter, deceased Total Pierre R. Picard 6o! 33 Total 612.60 FITCHBURG, MASS. Frank W. Abbott 115.25 114.20 114.20 134. 56 55.06 142. 82 114.20 2.48 Frank J. Dwyer Eugene Forrest Thomas F. McCann Fred S. Moore Albert S. Pierce Patrick B. Purtill Ernest F. Schragle GLOUCESTER, MASS. Charles E. Storey 109. 53 John J. McDonald 60.84 Fritz E. Oakes 109.53 William R. Caig 109.53 Henry Wilson 109. 53 Hiram W. Buffington 109. 53 Walter Adams 60.84 James M. Allen 118.00 Total 787.33 HAVERHILL, MASS. Name. FALL RIVER, MASS.— COnt’d. James A. Brown Patrick J. Luney John S. Rourke Amount. J47.64 103. 68 43.73 792.77 111.57 56.96 168. 53 46.73 21.91 13. 40 30..52 13.40 46.73 32.99 62.22 267.90 15. 06 15.06 15.06 45. 18 52.59 122. 67 42.07 217.33 46.73 25. 16 19.39 101.87 193.15 H. Rep. 640, 61-2- 34 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued.' No. Name. Amount. LYNN, MASS. 17656 William H. Annabel $12. 79 Louis A. Cann 56. 96 Alvin C. Dale 56. 96 George T. Estes 56. 96 Chauncey M. Farwell 56. 96 Thomas B. Homan 56.96 Hulbert I. Smith 56.96 George F. Weaver 19.39 Charles A. Whippen 66. 96 Melville E. Hale 40. 21 Wilbur H. Coolidge 40. 21 Franklin A. Pierce 118. 29 David H. Bonner 146. 62 Cyrus A. Chadwell 153.05 William B. Fuller 143.70 Howard K. Sanderson 68.27 Edward H. Worthern 143.70 Herbert H. Newball 234.55 Total 1,519.50 MALDEN, MASS. 18424 Thomas J. Garritv 43. 88 Cornelius D. Leafy 39.60 Frederick G. Jones 38. 98 Timothy E. Powell 53.55 Total 176.01 NEW BEDFORD, MASS. 17698 Arthur D. Swift 61.34 Frank E. Macey 105.61 Total 166.95 NEWTON, MASS. 19127 John T. Farwell 34.02 Fred C. Morgan 24.75 George B. Walker 34. 02 Total 92.79 NORTH ADAMS, MASS. 18474 James F. Coughlin 36.26 Thomas F. Lloyd 6.39 Total 42. 65 NORTHAMPTON, MASS. 18175 John W. Hartnett 26. 60 PITTSFIELD, MASS. 18158 Maurice E. Callahan 95.51 William J. Joyce 77.40 Thomas F. Duffy 23.30 Total 196.21 SALEM, MASS. 17777 George W. H. Brown 45.27 Samuel A. Ferguson 45.27 Charles W. Gardner 33.88 Charles W. Getchell 33. 01 Alfred P. Jaques 33. 88 Israel A. Lee 45. 27 James W. Nichols, jr 15. 06 Arthur I. Pepper 45. 27 Richard B. Reed 67. 77 John F. Whipple 45.27 Total 409.95 SPRINGFIELD, MASS. 18157 Jeremiah G. O’Connor 43.10 John F. Anthony 68.78 No. 18157 18937 19405 20751 18160 19263 19224 18901 17073 18039 18331 18777 18023 Name. SPRINGFIELD, MASS.— COnt’d, Chester W. Baker James K. Kneeland Cornelius J. Shine Total WALTHAM, MASS. Patrick H. Concannon William J Sheridan Charles F. Law Patrick E. Noonan Edward M. Maguire William W. Darling Total WESTFIELD, MASS. James M. Greene WINCHESTER, MASS. Els worth S. Whitney WORCESTER, MASS. Moses Church James J. Gavin William J. Heffron Patrick J. McKeon Augustus Stone Jerome M. Stone Augustus F. White Eugene C. Holton John W. Bacon Ben H. Clough Thomas H. Doherty John J. Dowd Lawrence Manning Henry F. McIntyre Joseph S. O’Connor John P. O’Hara Sidney L. Reed Michael J. O’Malley Total ADRIAN, MICH. Frank T. Gaffney Myron McRoberts Janies H. Whipple Total BATTLE CREEK, MICH. John J. Reynolds Lawrence Farley Bernard Jedding Total BAY CITY, MICH. James E. Stevens John Kavanagh William Marcoux John B. Castonguy, deceased.., Total DETROIT, MICH. Matthew F. G. Donahue James F. Rickards ^ Addie F. McPherson, heir of Augustine Bare, deceased.... Amount. $57.13 67. 51 67.51 294.03 82.73 30. 31 58. 16 52. 89 73. 70 71. 11 368.90 37. 74 13. 40 33.30 94.09 77.99 60. 08 35.05 77. 99 42. 64 77. 70 77.99 77. 99 70.99 70. 86 77.99 77. 99 10.93 37. 33 77. 99 44. 14 1, 123.04 25.77 53.00 123.00 201. 77 30.93 21.03 90.54 142. 50 10. 22 42.06 6. 15 126. 18 183. 61 49.44 } 154. 50 44.29 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 35 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. 18023 18432 18338 18496 21261 17984 Name. Detroit, mich.— continued. John J. Crowley, administrator of John O’Connor, deceased.. F. W. Tenwinkle, son of Henry Ten winkle, deceased Frank A. Bennette Oliver C. Bloom Alexander Brede William Campbell James J. Carroll Frederick W. Clark Robert Cowen, jr George E. Goellner Joseph Greusel Charles A. Hall George Hathaway Charles S. Hughes Frank C. Jackson Charles James, deceased Stanislaus Jozenak Stephen H. Kelly Albert Klein T. L. O. Lambert William Henry Langston Frederick G. Ludlow William McKerrow Alvin D. McPherson George W. Martin Simon Myers Lawrence Nash Martin J. O’Donohue Peter Paya William F. Przybylowski Frederick C. Puffer Eugene Reynolds Charles W. Rostowkowski Robert D. Shook William H. Sheridan Joseph A. Troy William H. Witherspoon Marshall E. Baldwin . . j ^ g Thomas D. McDonald William A. Barney John A. Blair Frank Emmons Alman J. Houston Albert N. Reynolds Thomas J. Barney Charles R. Hamilton Thomas O. Lumsden John W. McKunnie Frank D. Mack Total FLINT, MICH. Richard E. Coleric Charles S. Martin John Stafford, brother of N. C. Stafford Total GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. John W. Jones Herman Warrell Total IRON MOUNTAIN, MICH. Thomas S. Flaherty LANSING, MICH. Byron H. Willett Amount. 8240. 26 107. 12 107. 81 65.67 63. 12 107.81 2. 06 87.81 27. 84 28. 86 96.82 61.36 118.34 138.70 105. 06 138. 70 44. 34 118. 34 82. 49 138. 70 87. 81 225. 50 269. 99 63. 12 138. 70 44.34 8.04 138. 70 4.12 44. 34 63. 12 138. 70 44. 34 15. 06 9.61 138. 70 138. 70 64. 20 43.26 113. 30 2.06 111.24 84.46 111. 24 117. 42 63. 12 96. 82 107. 81 107. 81 4, 714. 97 103. 34 79.41 519. 60 702.35 1.08 2.04 3. 12 36. 86 132.31 No. 18624 18127 18734 20835 17334 18578 18711 20899 18578 20769 18499 19268 20336 18529 Name. MANISTEE, MICH. Joseph Jacobus James E. Moran Luman Murray Thomas P. Steadman Alonzo C. Waite F. W. Field Total MUSKEGON, MICH. Timothy J. Delanty Willis S. Webb Amount. Total PONTIAC, MICH. William E. Sprague Samuel H. Giles Charles A. Weeks... Total SAGINAW (EAST SIDE), MICH. Elizabeth Boertman, adminis- tratrix of Charles C. Boert- man Robert J. McCormick Frank F. Miller Edward W. Courtney William L. Little O. J. Sawyer Total SAGINAW (WEST SIDE) , MICH. Irving E. Davis Harry W. Mosier Edward A. Le Febre. Thomas J. Forestal . . Total DULUTH, MINN. Mike Hoppa 35. 34 John C. Frizell 305. 91 Alton B. Heimbach 174. 22 John Henneberv 136. 46 Murdo S. McKinzie 60. 64 Joseph Plutnizky 92.81 Total 805.38 MANKATO, MINN. Ernest W. Koetting 139. 17 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. J. L. Abrams 4. 12 Sidney D. Berry 4. 12 Joseph G. Bertrand 2.48 Herbert P. Bates 4. 12 E. E.Bickel 3. 32 Eugene M. Briggs 4.12 Edward E. Brothers 3. 32 E. Butler 4. 12 F. W. Campbell 4.12 E. E. Cass 2. 48 Louis H. Clough 4.12 E. L. Coffin 4. 12 Thomas Connolly 4. 12 John T.Dahlstrom 4.12 Frederick C. Emerson s 3.32 Abram G. Forland 3.32 $115.00 155. 45 35.47 45.38 45.17 19.59 416. 06 103. 50 22. 77 126. 27 10.52 99. 84 8. 46 118.82 3. 51 104.27 132. 02 19. 28 1.24 77.41 337. 73 1.24 75. 49 67.39 122. 91 267.03 36 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc . — Continued, No. Name. Amount. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.— COnt’d. 18529 Oscar A. Gardner $3. 43 George F. Gordon 3. 82 John B. Gorman 4.12 John A. Hailing 3. 32 L. S. Hamblin 4. 12 John G. Hill 2. 48 George B. Horton 3.32 James R. Huckins 4. 12 Jonas Krafne 4.12 Alfred G. McCord 4.12 Joseph W. Mercer 4.12 F.J. Miller 3.32 William J. Newton 4. 12 James S. Noble 4. 12 Thomas O’Neill 2.48 John Pederson 4.12 Perry P. Pierce 3. 32 Philemon P. Reed 4. 12 Thomas O. Upton 4.12 Joseph Warren 3. 32 William Watson 4.12 19445 Alexander I. Bissonette 76. 76 19280 Theophile L. Beaudette 35. 47 Elmer L. Buell 27.63 John Collins 27.63 Guy Hawkins 27.63 David Knobel 107. 81 18952 Archie F. Thompson 84. 12 18529 Eugene M. Wood 4.12 J. A. Wood 4.12 E. L. Wright 4. 12 19280 Charles L. Abbott 73.51 Albert Ashenden 98. 88 Winfield O. Chase 98.88 William D. McMillan 26. 40 John O. Williams 106. 60 Jasper E. Brown 11.55 John Langan 26.40 Total 978. 82 ST. PAUL, MINN. 17085 Alphonse J. Brennon 88. 11 John J. Dillery 202. 57 George T. Drake % 8. 29 Henry C. Garvey, deceased 416. 81 Nels Hayden 106. 05 John J. Luby 49. 71 Lawrence S. Moore 2. 89 Henry C. Nichol 4.94 Edward A. Oschner 141. 69 Albert J. Rock 10. 11 Ernest Schroeer 39. 14 Arthur J. Taylor 156. 90 19273 John W. Grant 20. 00 Henry R. E. Longfield 60.54 George L. Taft 20. 62 Jerry Webber 7.22 18423 Fred C. Kinney 1.03 19273 Nicholas Hendy 256. 81 Michael S. Lawless 126. 02 Total 1,719.45 STILLWATER, MINN. 18632 Matthew F. Butler 100.50 Edward D. Elliott, jr 25. 59 William F. Walsh 93. 80 August Hoehne 32. 37 Total 252. 26 WINONA, MINN. 18009 Rodney Redfield 207. 16 John A. Zaborowski 199. 98 18534 Joseph Will 273. 09 Total 68. 023 No. Name. Amount. MERIDIAN, MISS. 18855 William S. Harris, jr $186. 29 William B. Johnson 156.43 Benjamin J. Nelson 186. 29 Thomas H. O’Neil 166.13 Total JACKSON, MISS. 695. 14 18569 William M. Garland 6.36 Napoleon J. Smith 16.89 19040 William Culbertson 23.20 Total VICKSBURG, MISS. 46.45 18018 Lee B. Rogers 55. 38 18733 Edward F. McManus 40. 48 Total KANSAS CITY, MO. 95. 86 18071 Barnabas Berry, administrator AlvaS. Berry, deceased 70. 75 Frank Hughes 35.06 Frederic C. Krass 187. 65 Monroe Larson 310. 63 - Henry A. Waller 262. 78 18486 Harry E. Dewey 70. 13 Sidney A. Jennings 56.65 18071 Campbell Chapman 89.96 Hugh H. Cole 61.88 William H. English 4.94 William T. Fitton 7.63 Charles T. Freeman 60.84 Edward H. Luckey 7.84 Sebastian A. Maggio 37.53 Daniel M. Pierce 8.25 Dell M. Ralls 133. 37 Henry W. Tracy 144. 88 19275 Thomas Briody 192. 87 James Cannon 192. 87 James H. Crews 203. 94 Leonard Cree Jackson 88. 48 Morton A. Maynard Frank M. Meade, administra- tor of Richard E. Meade, de- 88.48 ceased 88.48 Andrew J. Nash 125.60 Thomas F. Reilly 135. 61 Dell Smith 88.48 Elmer R. Waters 322.05 Eugene J. Wagner 192.87 Burdsey W. Walley 137. 77 John P. Robinson 64. 77 Total NEVADA, MO. 3,473.04 20707 Levi Cook 2. 48 Andrew J. Crigler 1.44 Jacob M. Schatt, deceased 30.86 Total ST. JOSEPH, MO, 34.78 17577 Charles L. Baker 153. 93 Clinton S. Huffington 139. 03 19320 William T. Brayles 220. 81 Joseph E. Grief 171.40 Robert T. Raney 16.35 Robert T. Raney 173. 81 Total 875. 33 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 37 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. ST. LOUIS, MO. st. Louis, mo.— continued. 18027 John S. Andrew 896. 82 18784 Henry Stege $138. 02 Fred W. Berg 60. 35 Joseph Woodruff 239. 27 64. 24 Thomas L. Bray 181. 96 Patrick 0. Brown 19. 59 20275 Amelia C. Stelzeleni, adminis- Michael Burke 127. 76 tratrix William J. Stelzeleni, Thomas Byrnes, administrator deceased 140. 81 Thomas J. Byrnes, deceased.. 111.33 20750 Timothy J. Callahan 13.47 Thomas J . Curran 34.44 John T. Kern 369. 39 196. 43 John C. Whitehead 180. 94 20. 00 Judson T. Clement 110.40 Catharine Grimm, administra- Herman Esche 63.26 trix Gustave A. Grimm, de- Maurice Keane 150.81 138. 36 Fred Kuenstler 15.26 34.67 Michael J. Nash 60. 30 Charles E. Huelsick 180. 73 Patrick O’Keefe 234. 64 25. 06 G. S. E. Sagehorn 376. 12 George Hunt 188. 77 F. W. Weisheyer 26. 60 Charlotte Grimm, administra- 18784 Adelina Alis, administratrix of trix Henry F. A. Grim, de- Charles Alis, deceased 148. 32 203. 60 Timothy F. Burke 162. 05 Gustave R. Klier 203. 60 Thomas Burke 162. 05 William C. Richardson, admin- John A. BurfTee 266. 77 istrator Charles W. Koestring, Edward G. Buries 85. 84 deceased 63. 32 August Boette 138. 02 106. 43 Michael L. Cahill 31. 76 William H. Miller 195. 02 John P. Cummings 53. 83 75. 88 Ernest L. Gross 138. 02 183. 00 William J. Gallagher 123. 67 188. 77 Joseph Pluppman 50. 74 127. 72 James J. Holahan 151. 60 John B. Stiften 53. 50 Frank N. Jordans 57.73 142. 48 Herman Ludwig 120. 17 John T. Boles 39.50 William McFadden 138. 02 Arthur E. Cooney 203. 26 William A. Norris 127. 21 John J. Curran 203. 26 Christopher Roesch 120. 17 Frank B. Eckert 142. 48 George W. Reitz 162. 05 Henry F. Koehler 40.21 William A. Ritchie 137. 67 George Marshall 121. 88 Charles Schackel 120. 17 Joseph A. Mussman 45.96 Charles J. Souderman 85. 84 Edward C. Pfeifer 25. 77 Charles Wiegand 120. 17 George W. Swarting 39.18 Joseph L. Woodlock 63. 32 Charles J. Walsh 197. 04 Matthew Whitford 162. 05 Edward Weber 49. 44 Frederick H. Wiecher 12l! 88 Total 13, 960. 72 Edward J. Cha.rtra.nd _ 280. 10 William C. Richardson, admin- SEDALIA, MO. istrator Francis V. Eynatten, deceased 101. 63 17920 John Lomasney 370. 07 Louis Merz 266. 69 Edwin C. Mason 182. 34 Michael E Whalinc 258. 76 Edwin F. White 95! 04 Total 552. 41 Louis Marcks 187. 09 Louisa M.Wolf, administratrix SPRINGFIELD, MO. John C. Wolf, deceased 93.39 John W. Pelgen 86.52 17791 Valerius W. Campbell 126. 32 Daniel B. Riordan 52. 76 George Townes 6.81 James M. M. Stokes 138. 36 Darwin F. Johnston 48. 71 Henry R_ Stnt.tma.n _ 127. 72 Charles W. Trefrey 203! 60 Total 181. 84 John E Hrnhrieht 127. 72 Henry I. Woods 180.’ 73 BUTTE, MONT. Louis Newsham 149. 97 Albros Wallblock 65. 92 21186 Phillip P. Carr 88.43 Thomas A. Marshall 307. 04 James A. Coll 232. 38 Leon S. Boucher 76.32 Owen Roberts 1.35 George W. Davison 125. 14 Edward L.Waldrip 33. 20 Frederick A. Dunker 75. 88 Royal W. Yoema.n 27.63 Charles E. Gereke 125. 14 21086 Frank T. Newberry 185. 94 Mary Ikemeier, administratrix Leyman W. Royce 14. 03 Stephen J. Ikemeier, deceased 71. 55 William H. Kremming 91.61 Total 582. 96 Fred A Janssen 30. 31 William A. Oberlohman 22l! 11 HELENA, MONT. Frederick J. Schleich 178. 91 August H. Stuermann 221. 11 21185 H. Frank Adkins 189. 44 John C. Lvons 79. 66 James Blythe 105. 38 Joseph C. Lindsay 208. 75 James A. Eslick 264. 01 Leon Walton 205. 10 Rudolph J. Johannes 168. 95 18784 J. Karmany Smith 138. 36 Anastasia S. O’Connor, widow Joseph Teahan 189. 51 John O’Connor, deceased .... 225.37 ^38 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement oj letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. | No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. Helena, mont.— continued. omaha, nebr. — continued. 21185 Henry M. Phillips $195. 97 19322 Peter F. Hanson $59. 81 20778 Maup'in Duff 7.30 Fred Jorgensen 220. 58 FT firry T, Lmgflfelt 179. 82 Total 1, 156. 42 William Maher 59! 81 Thomas O Parkins 189. 27 BEATRICE, NEBR. Andrew Peterson 189! 27 James S. Stone 150. 48 17773 Richard B. Applegat 86.39 Alexander Sweeney 110. 56 91.65 John H. Tebbins 82.91 John Woodruff 220. 48 Total 178. 04 18798 James Fairfield 66! 01 19601 William J From 195.44 FREMONT, NEBR. Total 2, 989.04 18367 6. 15 SOUTH OMAHA, NEBR. GRAND ISLAND, NEBR. 19961 Martin A. Martin 15.06 18696 5. 85 Charles W. Miller 15. 06 10.52 20669 William Ivers 69. 15 Total 30. 12 Total 85.52 CONCORD, N. H. HASTINGS, NEBR. 19452 Fred J. Cole 13. 61 William C. White 40. 42 19718 51.70 Fred E. Wilkins 11.75 Isaac A. Hall .* 51.70 19373 Joseph A. Coty 93.18 Jeremiah T) Enley 103. 68 Total 103. 40 James P. Harlow 122. 96 Pam no! H Prescott 103. 68 KEARNEY, NEBR. Henry Tucker 118! 00 1.65 Willis K. Wingate 93. 18 19719 William Crawford Robert M. Clark 88. 75 Amos L. Graham 8.46 Total . . . 789.25 Total 10.11 DOVER, N. H. LINCOLN, NEBR. 18399 Fred E. Roberts 85.32 18293 flfl.rl etOTl C M a rl n y 5. 15 George 0. Hearn ! 82 KEENE, N. H. 19062 Arthur D. Craig 104. 27 Henry Vollstedt 50.84 19139 Clinton A. Hyland 86.85 Erfinlr W Barker 65.59 Total 161.08 Frank G. Russell 109! 63 NEBRASKA CITY, NEBR. Total ' 262.07 J9677 Wesley H. Doughty 34. 23 MANCHESTER, N. H. James E. Mcllreevy 30. 93 Ebbie Northcutt 32. 37 18405 John G. Brown 14.60 John L. Patterson 32.37 William E. Dunbar 41.66 Peter A. Farrell 40.02 Total 129. 90 James Arthur Morse 78. 17 James Murphy 40. 02 William H. Ansell 60! 52 OMAHA, NEBR. Irving L. Campbell 43.10 Hubert M. Chandler 77. 76 18705 Emar Castberg 14.02 Alba A. Dolloff 62.49 James Clark 21.61 Albin Gustofson 67. 24 Samuel E. Collins 15. 68 Clarence D. Palmer 3. 09 Patrick Cocoran 15. 26 Charles H. Rowe 69.51 Charles H. Creighton 23. 10 William H. Sullivan 62. 91 Lewis J. Edwards 21.61 Octavus V. Hill 12.58 Edward Kelly 22.20 Willie B. Sanford 40. 02 Charles H. King 21.61 William K. Stockdale 311. 67 George J. Kleffner 22. 20 20218 Jules Lari vee 353. 13 Andrew Noonan 14. 02 18405 John J. Driscoll 158. 95 Edward R, Overall 104. 56 Ralph U. Powers 9! 90 Total 1, 527. 44 Calixt Remillard. 22. 20 William H. Robertson 15.68 NASHUA, N. H. Ira W. Smith 21.61 18637 Charles E. Holson 12. 79 John M. Stafford 21.61 William D. Mongovan 23. 72 19322 Osman N . Birkett 189. 27 Edwin S. Knight 53.30 Daniel C. Brown . 189. 27 Andre E. Brault 35. 60 John H. Cunningham 89. 93 20217 Alfred P. Hayden 170. 83 Robert C. Davis 189.27 Frank A. Me Master 6. 15 Richard E English 87. 04 Reuben W. Freeman 113. 15 Total 301.39 Thomas Gumett 19. 80 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 39 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 18409 PORTSMOUTH, N. H. William H. Phinney $71. 34 Warrington Moulton 71.34 Ernest S. Johnson 71.34 Amos R. Locke 178. 48 Charles E. Lowd 156. 47 Mark Noble 3. 09 William O. Sides 176. 62 Samuel A. Reed 177. 66 Taylor Waterhouse 183. 57 Total 1,089.91 19379 ASBURY PARK, N. J. Isaac J. Brown 51.36 Harvey R. Bergen 127. 19 Charles Imlay 93. 58 Charles S. Warren 5. 78 Total 277. 91 ATLANTIC CITY, N. J. 19330 Michael J. Kelly 22.06 William B. Treat 69.59 18600 William Culligan 67.81 John Harrold, jr 57.81 Nicholas H. Downs “ 16.33 Total 223. 60 18718 BRIDGETON, N. J. Henry W. Porch .1. 38. 27 18902 Frank E. Laning 25. 66 Andrew Mahr 51.02 Total 114.95 18156 CAMDEN, N. J. John C. Goldthrop 302.59 Thomas J. Hambrose 115. 71 John W. Sparks 205. 33 Patrick Whalen 113. 07 Cladius E. Bradshaw 207. 67 J. Kelly Brown 12.14 J. Howard Butcher 11.34 George W. Campbell 5. 15 George Denny 29. 90 William H. Dorman 29. 90 Walter P. Ellis 41.25 Benjamin S. Grum 94. 99 J. Newton Hillman 9.90 William C. Johnson 6.39 J. Howard McCormick 25.56 Charles Parker 4.54 William L. Parker 11.55 Mary J. Rowson, administra- trix Moses Rowson, deceased. 43. 93 J. Howard Shinn 9. 49 F. Walter Toms 48.13 Leonard Sturm 27. 43 Total 1,355.96 18165 ELIZABETH CITY, N.J. Edward F. Burke 112.45 Michael J. Haggerty 45. 38 James P. McElroy 141.36 John H. Beale 4.94 V Total 304.13 18251 r HOBOKEN, N. J. Catharine Hopkins, administra- trix Frederick A. Hopkins, deceased 22. 68 No. Name. Amount. JERSEY CITY, N. J. 17488 John J. Burns John S. Prawl Louis Reinhardt Thomas E. Wakefield. Daniel S. Coffey Gustave Kaiser Irving S. Taylor George A. Logan George V. Newkirk . . Max F. Fackert James B. Farrier James McGovern William H. Peet David Sheehan $77. 56 209. 43 9.28 174.42 37. 95 41.66 13. 63 19.23 163. 42 180.25 184. 03 68.27 180. 25 93.38 Total / MORRISTOWN, N. J. 1, 452. 76 17978 17810 Robert J. Price William E. Beach David L. Fox Frank M. Headley Joseph Pierson . “\ Total fi* NEWARK, N. J. _ . / 26.60 10. 11 73.25 6.57 8. 87 124. 40 Samuel Allison Thomas J. Coffre... Thomas F. Christie Henry Coleman James P. Donley William F. Erb Thomas A. Fitch... William J. Foley... George J. Hahn Clement F. Hasel. . . George E. Hayes J. Fred Hoagland.. Andrew J. Jubert .. Francis B. Kineke . 60.53 50. 53 106. 69 111.07 116.55 7.43 15.26 60.53 107.43 50. 53 111. 07 109.34 82 43 16.09 Joseph Koermaier... John W, Lynes Owen P. Mahon John P. Manley George McGookin... Thomas W. Nelan... Phillip B. Nutzel ... Louis C. Ochler Fred P. Rommell Lawrence Ryan Lewis A. Sears Christian Stamm Frederick G. Stickel. George Tresch Wenzel J. Weiner ... Edward J. White Charles J. Wirth, jr . Frank H. Freeman Frederick Keim . John T. McKenna , Total NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. 20.21 78.63 109. 09 50.53 50. 53 115. 67 84. 12 50. 53 24.54 55. 48 140. 76 75. 58 207. 37 50.53 131.50 135. 96 50.53 246. 51 108.59 4. 54 776.68 17992 Thomas F. Grady William H. Hinchman William O’Connell Peter N. Wyckoff 158.99 150.43 158. 99 37.50 Total ORANGE, N. J. 505.91 19261 Stephen Bonnell Phillip Drenneman, jr Patrick Callahan 104.44 104.44 104.44 40 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. orange, N. J. — continued. batavia, n. Y. — continued. 19261 $104. 44 19483 Lucius F. Rolfe . . . $4.33 106.43 Phebe Jamison, administratrix Joseph A. Jamison, deceased. William S. Wakeman 179. 47 Anthony Hirsch 56.66 38. 77 Total 239. 19 Total 636.00 BINGHAMTON, N. Y. George W. McElhone PATERSON, N. J. 16945 121. 53 18319 John J. Kane 57. 96 19391 David L. Burts 202.41 Jesse Irons 7. 63 116. 47 PLAINFIELD, N. J. John E. Morrall Charles E. Stebbins 51.64 17520 Peter Flvnn, jr 40. 42 Edwin Scrafford 59. 69 19362 Edward E. Hann 4.54 Ludlow R. Hogg 20. 21 E. T. Van Winkle 22. 89 George W. Moore 25. 36 Albert, H. Snrda/m 13.20 Total 67.85 John C. Volk 13.20 TRENTON, N. J. Total 631. 34 17088 William Abbotts 42. 07 BROOKLYN, N. Y. George U. Brammer 57.54 John w J. Campbell, deceased Fraley E. Cougle 152. 76 17674 John S. Allen, jr 36.94 38. 36 Edwin F. Barker 124. 63 Walter L. Cox . . . 53. 62 John F. Barr 359. 47 William P. Cliatten 52. 59 Thomas Barrett 76. 15 Eugene Higgins 13.40 George A. Blackmer 142. 82 Joseph Hill~ 228. 41 Jacob Brock 262. 30 William Hollins ... 34. 65 Henry J. Brown 15. 26 Hiram Lennox, jr 228. 41 Hannah M. Burtis, administra- trix Benjamin G. Burtis, deceased David Levins . 45. 58 John N. McCann 53. 62 142.82 Daniel Meginn 46.19 Margaret A. Butler, widow of Michael Mulrey 238. 05 Frank Butler, deceased 281.20 John Firth 49.71 Thomas B. Butler 142. 82 John R. Gould 11.55 John L. Cain > 142. 82 Sumner B. Scudder 64.56 Charles Chapman 9.28 Enoch F. Van Camp 34.65 William B. Davenport, admin- istrator Thomas Clark William H. Atkinson 21.23 150. 44 James E. Clinton 66.62 Peter J. Cleary 108.92 19374 Mary Jetter, administratrix George .Tetter, deceased Michael Collins 64.58 3. 92 Joseph F. Conlin, jr 4.54 17088 George Burkett . 144. 25 James Cunningham 139. 54 Joseph I. Donohue 64.58 Total . , 1,681.74 Edward J. Donohue 93.67 Joseph Dowd 65. 73 ALBANY, N. Y. James J.Eggo 326. 56 Edward Farrel 103. 69 17776 Daniel A. Cooney, administra- tor Peter J. Qninn Karl R. Fosberg 137. 40 49.17 Edward J. Francis 18.88 Ed wa rd J. Mnrphy 86.87 Henry J. Fritch 5. 15 William P. Winne jr . 142. 34 Charles J. Graham 64.58 William H. Burn 36. 91 Herman A. F. Henke 4.13 John J. Brucker.. 105. 75 Richard C. Hollahan 24. 76 John J. Hyland . 9.28 Total 421.04 W'arren H. Jacobs 227.21 Albert E. James 46. 41 AMSTERDAM, N. Y. Thomas A. Kelly 146. 94 Ed H. Kirby 134. 56 16947 Anna B. Combs, widow Living- ston M Combs Frank F. Krey 12. 37 18.98 Andrew J. Liebenau 444. 27 Julian A Godwin 164. 04 Thomas P. Longking 142.82 19284 John Shelly 182. 99 James M. McArdle 164. 92 George Engle jr 111. 83 Edward McCormack 125. 63 Edward W Mc.Fadden... 54.58 Total 477.84 William F. McIntyre 142. 82 Thomas C McMahon 94.76 A TTRTTPV K *V William A. McKenzie 18.20 18413 AUDI IviJ , ill X • Theodore J. Kosters 124. 60 Mary A. Madden, administra- trix Dermott M. Madden, de- Edward N TTopping 5. 78 ceased 136.25 Clinton N McGuire ,, 6. 19 Total 130.38 George L. Marsh 112. 69 William L Mebus 4.54 BATAVIA, N. Y. Edward J. Milde 132. 96 Charles W. Morton 90. 30 19483 Edwin J Benton 33.82 George W. Naylor 54.58 Margaret Buckley, mother James E. Buckley, deceased.. Pa trick O’ Gorman 37. 95 37.95 John O’ Grady 103. 69 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 41 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued. No. Name. Brooklyn, n. y. — continued. 17674 20938 17674 Florence Parrett, widow Frank Parrett, deceased Napoleon J. Plumb Edward B. Powell Joseph J. Price Ralph E. Price Daniel J. Reardon Joseph J. Rigney Rosa Rode, administratrix Joseph H. Rode, deceased Frank P. Roper Louis D. Ryno Francis E. Savage Frederick W. Scherrer, admin- istrator Frank J. Scherrer Julia Schrieber, administratrix Charles Schrieber, deceased.. Samuel Shannon Nicholas J. Shields William E. Sloan George W. Smith Thomas E. Smith George C. Stadtler George Stoffel Harry Stout August T. Struller Wiley C. Thomas William E. Thomas John Tynan Rudolph Vanderwagg William H. Wall Walter J. Walsh William A. Walsh William F. Walsh William R. West Harry A. Wille Alex. Zundt James J. Breslin Hugo Guth Robert F. Houghton Robert S. Miller Thomas F. Keegan William D. Reiber Edward Thomas John S. Whistance Emily G. Dyas, widow of Sam- uel Dyas Francis A. Morris Total BUFFALO, N. Y. 17738 Augusta A. Strasser, administra- trix Henry H. Batz, deceased. Bridget T. Brandon, adminis- trix James T. Brandon, de- ceased John F. Collins John S. McShane Louis F. Balthasar CyrennesM. Brown Henry Burber John F. Collins Owen McEneny Lewis J. O’Connor Hiram Voesseller 20874 Michael G. McLaughlin Timothy W. Mahoney Henry J. Shipman , James W. Wharton George Clark Total CANANDAIGUA, N. Y. 21173 Frank H. Eighmy. Charles J . Farnum Amount. $15. 47 15. 11 47.03 6.19 29.53 64.58 355. 35 106.58 9.28 142. 82 121.88 145.64 15.26 9.28 7.01 4.54 54.58 107. 12 100. 60 11.15 142. 82 75.54 142. 82 54. 58 36.94 15. 47 146.94 142. 82 15. 47 121.51 34. 48 98. 53 359. 47 23. 10 21.65 23.10 6. 19 15. 47 84.12 159. 65 71.46 114.33 314.24 8,647. 67 50.83 63. 17 46. 69 16.09 81.03 53. 90 2. 68 84.12 64.25 55. 91 2. 89 25. 41 131. 12 22. 68 13. 40 14.85 729. 12 70. 32 54.13 124.45 No. Name. Amount. 19716 CORNING, N. Y. John J. Clancy, administrator of Thomas M. Clancy, de- ceased $92. 56 18412 CORTLAND, N. Y. Arthur C. Upson 118. 58 16996 ELMIRA, N. Y. Frank C. Willison 25. 16 18314 Louis D. Caldwell 28. 62 19337 John McCarthy 30. 52 Total 84.30 18398 FLUSHING, N. Y. Prentiss B. Fowler 50. 13 William F. Stevenson 107. 92 Total 158. 05 20509 GENEVA, N. Y. John Dennison 84. 10 Frank C. Fox, brother Harry E. Fox, deceased 10. 52 Herbert C. Meade 84. 10 Henry K. Winnie 14. 85 William D. Wertman .61 Total 194. 18 18669 GLENNS FALLS, N. Y. Timothy D. Downey 67. 77 Napoleon L. Lee 67.77 Dennis Lynch 67.77 Edgar M. Monte 21.44 Charles H. Clark 10. 11 18756 Frank C. Martin 96. 98 Total 331.84 18587 HORNELLSVILLE, N. Y. William A. Dugan 47.81 19343 John F. Fallon 40. 83 James Mahar 9.28 Total 97.92 18376 ITHACA, N. Y. Louis Coryell 179.40 Willis Hausner 2.89 Edwin T. Heustis 234. 73 John Johnson 2 03. 76 William R. Pearson 166. 59 William J. Pringle 201.82 18411 Owen Toner, administrator John Toner, deceased 104. 05 18677 Henry B.Illston 11.75 Total 1, 109. 99 18020 JAMESTOWN, N. Y. Walter B. Frink 37.74 John R. Moyinhan 6.39 Frederick A. Saxon, jr 50. 33 Total 94.46 17092 LITTLEFALLS, N. Y. Silas N. Baker 67.76 Total 42 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc . — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. LOCKPORT, N. Y. new YORK, N. Y. — continued. 17295 18394 18431 19283 19685 20522 18401 19737 17039 Frank A. Fox 840.31 31. 55 De WittC. Graham Total 71.86 LONG ISLAND CITY, N. Y. Thomas McNamara 161. 73 Frank E. McBennett 152. 92 Charles E. Masterson 47. 78 George P. O’Hara 16.09 Martin Judge, executor Julia A. Kelly, administratrix, de- ceased, David A. Kelly, de- 150. 92 John Frend 7.43 Arthur E. McDonald 226. 15 ' 1 Total 763.02 NEWBURGH, N. Y. Luke Lloyd 142. 35 Frederick Reek 172. 27 Henry Van Benschoten 261. 13 James A. Cantlin 96.07 Thomas J. Hayes 96.07 Chester F. Thayer . 96. 07 Robert McNair 98. 13 Total 961.99 NEW YORK, N. Y. Patrick J. Carey 56. 65 William L. Golden 17.94 George J. Woelpper 21.86 George Bender {^36 % John A. Burnett | 63. 74 45. 58 Edward A. Clark {^66 65 John Dalton | 172.35 34.02 John L. Dennis 212. 52 Hugh L. Donnelly 6. 18 Edwin L. Edgerly 34.02 Edward V. Reedy, deceased John W. Suhre 4.42 6. 18 Michael T. Ward 62. 15 Harry P. Cummings 5.57 Sidney Simmons, deceased James Dwyer 8.04 93.87 Benjamin Eckstein 37.12 James Haves 75. 91 Henry J. Howe 69. 31 Max Levy 7. 01 John E. Maxwell 56. 65 Thomas F. Monahan 20.09 John Neelsen, deceased 14.44 William E. Peacock 20. 15 Frederick P. Price 28.15 John Tobias, administrator Jacob Tobias, deceased 21.00 Bernard Carlin 100. 94 Joseph F. Buchanan 20. 08 Aurelio B. Cavo 20. 99 James Donovan 26.88 Elizabeth McCue, administra- trix John McCue, deceased... Bartholomew J. Madden 1.37 26.78 John W. Merkel 24. 30 William Noe 10.22 Edward F. Scott 21.55 Catharine Meighan, adminis- tratrix Peter H. Biecker, de- ceased 39.78 William L. Hendy 49. 44 Charles W. Chandler 37. 76 George W. Waterman 222. 82 John H. Abbott 28.15 John M. J. Addi 12. 37 Gus A. Wambach 8106. 43 8.25 Robert B.Ward Philip M. Weiman 26. 74 Jacob C. Weingarth 109. 76 Albert A. Weitzel 15. 47 Stephen B. Wheeler 14. 44 William Wick 19. 23 Charles J. Wiley 8. 25 John C. Williams 4. 13 Cornelius Wood 22. 32 Henry A. Wood 120. 85 Francis J. Woods 28. 15 Joseph Wright 79.49 Michael J. Curran 53.90 Patrick J. Gaynor g| } 67. 63 John Heckmann 18.56 John L. Roscoe 120. 85 William F. Phillips 86. 18 Charles A. Sickles 16. 91 John Skerrett 28. 15 Matthew Smyth 27. 01 George E. Stanton 70.91 Albert Stark 131. 84 George W. Stevens 120. 85 Alonzo Stivers 28. 15 George Stock 13.40 Florence J. Sullivan 37.33 Charles Sutten 12.37 Charles C. Terhune 4. 13 Andrew J. F. Thiel 28. 15 Wallace F. Toole 120. 85 James W. Urell William A. Van Tassel } 66.60 110. 21 Louis Wagner 28. 15 Clifford Waldo 6. 15 John W. Walsh 39. 82 Peter Walsh 5. 15 William J. Ahrens 28. 15 John P. Allen 86.87 John H.Apman 41.04 William Arnold 28.15 Dexter B. Bailey 126. 35 Benjamin Baer 106. 33 Harry A. Bartels 16. 91 Michael Bau 23.80 James E. Bennett 27.43 William J. Boettger 31.95 William T. Brady 33. 65 Albert Brocker 18.66 William B. Beiling 12.37 Henry Bundstein 101. 63 George J. Burnhauser 12. 37 James Campora 15 00 Bridget C. Carroll, com. of Thomas J. Conroy, insane John Casey, No. 1 __ 243. 53 30. 90 John S. Cat.hprwood 12. 37 James A. H. Cavanagh 22. 32 Michael F. Chrystal 16. 91 Charles E. Coffeyn 20. 62 Andrew F. Collins 120. 85 Edward J. Collins 20.62 Julia T. McGrath, administra- trix of Patrick H. Collins Salvadore Colombo 154. 84 120. 85 John Conlogue 28.15 Nathan Cooper 23.45 Charles I. Cornell 6.19 Michael J. Cosgrove 70. 73 William J. Cowell 7.22 John Cross 69.31 Joseph Crozier. 10.31 Maggie Curran, ’administratrix James F. Curran 28. 15 Martin Clune 35.84 John C. Damm 6. 19 Herman E. Davidson 120.85 Wiliam Deekert 1.65 Andrew J. Delaney 162. 39 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 43 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc . — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. new york, n. Y.— continued. new york. N. y.— continued. 17039 899. 87 17039 Charles F. McCarthy, No. 1 $112.09 10. 73 Michael H. McCarthy 131.15 28. 15 William McCarthy 28.87 10. 31 Joseph F. McCormack 28.84 Jeremiah J. Donovan, father Elizabeth McCue, administra- 28. 74 trix John McCue 76.25 106. 33 James McKenzie 118.68 40. 85 James McVey 28. 15 Laughlin H. Dooley 10. 31 Mary Monahan, administratrix 48.51 John F. Monahan 11.88 36.39 Richard M. Mooney 28. 15 27. 27 Charles H. Moser 18.56 106. 33 Thomas J. Murray 103. 69 45. 66 Richard F. O’Brien 6.19 3. 30 John C. O’Connor 40.51 47.72 J. F. O’Leary 89.54 33. 75 Patrick H. O’Neil 8.25 Edward J. Folev. .V. 2.06 Merwin J. Page 25.16 Terence M. Foley 28. 15 John O. Palmquist 80. 93 John W. Foster, deceased 64.89 George L. Pichard 5.98 Augustus S. Gaylor 28. 15 Thomas C. Place 28.15 Fred F. Gegenheimer 120. 85 Joseph Platt 16. 91 J. Charles Glimm 42.28 George Rehm 2. 06 John F. Graham 22.65 Joseph M. Reid 2.68 Charles H. Gran el 8.25 Henry G. Rielil 28. 15 24. 75 William Roberts 42.19 100. 94 Thomas Roden 53. 22 David S. Hailer 18. 56 M. L. Root, widow Charles F. Frank E. Halleck 120. 85 Root 28. 15 48.06 Richard F. Rosamond 28. 15 Annie Hansen, widow Henry Edmund Rothschild 59.39 Hansen 100. 84 Joseph J. Rowe 97.51 Daniel J. Harrington 41.25 John Ryan, No. 1 28.15 Michael E. Harris 16.91 Charles Ryan 12.37 Michael F. Hart 20. 62 Hugh C. Ryder 28.15 John F. Hassaw 10. 11 Charles Richter 154. 15 William F. Hauley 4.42 Isaac J. Rosenthal 13.61 Edward Hayes 57.43 James M. Sarles 28.15 Moses Hecht 53.00 Thomas F. Scanlon 16. 91 Charles A. Hey wood 15. 47 19308 Thomas J. Cronin.. 176. 13 Joseph Hirschfeld 9.49 19038 Henry M. Beck 12. 37 Fred A. Hoelzer 15.47 Joseph A. Langan 4.13 Benjamin F. Holland 28. 15 20007 Lawrence L. Davids, deceased.. 12.58 James Hvland 78.97 17039 William J. Ahrens 4.46 Martin M. Irwin 120. 85 John H. Apman 4.46 Mark Isaacs 10.11 John J. Keifer 4.46 George W. James 28. 15 Charles Frederick King 4.46 Charles T. Johnson 28.15 William Arnold 4.46 Marie E. Johnston, widow John John J. Babington 4.46 Johnston, deceased 126. 35 Dexter B. Bailey 20. 94 Daniel S. Kaskell 120. 85 Thomas J. Barragray 2.68 George F. Keane 140. 76 H a.rry A . Bartel s 4.46 Charles M. Keller 12. 37 Michael Bau 4.46 Frank Kenney 64.10 Adolph Bleibtree 4. 46 John J. Keifer 27.42 Hugh Cameron 26. 19 Charles F. King 28.15 John Casey 4.46 Jacob Knoebel 10. 31 E. P. J. Clark 11.55 George Krahe, jr 100. 84 Andrew F. Collins 4.46 Thomas J. Kiernan 4. 13 Salvadore Colombo 4.46 Tobias Lake 34.42 Joseph F. Cone 1.24 James W. Lally 28.12 John Conlogue 4.46 James H. Lent 103. 69 John A. Conner 67.71 Hugh J. Leonard 115. 02 Charles W. Conway 6.19 Richard Lloyd 292. 18 James Cosgrove 1. 37 Adolph H. Langhans 181.97 Maggie Curran, administratrix Robert A. MacDonald 20. 35 of James F. Curran, deceased . 4.46 John K. Macomber 212. 18 •John Dalton 4.46 John S. Mahon 28. 15 Joseph F. Daubert 21.29 John F. Mahoney 16. 91 Herman E. Davison 4.46 John J. Mahoney, No. 1 28. 15 Michael J. Deininger 4.46 John J. Mahoney, No. 2 8.25 John J. Dobbin 4,46 William J. Malloy 28. 15 Henry Doherty 4.46 JamesL Maloney 16. 97 Arthur Donelly 47.11 Patrick T. Maloney 137. 91 William C. Donnelly 27.01 John C. F. Maloy 52. 57 Francis X. Donovan. . 8. 93 William Matthews 52. 73 Jeremiah Donovan, father of William Mauck 120. 85 Frank J. Donovan, deceased. . 4.46 Charles Maudelbaum 49. 09 Jacob Knoebel 2. 68 Timothy McAuliff 15. 47 Thomas B. Lacey 6. 81 John McCarron, administrator C. M. Larkin 2. 68 Peter McCarron 27.63 William McCarthy 4.46 S R — GO-1 — Vol 1 IS 44 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. new york, n. y.— continued. 17039 James McKenzie Andrew S. McNichol John J. Mahoney, No. 1 George W. Moncrief Richard M. Mooney Charles H. Moser William Nolan James T. O’Donnell Washington I. Ogden George L. Pitchard John Pope John Power Thomas Reilly H.G.Riehl William Roberts Thomas Roden Mary L. Root, widow of Charles. P. Root, deceased Richard F. Rosamond Mary A. Ryan, administratrix John Ryan, No. 1, deceased . . . Hugh C. Ryder Charles H. Skill John B. Smith Thomas J. Smith Ed. F. Smith William J. Douglas Peter J. Dowd William D. Dubois Edward W. Ernst Henry Faeth Rudolph Fisher Samuel N. Fitch William J. Fogarty Augustus S. Gaylor Fred F. Gegenheimer Dennis J. Glenny William V. Fruhan Frank E. Guy John E. Hall Michael F. Hart Cornelius J. Healey William A. Henry John J. Holihan Francis Hashagan Joseph E. F. Hughson John J. Hunter Martin M. Irwin William W. Janicke Charles T. Johnson Marie E. Johnson, administra- trix John Johnson, deceased. Solomon Joseph Thomas Keating Patrick F. Kelly Thomas F. A. Smith John J. Springett George W. Stevens George Stock Florence J. Sullivan Charles Sutten Andrew J. F. Thiel James L. Turner John Vornoff Peter Walsh Albert A. Wetzel Stephen B. Wheeler Richard C. White William Wick Wilbert G. Wiedemann David W. Williams Francis J. Woods Jacob Zann James A. Wood John M.Zunkley Christian Schilling Abraham L. Cox James McGill Cornelius J. Malone Emanuel C. Percia $20. 94 4. 46 4.46 4. 46 4.46 4.46 4. 46 4.46 4. 46 4.46 4.46 4.46 4. 33 25.06 4.46 4. 46 4.46 4.46 8.93 4.46 4. 46 4.46 114. 57 1.10 4.46 4.46 203. 60 4.46 4.46 6.52 121. 20 4.46 4.46 4.46 4.46 3.59 15. 79 83.14 3. 59 8. 93 4. 46 10. 73 11.06 92.91 16.22 4. 46 20007 19151 19928 19281 19480 19186 18189 4. 46 8. 93 95. 45 7.22 1.37 17799 25.06 4. 46 4. 46 4. 46 3.59 4.46 4. 46 4. 46 4.46 2.68 4. 46 20.25 4.46 4.46 4.46 4.46 8. 93 1.24 .61 18403 19287 18215 .69 2.75 12.17 101. 27 6.39 Name. Amount. new york, n. y. — continued. Adam Smyth $129. 44 Matthew J. Walsh * 137.67 Mary Hogan, widow of Corne- lius Hogan, deceased 103. 00 Jere F. Donovan 23. 33 John J. Collier 47.28 Michael J. Cosgrove 71.42 James A. McAree 34.94 Total 13,700.83 NORWICH, N. Y. Henry M. Brown, father of Mathew R. Brown, deceased. . 26. 60 Luzerne N. Green 6.15 Francis W. Hynes 16. 71 Total 48.36 OGDENSBURG, N. Y. George A. Amo 87.57 George H. Dessert 73.26 Total 160.83 OLEAN, N. Y. William S. Norton 13. 40 John Collins 66.39 John W. Houghton 46.19 George Lampack 41.66 John M. Larkin 27.84 Total 185.48 ONEIDA, N. Y. George Keenan 30.31 ONEONTA, N. Y. George E. Bond 5. 15 Michael J. Hickev 1. 65 Charles W.Southworth 2. 68 John W. Telford 1.65 Total 11.13 OSWEGO, N. Y. Bartholomew Cheney 202.12 George E. Ketchum 202. 12 George W. Ketchum 50.53 Edward J. Kiley 192. 12 Total 646. 89 POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y. Ulysses D. Caulkins 35.97 William J. Wolff, jr 45.38 Total 81.35 ROCHESTER, N. Y. James A. Burns 36. 66 Ellen B. Dodge, widow of Frank H. Dodge, deceased 162. 39 William J. Martin 165. 34 Marion A. Scranton, widow and administratrix of Frank E. Scranton, deceased 81.72 Charles H. Baker 1.10 Frank M. Copeland 98.08 Michael J. Fitzgerald 143. 13 George W. Martin 90.00 John A. Schwab 83.27 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 45 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc . — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 18215 Rochester, N. Y.— continued. William G. Oliver $230. 23 18458 H. Wright Brown 124. 63 William S. Bradt 155. 53 John H. Coughlin 55. 69 Mary Matilda Evans, adminis- tratrix Thomas A. Evans, de- ceased 131.50 Francis C. Hysner, administra- trix John H.Hysner, deceased. 77.93 Michael J. Hyland ^ } 173.94 Edward Heller 127.38 Matthew S. Hodgson 31.24 William H. Jenkinson 26.44 B.F. Kelly 69. 18 N.G. Lovelace 47. 72 George W. Matthews 9. 28 M. J. McLaughlin 10.11 William O’Brien 9.28 Joseph P. Shied 47.83 Jacob C. Suter 73.13 Samuel Whiting 53.16 Michael P. Brennan 47. 72 Emil Eaton 170. 63 William M. Geraghty 11.75 Edward B. Griffin 62. 12 Frank D. Kehoe 144. 65 Frank E. McFarland 31.93 De Witt C. Skinner 163. 19 John J. Sutton 170. 63 Frank A. Van Vechten 158.27 Joshua Sears Wooden 87.40 20774 Wallace P. Couch 83.09 Thomas S. Gosnell .41 Oliver S. Johnson 37. 38 James A. Judson 40.85 William J. Kammer 50. 12 Martin E. Staub 121. 92 Total 3, 697. 95 17919 ROME, N. Y. Owen D. Hagerty 121. 21 20441 SARATOGA SPRINGS, N. Y. Frank P. Kelly 490.99 20811 Willard Shaul 30. 73 19844 Albert W. Brown 409. 22 Martin T. Crooks 260. 25 William H. Daughtery 363. 64 John Furey 379. 70 Guy E. Pierson 379. 70 William Cox 40.42 Waldron H. Eddy 430. 53 W.H. Hodges 25.16 William J. Green 101. 06 James McMahon 75.89 Total 2,987.29 18766 SCHENECTADY, N. Y. Michael Carroll 86. 54 Frank Nehring 51.15 Dennis Caine 86.54 18161 David R. Moore 271.89 Total 496.12 18759 SENECA FALLS, N. Y. Patrick McGraw 17.74 Michael Ferguson 12.58 William S. Van Houten 15. 26 Thomas Carr, jr 21.65 Total 67.23 No. 17544 18451 18663 17544 17883 18665 20393 18665 17918 19286 Name. Amount. SYRACUSE, N. Y. William E. Hurd, administra- tor Byron E. Hurd, deceased. . $107. 61 Albert E. Lewis 193. 14 John Moran, administrator Jeremiah L. O’Brien, deceased 124.42 Nettie E. Ross, administratrix Willis E. Ross, deceased 70. 81 Patrick J. Sullivan 197. 81 James A.Nally 53.83 George Allenbrant 101.93 George Bean 45. 79 Charles H. Burke 9.69 Francis J. Bourke 76.52 Hugh H. Connelly 76.53 Oscar W. Culver 80. 91 Jojin J.Dunn 71.99 Thomas F. Fleming 35.88 James A. Gallagher 9. 08 Walter W. Hamilton 49. 71 John Heinerwalden 36. 50 George Hopkins 49.50 Valentine Kaiser 70.10 Lewis Light 82. 95 Charles J. Naumann 7.43 Charles L. Ogle 11.14 Richard J. Parkinson 47.03 Norville R. Williams 24. 13 Edward T. Yoe 48. 06 Charles A. Huntington 14.31 Total 1,696.80 TROY, N. Y. Frank O. Benson 41.04 Estate Abram B. Ksensky, de- ceased 172.33 John P. Albertson et al., ad- ministrators Isaac Downing, deceased 207. 14 Frederick G. Obermaier 47. 23 Richard J. Devine 63.09 JohnB. Elgie 27.43 Russell F. Benson 283.32 Henry W. Connor 66. 21 Marvin A. Hayner 66.21 Floyd F. Mower 31.55 Edward L. Witbeck 283. 32 Charles E. Allen 54.86 Le Grand Barringer 241. 26 William J. Fink 26. 81 William Hutchinson 40. 83 Nathan Joel 35. 47 J. B. Albert Le May 26.81 Thomas J. McCarthy 66.01 Michael Moonev 66. 01 John R. Niles..'. 241. 26 Frank P. Purcell 66. 01 William H. Quinn 46. 61 Total 2,200. 81 UTICA, N. Y. Elizabeth C. , executrix Thomas L. Jones 2. 48 John B. Frick 3. 51 James L. G. Reid 121.50 Washington I. Everson 139. 32 John Philo 139. 32 Henry H. Quick 139. 12 Clarence A. Bates 138. 22 Richard J. Lloyd 129. 65 John F. Ryan 102. 51 John Steifrater 34.02 Albert G. Spencer 109.86 James A. Burke 120. 89 Charles E. Batchelor 185. 47 Total 1, 365. 87 — 46 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc . — Continued. No. 17943 18276 18819 18530 18930 16990 20444 18689 17976 17539 Name. Amount. WATERTOWN, N. Y. B. Mason Ladd 8156.39 WEST TROY, N. Y. Michael L. Walsh 23. 71 James McQuade 27. 63 James Lyons 37. 61 Total 88. 95 CHARLOTTE, N. C. William M. Smith 43. 71 RALEIGH, N. C. John W. Parker 49. 36 David T. Adams 49. 36 John H. Bell 60.17 Charles W. Bevers 49.36 Total 208.25 WILMINGTON, N. C. G. T. Dixon 19. 39 FARGO, N. DAK. Theodore Franks 166.26 Sidney W. Hooper 45.38 John M. Johnson 172. 83 Total 384.47 AKRON, OHIO. William A. Caldwell 20.21 Henry C.Eichenlaub 63.28 Patrick Flanagan 68. 84 W. H. Kasch 52. 67 Arthur E. Limric 68. 84 Fred H. O’Brien 20.21 Henry A. Pardee 54. 33 C. C. Pomeroy 10.11 John W. Sabin 54.33 Charles D. Steese 92.29 Total 505. 11 CANTON, OHIO. David E. Johns 32. 13 Edward Govenet 32. 13 Henry J. Piero 90. 54 Ephraim G. Sheaffer 30. 52 Henry L. Archinal 35.88 Monroe Appel 5. 36 Charles W. Reed 8. 04 John C. Vance 93. 01 Sylvester K. Nichols 51.56 Total 379. 17 CINCINNATI, OHIO. Lewis A. Aull 86.35 Charles R. Bach 75.30 Annie L. Burke, administratrix Richard C. Burke, deceased. . . 70.75 Will J.B. Campbell 55.89 Charles C. Couden 63. 51 Charles C. Davis 57. 11 Frederick W. Dieckman 24.38 Michael J. Fay 62. 29 Edward J. Franey 34. 14 August Glunz 22. 27 William A. High 117. 76 Le Grande La Boiteaux 95.47 Emer Lukey 86.35 No. Name. Amount. Cincinnati, ohio — continued. 17539 18313 18685 18490 18685 Eleanor McMillan, administra- trix Alexander McMillan, deceased Joseph Metzner Frank A. Murdock El bridge B. Pearce William Richards Anthony Rieger John J. Robbins George J. Schawe Oliver P. Sharpe Cornelius J. Sheridan Samuel F. Stevens Robert L. Stokes, jr Frederick W. Sudbrack Stanley W. Tobin Annie Willenborg, administra- trix John Willenborg, de- ceased Albert K. Young Frank A. Zech John Becker Harry C. Cragg Herschel P. Ferris Frank M. Meyer John F. Meyer Andrew Spaeth Henry K. Boswell Thomas S. Coons George J. Doyle John G. Rechtin George L. Talley Edward J. Weigold William H. Wood Wilberforce C. Dempster Ayres B. Adams Joseph Luckman Thomas J. McCleary Hugh J. Savage John W. Wrenn Herbert Granville Holter Richard Roethig Joseph C. Thole George Thomas Tomkins J ames T. Gordon Henry Abeling Mattie Anderson, administra- trix of Oliver Anderson Peter Bichard George Burrows Lawrence C. Carpenter Charles M. Clark Edmond T. Clayton Thomas J. McCleary Theodore E. MacKnight Michael J. Manley William H. Maus Michael Moesta William H. Monroe Martin E. Mooney Michael Condon Charles W. Creager Cornelius Cronin Ulysse L. Febuary Joseph H. Fredelake Charles H. Froehlich George W. Fuller George W. Gatch Charles H. Gobrecht Edward Giffin Charles A. Haley Vincent Harding Edward J. Hardt Charles D. Harris John Heatherton John M. Johnson Herman Joseph William M. Koehler Walter Lawson i Harry L. Lewis S3. 09 26. 19 80. 86 117.76 117. 76 117.76 4. 12 21.03 141. 11 94. 76 20. 21 .61 22. 47 41.98 f 94. 76 65. 89 9. 90 278. 87 78.22 439. 35 317. 17 169. 26 291. 84 2. 27 12.37 243. 95 75. 27 75.28 72. 61 10. 77 117.76 10.64 14.37 11.33 48. 33 62. 14 103. 34 24.38 41.98 13.40 32.96 ( 65.57 87.55 65.57 1 45.83 I 74.51 • 52.20 105. 06 45. 83 19.18 42.28 74.51 - 43.66 39. 39 19. 18 39. 39 52. 59 39.39 44. 76 39.39 39.39 65. 57 105. 06 25.36 39.39 87. 53 65. 57 52. 76 39. 39 65. 57 65. 57 74.51 74. 51 52.20 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 47 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. 18685 17530 18588 18461 18588 Name. Amount. No. CINCINNATI, OHIO— continued. William P. Lowry $19. 18 18588 Justin Murphy 65.57 William Noon 87.55 John O’ Leary 65.57 Charles J. Riley 52.20 Samuel Robinson 19.18 Michael F. Ryan 19. 18 Edward J. Saffin 49. 96 Hugh J. Savage 19. 18 Clemens Scheve 65.04 William J. Schmidt 87.55 Charles S. Schubert 39.39 William Schulmeyer 65. 57 Anthony Schwenniger 19.18 William H. Shay 52. 20 Stephen G. Schnell 43. 66 Lewis W. K. Tracy 105. 06 Walter J. Trotter 74. 51 Alexander H. Wescott 74. 51 Abram L. Willis 65. 57 August Witte 39. 39 William E. Widan 65. 57 W.E. Parks 63. 78 John W. Wrenn 77. 25 Edward Hoar 460. 06 George F. Wall 72. 61 William A. High 89. 61 Total 8, 325.85 CLEVELAND, OHIO. Luther P. Bates 85.84 John F. Cogan 25. 16 Leopold Dusheck 48. 68 Henry M.Eckerman 48. 68 Joseph G. Faflik 48. 68 Joseph D. Hatch 28. 87 Frank S. Isham 2. 68 John F. Lieblien 38. 37 J. R. McBride 85. 84 17529 John M. Riedel 48. 68 David T. Sherwood 118.11 Henry E. White 68. 67 Charles Zizka 118. 11 Asa Eldred 22. 47 Charles Zimmerman 36. 47 William C. Bruggert 12. 79 Louis B. Burlin 12. 58 Charles F. Cihak 10. 11 John P. Gill 143.85 Otto F. Kadow 10. 31 18775 Charles J. Keefe 275. 34 Joseph O’Connor 39. 39 Martin J. O’Donnell .61 Charles L. Shaw 22. 89 J ohn W. Gumpert 32. 99 Frank W. Gilbert 64. 93 Louis Hartmiller 72. 10 Henry J. Spittle 27.01 John L. Bleasdale 74.31 20882 Dennis J. Moran 4.13 Edward F. Wilcox 106. 40 Edward N. Newton 85. 84 18707 Miles A. Beebe 84.81 Charles W. Blackmur 84. 81 John L. Bolden 28.25 Lorenz C. Burgwald 84.81 John R. McBride 84. 81 James F. McGrath 17.94 Charles L. McMillan 50.94 Christopher Mackin 68.23 Stephen O. Caldwell 84.81 Richard Clevering 50.94 Charles L. Dennis 60. 94 18754 Adam Eble 24.95 Augustus H. Eggert 84. 81 20771 Edwin H. Farr 84. 81 Thomas Gallagher 17.94 George M.Geitz 84.81 Name. Cleveland, ohio— continued. Charles M. Gesch John L. Greene William Gresmuck Sebastian J. Hug James F. Jelinek James A. Kaighin Charles A. Keller William J. Kirby Louis W. Kramer Thomas E. King Philip Kreckel William F. Laetsch Andrew L. Leland William Llewellyn Joseph C. Mangan David Mathews Fred W. Meyer Henry Newman William A. Niebes Charles M. O’Brien John J. Osborn JohnL. Polcar Henry Remmel Daniel F. Riley James A. Roberts Silas Rossiter, jr Fred L. Saxton John T. Schleinkofer Andrew Schuele Joseph Slaby Fayette S. Trafton James B. Vining Fred C. Wilk Charles A. Wing Patrick Weir Total COLUMBUS, OHIO. Lot O. Dresbach Thomas J. Fitzpatrick Edward G. Schott William R. Bevelheimer James P. Clipson George T. Vercoe William A. Will Total DELAWARE, OHIO. William Downheimer Burn H. McCown John Mahoney Frank C. Poppleton Total ELYRIA, OHIO. Fred W. Wagner FINDLAY, OHIO. Lauren A. Siddall Charles K. Beach Charles Karst Michael D. Crohen Arthur D. Cheney Edward K. Taylor Total FREMONT, OHIO. George C. Lance Washington Deffenbaugh Stanislaus A. S. Stuber Total Amount. $71.51 84. 81 84.81 71.61 28.25 84. 81 84.81 84.81 28. 26 38.98 84.81 26. 60 84. 81 84.81 71.51 84.81 45.38 84.81 84.31 57. 02 26.60 84.81 84.81 9.28 84. 81 84. 81 84.81 28.25 84. 81 84. 81 84.81 68. 23 48. 47 84.81 244. 45 5,358.99 3.09 200. 08 200. 08 3.92 143. 14 128. 80 120. 34 799. 45 12.58 18.36 18.36 18. 36 67. 66 90. 96 20.62 20.62 20.62 20.21 30.52 51.15 163. 74 8. 66 3. 30 48.83 60. 79 48 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued, No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. LIMA, OHIO. sandusky, Ohio— continued. 18781 $49. 54 17580 John H. Kelly $126. 43 49. 54 Eugene W. Megginson 98. 27 74 16 92! 48 Total 333. 20 Tin 88 Cantwell McGee 20! 00 STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. Total 396. 60 17939 George M. Kerchner 56.43 Thomas B Lindsay 20. 21 MANSFIELD, OHIO. Arthur A. Brannigan, brother James Brannigan, deceased . . 50. 12 16995 65. 43 John H. Roth 128. 86 38. 36 Alois Schwerber 120. 93 51. 73 John M. Lloyd 127. 98 104 57 Albert B. Endley 64.06 Total 504. 53 64 06 Edward Lape 77! 57 Frank. Milner 64. 06 TIFFIN, OHIO. George Pfeifer 58. 74 95. 76 18712 James Leonard 77.81 John P. Martin 47.85 Total 684. 34 Henry A. Lautermilch 29. 70 Leon B Myers 29. 70 MASSILLON, OHIO. Charles C. Spiess 77! 81 17691 61.05 Total 262. 87 48.88 TOLEDO, OHIO. Total 109. 93 17072 Joseph F Bihl 119. 60 MIDDLETOWN, OHIO. Peter Boyle 85! 88 Ambrose Carl 17.74 18821 James Coyle 113. 67 Andrew M. Clemens 102. 51 Harry D. Hyams 113. 67 Orren E. Collins 88.20 John T Coombs 17. 33 Total 227. 34 George A. Dougherty 190. 44 August Fischer 55. 43 NEWARK, OHIO. Jesse F. M. Fox 2! 48 John Gallagher 89.37 18765 John Meister 51.15 Edward Halpin 117. 21 Frank T. Thnrp 73.43 Timothy Kelly 85.88 Frank Frost 83. 25 Edward B. Langel 85.88 Holba G. Mitchell 99.08 Valentine Lohner 140. 55 Frank C. Cady 53.40 Charles McBrien 88. 20 Daniel M. Guy 42.90 John J. McMahon 73. 25 GcriTge IT Knppinger 34. 02 William A. Mason 41.07 Frank White 34.02 Peter J. Mattimore 150. 51 18764 Mary Stasel, administratrix, of Charles R. Mayne 109. 28 WiHi flrn Stasel dec.pa.spd 204. 53 Otto E. Meissner 105. 73 Austin M Payne 36.09 Total 675. 78 Harry C. Rake 82. 00 T, nnis Rnthenherg 3.30 NORWALK, OHIO. William H. Schoonmaker 88. 20 Spencer Stewart 88.20 18730 John O’Brien 31.96 William R. Taft 80. 97 John Shiblev 15.26 Cleveland B. Taylor 84.35 William O Meyer 15.88 John H. Tripp 88.20 Michael Walsh 27. 84 Total 63.10 William M. Wegner 62.70 Frank P Weiss 140. 55 PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. Charles I. Weinert 22.68 Emery P. Willey 88. 20 17293 Joseph W Mitchell 17.53 John B. Willoh 85. 88 Charles E. Graham 186. 78 Emil Winberg 36.94 Frederick L. Kalb 25. 36 John P. Young 67.40 William D Gross 29. 70 Total 229. 67 George F. Mersing 29. 28 John H Waterbury 32. 17 SALEM, OHIO. 18805 Percey E. Harris 5. 78 Total 2,941.19 Will H. Read 77.86 William T. Smith 77.86 URBANA, OHIO. Total 161.50 18774 Thomas S. Binkard 3.71 Samuel C. Pierson 3.71 SANDUSKY, OHIO. 17580 Adam Rice 74.48 Total 7. 42 Jacob L. Missig 34.02 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 49 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 19052 WARREN, OHIO. William A. Koehler 537.74 Omer S. Pierce 37. 74 John Fetzer 308. 20 Total 383.68 16946 WOOSTER, OHIO. Newton L. Clark 38.51 Samuel D. Coulter 246. 71 Daniel W. Derr 57.70 Henry B. Eaby 13.82 William C. Van Meter 57.70 Total 414.44 18746 YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO. Herbert E. Baker 28.62 Joseph H. Dugan 30. 09 John Haid 30. 09 John Garde 30.09 Frank K. Patterson 52.87 William H. Faxon 68.06 Total 239.82 18802 XENIA, OHIO. John L. Hook 37.92 Michael J. Dunn 67.85 Total 105. 77 18126 ZANESVILLE, OHIO. Frank Farrier 89. 88 Smith T. Brown 40. 01 Robert M. Carlow 16. 09 Oren C. Kemper 33.62 Clarence E. Maneely 11.96 William B. Warstall 10.11 James W. McKenney 61.68 Total 263. 35 16986 PORTLAND, OREG. Newton L. Gilham . . . 294. 42 Ernest F. Patterson 232.21 18767 Philip W. Liljeson 26.87 Total 553.50 18344 ALLEGHENY, PA. William T. Bickerstaff 1.85 George F. Moul 3.09 OscarS. Logan 2.49 Total 7.43 19830 ALEENTOWN, PA. Harry C. Roth Charles S.Stettler 34. 11 34. 11 Franklin F. Wittenbecher 141.66 19931 Harry F. Seip, deceased Milton H. Walt 12.79 17190 58. 78 17509 Frederick Kringle 73. 31 19034 fDennis D. Shields 146. 62 \Francis Morrell 110. 11 James Bernhard 73. 31 Henry Yhuelon 109.82 Total 794. 62 ALTOONA, PA. No. Name. Amount. 18468 altoona, pa. — continued. George E. Gracey 52. 34 Orville E. Babcock 85.58 John F. Castlow 85.58 Jacob C. Hagerty 85.58 Adam Leake 12. 17 Celestine McMullen 61.43 James M. Stevens 85. 58 Total 536. 84 20510 BEAVER FALLS, PA. Vincent Cotton 46.38 William M. Frazier 76.92 James H. Hill 54.56 James R. Patterson 76.92 Nicholas Walsh 54. 56 Total 309. 34 20752 BELLEFONTE, PA. John C. Bair 33.62 19964 BETHLEHEM, PA. Eugene A. Brunner 21.23 Jacob T. Daily 15. 26 Charles W. Huber 10. 11 19033 Edwin U. Daily 22.22 Alfred S.Dech 38.90 Total 107. 72 17200 BRADFORD, PA. Thomas G. Wollf 141. 95 James P. Casey 164. 15 John J. Larkin 195.99 19612 John H. Thomas 117. 70 Total 619.79 20803 BUTLER, PA. Hallet W. Kelly 36.91 John G. Moore 36. 91 Henry L. Richey 36.91 Henry C. Croup 36.91 Total 147.64 18988 CARLISLE, PA. Harry G. Brown 20. 21 Harry G. Rinehart 31.55 Charles E. Strohm 23. 71 Grove Rollin 141.30 Charles A. Peffer 80. 86 Christian K. Reighter 133. 46 George B. Totten 141.30 Abram Wetzel 194<79 Total 767. 18 18550 CHAMBERSBURG, PA. Samuel F. Dockter 28. 46 William J. Norton 28. 46 William C.Sonnik 28. 46 Total 83.38 18928 CHESTER, PA. William McFadden 34.81 Robert T. Mellon 55. 69 19123 George W. Amheiser. William A. Black.... 99.89 18.69 Total 90.50 H. Rep. 640, 61-2 4 50 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 18089 EASTON, PA. Lorenzo T. Bell 80.61 Lewis Pittinger 6.81 Albert Rute 12.17 Henry E. Ealer, deceased 75. 17 Total 94.76 18410 ERIE, PA. Edward G. Barrie 120.04 Peter Leuschen 149. 22 18430 Jacob A. Brabender 99. 01 John P. Gallagher 88. 79 18430 Henry J. Fries 123. 97 19150 Lafayette Burger 68. 07 Edward C. Slocum 185. 18 Joseph B. Weber 120.34 Phirieas Wheeler 120. 34 Total 1,074. 96 18008 HARRISBURG, PA. George W. Biester, jr 102. 26 Mary E. Breckenridge, execu- trix of John E. Breckenridge, deceased 61.46 A. Hummel Buehler 60. 64 Jonas A. Schoener 145. 45 William Snyder 145. 45 J acob W. Lescure. 109. 82 Richard H. Weaver 212. 05 Robert H. Zimmerman 33. 82 John O’Brien 187. 37 John A. Snyder 330. 51 Total 1,388. 83 19442 HAZLETON, PA. Leonard L. Babcock 7.63 David L. Ferry 18. 11 Nathaniel J. M. Heck 87. 56 Edward A. Hughes 87.56 Total 200.86 20697 HUNTINGDON, PA. Frederick E. Mobus 313. 51 John B. Richardson 313. 51 Total 627. 02 18834 JOHNSTOWN, PA. Robert H. Bridges 94.94 Herman Edelmann 94. 94 John H. Herzog 94.94 Joseph S. Hipp 40.42 Mary Mullin, widow of Bernard Mullin, deceased 91.74 Thomas D. O’Neal 94. 94 Patrick O’Toole 196. 89 Levi J. Ripple 94.94 William H. Coleman 30. 31 Charles H. Temple 22. 47 Total 856.53 17069 LANCASTER, PA. John C. Shroad 104. 78 17582 LEBANON, PA. Julius P. Bowman 4.74 George H. Kimmel 6. 60 Elmer D. Light 10.52 Harvey U. Spangler 18.36 Total 40.22 No. Name. Amount 21135 LOCKHAVEN, PA. John R. Gast 813. 62 Robert Mills 13. 14 Edwin W. Till 7.63 Mrs. Katherine Reed, widow of Thomas M. Reed, deceased . . . 53.05 Total 87.44 21695 MAHANOY CITY, PA. John F. Becker 479. 37 John Jenkins 464. 77 Harry J. Litsch 580. 96 Frank P. Reed 636. 51 Total 2, 161.61 19106 m’keesport, pa. Frank M. Patterson 88. 95 19148 meadville, pa. Jacob Kahler 137. 86 Robert C. McMichael 137. 85 Jacob Moritz 137. 85 Total 413.55 19054 NEWCASTLE, PA. Wesley S. Rice 125. 29 Daniel Mooney 125. 29 Douglass Mcllveeny 125. 29 19147 George R. Dufford 125. 44 Total 501. 31 18599 NORRISTOWN, PA. Joseph H. High 135.39 Warren C. Weber 116. 02 Total 251.41 20792 OIL CITY, PA. Harvey R. Doods 16.50 Frank S. Kitchell 32. 79 George Nicholson 32.79 Harry L. Rogers 3.30 20770 Walter B. Fornoff 27.22 Total 112.60 17034 PHILADELPHIA, PA. Williams Carnes 126. 70 Alexander Clay 111. 24 Charles H. Cunliffe 130. 81 Michael J. Dormer 121. 36 John J. McGonigle 24.09 John T. Mercer 130.47 Samuel J. Ralston 135. 27 August H. Renner 148. 32 Joseph S. Rudolph 43. 26 Latham F. Blee 93.65 George Dellow, jr 121. 26 Michael J. Dooley 105.26 John F. McGinley 18. 77 Edward S. Master 109. 18 Thomas H. Peto 15. 47 Frank A. Strehle 89.68 M. Dugan 5. 15 Joseph Hirshbule 28. 46 Joseph Lucke 28.46 Hugh F. McFadden 25.56 John Steitz 28. 46 John A. Winter 13. 61 John F. Wunder 111.60 Patrick F. Martel 31.56 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 51 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. Amount. No. Name. PHILADELPHIA, PA.— COnt’d. PHILADELPHIA, PA.— COnt’d. $28. 46 17272 Theodore E. Thomas 804. 88 Joseph Ashdale 34. 02 James Branigan Walter F. Henry 120. 50 Charles A. Clausen Patrick J. Muldoon 20. 21 Mary W. Colbert, administra- Charles F. Schwering 32. 79 trix John F. Colbert, de- 24.38 ceased 80. 72 Daniel J. Crossin 19.59 Michael J. Delaney 19. 59 William Evans, jr 91.77 William Garton 26.86 Gustave Z. Guiras David F. Dick 15. 68 Harry C. Hickey 31.33 John H.Holz 25. 75 Joseph Conway Michael J. Cassidy, deceased . . . 25.20 Francis P.J.Crilly Richard Condon 30.45 Maggie Davis, administratrix Paul V. Connor 222.51 George F. Davis, deceased 37.76 Bernard J. Dever 37.76 Thomas Flood 37.76 James A. Haviland Thomas P. Caulfield 24.33 Patrick F. Heffron 37.76 A. F. Hudome 18. 98 William T. Logan 15.68 John McDonald 18. 98 Lawrence Phillips Robert J. Farrelly, deceased 17.74 Elias A. Steele 37.76 Charles M. Bellemere 1.03 Samuel F. Cloak, deceased 44.47 Harry A. Corcoran William B. Goines 28. 66 Edward J. Higgins 2.06 Henry Kemble Erwin Fra tz, deceased 17. 53 Jeremiah H. McCarthy Margaret Fratz, widow of Wil- John F. Hughes liam V. Fratz, deceased 43. 60 John Hulands James Gaffney 13.61 Joseph C. Kelly William E. Grady 33. 54 RosalieL. Lewis, administratrix George F. Kelly 17.12 Robert W. Lewis, deceased Joseph H. Maurer 15.88 Charles H. McCullough Thomas O’Brien 85. 76 Eugene A. McNerney John O’Donnell 28.46 John F. O’Brien James A. Rooney 22.27 Harry Schuller George R. Serrill 17.12 Henrv Stonemetz Edward F. Stanton, No. 1 24. 13 John Toner C. Wildermuth, jr 28. 46 James J. Brown Frank H. Barrett 28. 12 John McCour Nicholas B. Bent 39.80 Louis Sickles Thomas J. Blunden 1.85 Amelia Soeffing, administra- Bentley Boyle 5. 98 trix Charles Soeffing, de- Francis P. Braceland 29. 53 ceased Oscar M. Bradbury 37. 76 Kate S. Volk, administratrix James H. Kelly 54. 49 John C. Volk, deceased John A. Kerns, deceased 26.10 Randall W.Bayle Patrick J. Kiley, deceased 7.22 Matthias J. Brady Albert Kleinfelder 54.07 Edward McDonough John A. Lalor 11.55 Thomas A. McGarvey Thomas McCormack 7. 63 Leonard C. Martin John McDermott 43. 10 Walter E. Mooney Patrick D. McPoyle 29. 08 John P. Moore George McVay, administrator James Moran of Franklin E. McVay, de- Winfield Nutt ceased 181. 88 William H. Stephens Joseph M. Mahaney 107. 96 John J. P. Boyd Lewis J. Martin 37.76 William B. O’Hara, administra- Charles B. Moore 55. 31 tor Michael J . Butler, deceased Lewis J. Ochner 195. 36 Joseph Bryant Isaac W. Rehl 5. 15 Edwin M. Carr John Schweikert 4.74 Daniel H. Cohill William Slavin 37.76 Harry W. Fell Frederick Taxis 39.80 Peter A. Fitzpatrick Joseph M. Watson 3.51 Loui A. Gury George H. Wells 2.06 Penrose S. Hall Harry F. Boss 32.00 Elam B. Harding Frank E. Trout 37. 76 Joseph B. Logan John Farrell 43. 60 William L. Houghton John Hergesheimer 6. 63 Margaret C. Loughery, admin- Eva Donahue, administratrix istratrix Neil Loughery, jr., James T. Donahue, deceased. 88.28 deceased Samuel P. Hegener 106. 90 John B. MeCa.fferty . . . Harry B. Knight 28. 46 Henry A. Macready No. 17034 17272 Amount. $52. 18 6. 63 22.68 43.26 111.16 36.50 34.02 111.59 26.40 12. 63 2.76 25.56 57.75 22. 68 110. 14 29. 70 25.56 78. 58 21.65 108. 84 17.33 29.70 32. 79 32. 79 57. 75 6.63 21.94 22. 68 6.39 85.38 7.84 50.94 75. 17 35.36 13.05 32. 99 17.51 130. 69 78. 28 9. 90 29.49 28. 46 78.28 6.63 43. 94 56. 65 31.33 43. 60 17.53 108. 84 25. 66 27.22 22.68 29. 00 148. 32 43. 31 185. 25 81.03 18.62 56. 30 16.09 114. 44 69. 30 109. 52 2.06 36.26 .41 12.98 8.56 50.47 52 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. 17272 172721 18139/ 18139 20716 Name. Amount. No. Name. PHILADELPHIA, PA.— COnt’d. PHILADELPHIA, PA.— COnt’d. Theodore F. Shonert $24. 03 20716 Elijah S. ReifE Walter Sieber 33.63 John H. Schiesser Albert J.Weyl 1.65 Michael H. Shaughnessy Frank L. Woolly 16. 09 Samuel B. Trout 60. 67 William W. Weiss Albert L. Pleibet.' 75. 88 18139 Jacob Atkinson James J. Hagan 70. 37 Henry C. Boyd George W. Bell Andrew A. Cain 82. 30 Charles J ackel Edward J. Duffy 89. 31 William Johnson 19. 59 Abraham Josephs George A. Shane 8. 66 John F. Boyle Susan M. Goodwin, administra- John J. Borbidge trix of James J. Goodwin, Joseph Burrows 81.88 William J. Barr Daniel H. Hearn 9. 08 Patrick J. Connor James W. McBride 43. 60 Franklin Dettinger 31.35 Anthony De Silver 19.59 Horace W. Dengler 20.42 Herman Eggert 22. 68 William H. Fisher John T. Kelly 22. 68 John W. Fair Owen Kelly * 31.35 Thomas A. Fitzpatrick Robert J. Lynch 31.35 George H. Green Thomas McClenahan 51. 14 John P. Bradley .28 Charles C. Goodwin 22. 68 Arthur B. Davenport 4.33 William L. Holmes 12.58 Robert A. Nichols - 27.84 James P. Henry William J.Neson 105.25 Ella O’Rourke, widow James Ignatius Reynolds 34.23 O’Rourke, deceased Charles A. Ward 26.19 James E. Hess Edward M. White 23. 51 John C. Truitt Maurice Corkey .61 Henry P. M. Horn Alfred L. Glackin 24.54 William J. Gleason John H. Kirk 7.63 Richard T. Huey Thomas Labrum 20. 83 David L. McBlain Walter P. Kirk 23. 51 Thomas F. McDonough Ernest Schiele 85.18 Hugh B. Moutrie George V. Thron. . 15. 68 Patrick Maher Charles M. Bellemere 19.89 Mary A. Murray, administra- Charles J. Birchill 37. 76 trix John F. Murray, deceased. Joseph Burrows 25. 75 Thomas F. Mullahy William Carrigan .. 22. 68 Andrew Manning Dennis J. Conlon 73. 43 William McNiece, jr Edward C. Dern 43. 60 Francis A. Devlin Joseph C. Downing 26.19 Charlotte Nolan, administra- James A.Dytch 7. 84 trix Michael J. Nolan, de- James H. Guinan 9. 28 ceased Lewis E. Hale . . . 26. 19 William Norbeck Jacob J. Lutz j . . 23. 51 Thomas E. Nugent Charles McCloskey . . 26. 19 Edward M. Pereira Joseph A. McDermott 23. 51 Henry J. Bennett John E. Nolan 27.43 Robert Perry Hugh F. Reillv 23. 51 Hugh J. Muldoon Edward F. Rumig 27. 43 James F. Rhodes Thomas H. Scanlan 34.02 John F. O’Brien, No. 2 Michael J. Sammon 9. 28 Thomas F. Ross Francis J. Connor 141. 15 Edward F. Stanton, No. 2 James J. Lang 42.21 Edward J. Whelan William D. Leidy .61 William H.Sipler Thomas J. Shea 17. 74 Philip J. Taulane John F. McDevitt 23. 51 Eugene Weikel Frank B. Abbott 4. 12 Conrad Bettenhauser 2.75 Total William C. Carlin 4. 12 William P. Clement 2.27 PITTSBURG, PA. Lewis T. Franke 2. 68 1 William T. Haig .82 17940 Egbert W. Connolly Alfred D Hamilton .61 Alfred L. Dillon H t Frank Denning 20. 94 Max Killian .Tames V- Lough ra.n 20. 94 James P. Layden Joseph F. McLaughlin 23. 75 Mary Mohen, administratrix Daniel E. McMonagle 20, 94 William Mohen, deceased John P. Maguire 2. 27 Thomas F. Murray James Mahoney ... 71.50 J. F. Connor Ha.rry C. Newport 1.44 Martin B. Foley Oscar L. Ott . 1.03 Sidney B. Foster Benjamin T. Ramcey 8.25 Max Killian Amount. $3. 30 4. 13 3.09 37. 76 3.09 96. 17 148. 66 135. 96 25. 36 126.21 109.52 99. 66 28. 66 131.84 31.96 38. 15 96. 58 107.59 32.99 16.50 22.68 137.33 135. 27 81.68 68.84 138.06 318. 61 125. 32 106. 43 30.31 71.16 107.99 38. 17 111.93 24. 75 25.32 117. 94 17.63 37.76 89. 31 25.36 73.22 90. 67 3.92 84.00 19. 18 10. 52 7.22 7. 63 30.11 125.32 123.87 141. 45 43.38 109. 07 13. 20 35.36 137. 33 114. 75 86.42 14,888. 12 200. 64 6. 15 153.89 111.79 211.67 183. 90 292. 18 167.82 15.06 58. 36 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 53 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. Pittsburg, pa.— continued. 17940 Joseph S. Larkin $202. 71 WiJliam W. McKee 7.63 387. 41 i 57. 10 126. 73 Jacob R. Burkle 93. 09 Charles T. Hunter 138. 02 Henry C. Knauss 132. 39 C. D. McCoombs 133. 90 John F. Regan 138. 02 18197 Andrew J. Vemer {^212 52 Daniel D. Collins } 350.54 63. 32 Ellen J. Daly, administratrix Thomas F. Daly 84. 81 Sarah Griffin, administratrix Martin J. Griffin 63.32 William S. Hathaway 63.32 J. Milton Hays 105. 40 James E. Hershey 113. 86 Daniel Linderman 105. 40 William S. Lowry 105. 40 18709 Peter W. I. Gilfoyle 26.81 18197 110. 55 John S. Boyle 113.44 38. 15 John D. Curley 113. 44 89. 79 110. 90 Frank R. Osborn 118.58 Frank J. Pender 111. 58 Carroll S. Duff 111.58 Patrick H. Duffy 41.25 William J. Eberle 111.58 John Gabb 38. 15 Henry A. Lang 102. 04 Rees Price 111. 58 John Powell 110. 90 John M. Rogers 79.36 Martin Scott 113. 58 17904 Cornelius Kevin 33. 20 Total 5,550. 19 PITTSTON, PA. 20784 James Bone, jr 56. 72 William J. Gillespie 56.72 18735 John F. Costello 120. 10 John E. Daley 12. 79 James C. Delaney, deceased John E. Dempsey 18.98 18. 98 Henry H. Weiss 120. 10 * Total 404. 39 POTTSTOWN, PA. 20715 Edward K. Miller 4.94 George W. Rohn 4.94 Roscoe C. Shinehouse 4. 94 Total 14.82 READING, PA. 17905 William H. Seiders 20. 00 John Gnau 93.31 63. 97 D. Webster Clay Thomas G. Harper 37. 74 Robert Gerlach 98. 14 William H. Rogers 44.55 20800 Augustus Potteiger 15. 06 Franklin B. Thomas 2. 06 17905 David F. Knobb 117. 61 Peter S. Keffer 122. 56 Jerome Seider 110. 12 Thomas J. High 115. 96 Total 847. 08 No. 18422 19361 19368 19114 17003 18713 18174 18371 17945 Name. SCRANTON, PA. Edward D. Jones John Kelly Joshua R. Thomas Harry E. Whyte John R. Thomas William D. Morgan Michael O’Malley Alice J. Pickering, widow, Ed- ward R. Pickering, deceased. . Joseph Schiel Richard B. D. Wolf Eugene Evans William P. Kelly Morion G. Jackson Total TITUSVILLE, PA. Albert Kraffert Thomas J. Powers Edwin Jj. Windsor Total WARREN, PA. Lewis P. Giegerich John B. Russell Frank Witz Total WASHINGTON, PA. Thomas N. Blair William A. McCausland John D. McGloughlin Total WILKESBARRE, PA. Thomas McGuire John R. Griffith John J. O’Donnell Merrit L. Line Total PROVIDENCE, R.I. George A. Abbott James A. Abbott j^' Emma J. Burt, administratrix William A. Mallery, deceased George M. Hunter Total WOONSOCKET, R. I. Robert H. Harrington CHARLESTON, S. C. John E. Craig St. Cyprian Delaney William L. Downing William S. Elfe Patrick J. Hanley Thomas J. Kelly John L. Kiley, administrator John E. Kiley, deceased Nellie Knauff, administratrix Thomas J. Knauff, deceased . Joseph J. Lessene William H. McCue William P. McGarey Amount. $53. 28 45. 31 5. 57 55. 90 76. 32 81.88 64.55 60.23 131.43 48.47 397. 29 24. 54 77.99 1,122.76 18.26 18. 26 18.26 54. 78 199.55 80. 18 199. 55 479. 28 69.85 107. 06 69.85 246. 76 205. 92 334. 73 65. 59 113.91 720. 15 30.52 75.62 94. 08 20. 21 220. 43 14.11 145.43 193. 07 162. 10 79. 71 142. 56 176. 42 128.78 142. 56 176. 42 79. 71 280. 41 54 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc. — Continued. Name. Amount. MEMPHIS, TENN.— continued. John Caton $21. 61 Henry W. Eckels 15.26 Martin Flanigan 21.61 John T. Foley 13.82 Alfred B. Gaither 43. 23 J eremiah T. Holahan 8. 87 William G. McFarland 25. 12 Michael O’Reilly 43. 23 Joseph B. Simkoke 15. 26 William E. Sullivan 14.03 David W. Washington 25. 12 Benjamin H. Wright 43.23 James R. Wright 43.23 A. M. Henderson 14.02 John S. McMahon 28.92 Total 580.96 NASHVILLE, TENN. Benjamin F.Nichol 11. 97 AUSTIN, TEX. Benjamin E. Ericson 122. 96 Alonzo Gerard 9. 82 John W. Madison 10.45 L. M. Mitchell 21.32 Total 164.55 CORSICANA, TEX. Frank M. Holmes 19.18 John L. Miller, jr 12. 58 William A. Boyd 63.32 Total 95.08 DALLAS, TEX. Eleazer P. James 3.30 Jennie Overall, widow Willis P. Overall, deceased 35. 93 James H. Bishop 62. 04 John B. Leamon 70. 50 James W. Renney 35.93 Total 207. 70 DENISON, TEX. Cyrus R. Scholl 50.49 EL PASO, TEX. Sheldon E. Bovee 54.45 FORT WORTH, TEX. Sidney Graham 2. 27 Edward S. Hall 67. 94 No. 17945 17986 18498 20445 16997 18460 21010 17874 18807 18736 Name. charleston, s. c. — continued. Benjamin L. Matthews John J. Moloney William J. Morrison Estate James P. Murray, de- ceased Alexander R. O’Donnell Thomas J. Sheehan Benjamin F. Smalls Michael J. Walsh Total GREENVILLE, S. C. Willie T. Biers John H. Honour Thomas C. Long T. J. Thackston, father of Eze- kiel B. Thackston, deceased.. Total HURON, S. DAK. Edward W. Barrett SIOUX FALLS, S. DAK. Eli W. Dobson William M. Gordon Charles T. Hatch George L. Hoffman F. W. Sexton, brother and next of kin of Edward J. Sexton, insane Total CHATTANOOGA, TENN. Theodore T. Parker Hinton D. Alexander John P. Fowler Thomas J. Ivy George U. Ruston Theron Browne Total JACKSON, TENN. Dowan D. Ballard Harry M. Dawson Tobe S. Moss James H. Trimble Total KNOXVILLE, TENN. Sallie R., administratrix James L. D. McMillan, deceased 35.88 Thomas M. McCannon, admin- istrator W. A. McCammon, deceased 23. 78 Monroe C. Monday 22.55 Total 82. 21 MEMPHIS, TENN. Edward Foley 614. 03 James Kinnane 14. 03 William P. McMenemee 6. 19 Bettie Moss, widow Thornes H. Moss, deceased 90.25 William H. Owens 11.55 Moses H. Barker 25. 12 Olympus W. Bergans 43. 23 Amount. $174. 35 90. 96 165. 44 54. 86 128. 80 182. 07 176. 42 176.42 2,856. 49 49. 29 28.08 28. 08 29.49 134. 94 66.82 556.32 556.32 821.36 11.34 926. 13 2, 871. 47 51.56 108. 07 56.96 22.06 73.02 55. 43 367. 10 9.49 3. 51 20. 83 9. 69 43. 52 No. 18736 18613 18807 17983 16998 18723 19259 18129 19517 17001 17946 19063 18510 16994 Orlando F. Darby Seth J. Howell James E. Pu Ilian Isaac Z. Wallace S. L. Mayers Calvin C. McMichael... Total GALVESTON, TEX. Charles L. Heine William T. Snipes Total 38. 77 180.21 21.65 146. 36 96.38 3.51 557. 09 25. 16 13. 40 38. 56 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 55 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888 , etc . — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 17646 HOUSTON, TEX. George Fromm $9.93 Isaac A. Kier 4.67 Thomas Moore 4.67 Clarence 0. Skipper 33.08 Total 52.35 19404 SAN ANTONIO, TEX. William Holt, jr 3.09 Martin Jiminez 61.46 David Jones 108. 94 William H. Mitchell 108. 94 George H. Mudd 108. 94 Cecil A. Nesbitt 108. 94 Julius Possert 108. 94 Van Teel 108.94 Leon T. Mareschal ^3.82 David Sanders 191. 90 Hinton Smith 220. 23 Total 1,164.14 19519 SHERMAN, TEX. Wallace W. Andrews 363. 37 Edward Staples 292.49 Total 655. 86 17074 WACO, TEX. Moses P. Clinton 27.84 David Pogue 10.11 Augustus B. Trippe 2.48 George A. Waddell 40. 42 19191 David Frazier 16. 91 Total 97.76 16974 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. Edgar Best 236. 51 Cassius C. Cummings 335.62 Harry E. Dewey 169. 53 Charles E. Hayward 171. 74 Orson A. Houghton 236.51 Fred L. Libby 57.13 Brigham L. Morse William S. Naylor 375. 33 236. 51 Samuel F. Neslin 44.27 John A.C.Neilson 7. 63 John K. O’Farrell 144. 70 Ezra F. Palmer 4.33 Aaron S. Post 64. 85 Joseph E. Rigby 273. 18 Rue H. Sholes 375.33 Edgar D. Shurtliff 144. 70 Samuel A. Skidmore 375. 33 Frank B. Snyder 134. 19 Linzey E. Sprague 236. 51 Walter W'iscomb 85. 39 William W. Wiscomb 42.94 Total 3,752. 23 • 18445 BURLINGTON, VT. George W. Austin 28.62 Edgar Chiott 19. 18 Elmer E. Coon 28.62 Joseph DeVaremes 28. 62 David E. Flynn 28. 62 Annie Powers, administratrix of James E. Powers 33.88 Charles A. Middlebrook 39.80 Harrv R. Thomas 129. 97 Carl Barnes 99. 12 Total 436. 43 No. Name. Amount. MONTPELIER, VT. 18049 Harvey W. Brown $31.05 John Miller 22.52 Total 53.57 ST. ALBANS, VT. 18675 Fred P. Brunson 164.61 Lucius S. White 174. 18 Total 338. 79 ST. JOHNSBURY, VT. 18421 Henry A. Holden 58.24 John A. Paddock 58.24 Total 116.48 RUTLAND, VT. 17071 John T. Lyston 96.57 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 20747 Thomas K. Brumley 20.21 Robert E. Lee 20.21 William J. Mayo 20. 21 Joseph L. Smith 20. 21 Total 80. 84 DANVILLE, VA. 19911 Charles L. Cheatham 62.69 Lawrence C. Clarke 126.36 Henry M. Watkins 45.38 Pleasant H. Daswell 20. 21 Joshua P. Hunnicutt 425. 63 Cephos R. Jefferson 20.21 Turner W. Patterson, jr 27.84 Total 728.34 LYNCHBURG, VA. 18450 William R. Falwell 123.26 William R. Foulkes 123.26 Charles P. Nowlin 123. 26 William J. Seabury 123. 87 Thomas W. Spillan 123. 26 Charles A. Taylor 50. 40 Edward C. Bondurant 52.75 Edward M. Bunch 11.96 Clarence L. Craft 19. 39 Sidney J. Dickerson 219.46 Beverly Dismond 98. 37 Thomas H. Jackson 60. 79 James A. Parsons 84.05 Henry E. Stewart 94. 57 Samuel W. Patterson 64.50 Total 1, 373. 15 PETERSBURG, VA. 16760 Jackson C. Bishop 44.24 PORTSMOUTH, VA 19912 George H. Armstead 84. 10 Silas C. Draper . 146. 86 William A. Guy 146. 86 John T. Myers 151.07 Mich an Noel 8.04 Jesse M. Veale 114. 79 Amos Williams 13.82 Joseph J. Cooper 49. 29 Total 714.83 56 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued, No. Name. Amount. 19910 STAUNTON, YA. Paul Crowe $92. 53 Thomas E. Fuller 138. 99 Nathaniel M. Varner, 93. 99 VV. Starke Miller 133. 10 Total 458. 61 17995 SEATTLE, WASH. Everett A. Hartley 146. 65 Rufus W. Hartley 16.26 Jesse A. James 158. 56 Charles J. Riordan 113. 44 Joseph A. Scott 193.58 Royall Haskell 143.49 Total 770. 98 19365 SPOKANE, WASH. Albert S. Miles 87.04 Thomas E. Webb 148. 96 Walter H. Overend 148.96 Frank P. Marshall.... { } 71. 17 19042 Edwin Dow 25.98 Total 482. 11 17774 TACOMA, WASH. John B. Fyfe 326. 83 Thomas J. Sweany 38.36 Anton C. Arnston 101.48 George Bothner 34.02 L. T. M. Clark 60. 64 19638 Frank Taylor 51.56 Abraham L. DeHuff 68. 27 Peter N. Elmore 107.04 Julius W. Parker 5. 79 Total 793. 99 19376 WALLA WALLA, WASH. Robert L. Stewart 85.26 Edward F. Buffman 82. 25 H. M. Van Horn, mother Eu- gene Van Horn, deceased 15. 77 Total 133.28 19053 CHARLESTON, W. VA. Frank Guill 169. 14 William O. Jones 171. 77 William H. Thomas 160. 96 Total 501. 87 20748 PARKERSBURG, W. VA. Josiah T. Horr 78.17 18072 WHEELING, W. VA. Robert S. Agnew 12. 58 James Manton 10. 11 August H. Knoke 12.58 John H. Mason 16. 26 Griffith B. Jones 13. 62 William Graham, jr 5.15 James M. Noll 40. 42 Louis J. Knabe 22. 20 18936 John J.Quigg 118. 58 Total 250.50 20711 APPLETON, WIS. John Brown 191. 29 Michael Hafner 108. 19 Henry F. Losselyoug 177. 81 Total 477.29 No. Name. Amount. 19266 BELOIT, WIS. John Donnelly $25. 16 Edward F. Hansen, administra- tor Charles L. Hansen, de- ceased 25. 16 Charles G. Stocking 30. 32 Total 80.64 19267 CHIPPEWA FALLS, WIS. Michael Thornton 40.21 John Parent 40. 21 August I. Bruce 220.53 Henry Herbert 220. 53 Total 521.48 19272 EAU CLAIRE, WIS. Phineas E. Bent 105.49 Ole J. Moen 134. 99 James H. McGough 134.99 Edwin E. Sloggy 134. 99 17294 Jere Murphy 221. 46 William E. Thomas 122.96 Total 854. 88 19274 JANESVILLE, WIS. JohnF. O’ Grad v 73.54 Edward V. Whiton 73.54 Claire D. Capeile 73.54 John Gleason 16.71 20780 Marion McDonald 197.67 Caleb J. Blakely 80. 19 Orlando V. Hanthorn 83.87 William J. Lennartz 93.78 Total 692.84 18740 LA CROSSE, WIS. Lewis L. Brown 43. 23 18938 Henry Lexins 194. 53 20464 Edward F. Kevin 187. 81 19270 Lorenz Bamberger 163. 86 Albert E. Daniels 219. 06 Ambrose J. Hanus 49. 91 Clarence Howard 74.88 Iver Thorsen 163.86 Total 1,097.14 19269 MADISON, WIS. Thomas P. Cullinan 73.02 William A. Devine 248. 27 William G. Dunn 73.02 Nicholas Reif 73.02 Henry Schmedeman George A. Stein le 73.02 42.07 Total 582.42 17979 MILWAUKEE, WIS. Frank Blomkum 102.30 Leonard Meister .... 170. 29 Louis F. Renter „ 150. 44 Arthur Roberts 170. 29 Albert C. Rodee 170. 29 Herman F. Stauss 170. 29 Norbert H. Verfurth 63. 12 John B. Hasley, jr 65. 92 Thomas J. Murray 84. 05 John R.Nuzum 60.23 Henry F. Pesta 124. 55 Louis Kobler 170. 29 John G. Van Altena 170. 29 Peter J. Van Lare 127.08 Anton Olsen 188. 15 19495 Elizabeth Augustus, adminis- tratrix C. A. Augustus, de- ceased 192. 96 Total 2, 180. 64 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 57 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. OSHKOSH, WIS. SHEBOYGAN, WIS. James F. Buchanan $32. 75 20479 George F. Dusold $25. 16 19259 John Fife, jr 165. 90 Frederick Horstbrink 152. 83 Edward E. Finney 127. 93 William Obigt 138. 06 August Giese 127. 93 Henry B. Stein 152. 83 Charles A. Hasbrook, deceased. 127. 93 John C. Bertshv 37.32 Robert Redford 127. 93 August C. Brand 166. 63 August. F Sehloerb 127. 93 William H. Wall 92.74 Total 672. 83 WAKESHA, WIS. Total 931.08 21220 Archibald D. Price 84.35 Statement of claims by States and cities. State and city. ALABAMA. Birmingham Mobile Montgomery Selma Total . . ARKANSAS. Fort Smith Hot Springs Little Rock Pine Bluff Total CALIFORNIA. Fresno Los Angeles Oakland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco San Jose Stockton Total COLORADO. Aspen Colorado Springs Denver Leadville Pueblo Trinidad Total CONNECTICUT. Bridgeport Derby Hartford Meriden Middletown ... New Britain . . . New Haven New London... Norwalk Norwich South Norwalk Total DELAWARE. Wilmington Amount. $129. 44 301.05 223. 14 62. 18 715.81 94.65 126. 64 338. 05 170. 24 729. 58 229.94 2,523.37 1,031.86 503. 86 270. 19 3,620.83 161. 23 198. 41 8, 539. 69 22. 47 112. 61 227. 51 85. 14 123. 60 267. 11 . 838.44 114.51 220. 46 1, 667. 56 707. 84 266. 20 167. 15 732. 27 445.35 4.94 340.27 115. 14 4,781. 69 285.08 State and city. Amount. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Washington FLORIDA. Jacksonville Pensacola $3, 281. 20 189.19 476.04 Total GEORGIA. Atlanta Augusta . . . Brunswick Columbus . Macon Savannah . 665.23 1,073. 18 228. 70 1,077.20 203. 42 1,248.60 4, 714. 35 Total 8.545. 45 ILLINOIS. Aurora Belleville Bloomington Cairo Chicago Danville Decatur Evanston Freeport Galesburg Jacksonville Joliet Kankakee Lasalle Mat toon Moline Monmouth Oak Park Ottawa Pekin Peoria Quincy Rockford Rock Island Springfield Sterling Streator Waukegan 319. 42 313. 83 299. 43 501. 64 10,126. 79 298.40 62.89 484. 86 86.62 1,172. 16 288. 94 907. 53 425. 46 15.68 49. 70 658.89 66. 61 120.47 240. 10 162.59 872. 08 140.79 33. 62 454. 79 1, 185. 01 290. 30 969.05 206.87 Total 20, 818. 32 INDIANA. Elkhart . . . . . Evansville .. Fort Wayne . Goshen Indianapolis 101.02 73.34 103.86 46.81 1,638.28 58 OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued. State and city. Indiana— continued. Kokomo Lafayette Laporte Logansport New Albany South Bend Terre Haute Total IOWA. Burlington Cedar Rapids Clinton Council Bluffs Davenport Des Moines Dubuque Iowa City Keokuk Muscatine Oskaloosa Ottumwa Sioux City Waterloo Total KANSAS. Abilene Arkansas City Atchison Emporia Fort Scott Hutchinson Kansas City Leavenworth Newton Ottawa Topeka Wellington Wichita Winfield Total KENTUCKY. Covington Frankfort Lexington Louisville Owensboro Paducah Total LOUISIANA. New Orleans Shreveport Total MAINE. Auburn Bangor Bath Portland Total MARYLAND. Baltimore Cumberland Frederick Hagerstown Amount. State and city. Amount. $18. 36 MASSACHUSETTS. Amesbury $44.54 7.01 Beverly 92.55 212. 03 Boston 13, 915. 40 27.73 Brockton 189.85 121. 97 Clinton 400.60 2,111.42 Fall River 612. 50 234. 10 Fitchburg 792. 77 Gloucester 787.33 168. 53 4,595. 93 Haverhill Holyoke 267.90 45. 18 Hyde Park 1,458. 64 Lawrence 217. 33 Lowell 193. 15 318. 31 Lynn 1, 519. 50 176. 01 283. 44 Malden 1, 731. 02 New Bedford 166. 95 1, 149. 10 Newton 92. 79 725. 31 North Adams 42.65 825. 19 Northampton 26.60 570. 47 Pittsfield 196. 21 293. 25 Salem 409.95 502. 51 Springfield 294. 63 649. 92 623. 03 362. 16 Waltham 368. 90 Westfield 37.74 262. 28 Winchester 13.40 Worcester 1, 123. 04 9,752.63 Total 22,195.30 201. 77 132. 90 31.86 366. 66 238. 05 MICHIGAN. Adrian Battlecreek 142.50 Bay City 183. 61 531 ! 64 160. 22 482. 71 387. 89 20. 42 Detroit 4,714.97 Flint 702.35 Grand Rapids 3. 12 Iron Mountain 36. 86 Lansing 132. 31 135’. 43 282. 78 Manistee 416. 06 Muskegon 126. 27 375! 43 1,278. 67 348. 05 Pontiac 118. 82 Saginaw, East Side 337.73 Saginaw, West Side 267. 03 4,772. 71 Total 7,384.40 136. 98 MINNESOTA. Duluth 805. 38 Mankato 139. 17 714. 22 Minneapolis 978.82 301.37 Saint Paul 179. 45 126. 79 Stillwater 252. 26 150. 70 Winona 680. 23 2, 158. 94 3,689. 00 Total 4,575.31 MISSISSIPPI. Meridian 695. 14 604. 78 Jackson 46. 45 1.65 Vicksburg 95.86 606. 43 Total 837. 45 467. 75 MISSOURI. Kansas City 3,473.04 337. 76 Nevada 34. 78 421. 02 Saint Joseph 875.33 721. 51 Saint Louis 13, 960. 72 Sedalia 552. 41 1,948.04 Springfield 181.84 Total 19,078. 12 1, 299. 83 - g 116. 68 MONTANA. 39. 46 Butte 582. 96 5. 78 Helena 1, 156. 42 1,461.75 Total 1,739.38 Total. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS, 59 Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued. State and city. NEBRASKA. Beatrice Fremont Grand Island Hastings Kearney Lincoln Nebraska City Omaha South Omaha Total NEW HAMPSHIRE. Concord Dover Keene Manchester Nashua Portsmouth Total NEW JERSEY. Asbury Park Atlantic City Bridgeton Camden Elizabeth Hoboken Jersey City Morristown Newark New Brunswick Orange Paterson Plainfield Trenton Total NEW YORK. Albany Amsterdam Auburn Batavia Binghamton Brooklyn Buffalo Canandaigua Cortland Corning Elmira Flushing Geneva Glens Falls Hornellsville Ithaca Jamestown Little Falls Lockport Long Island City Newburg ' New York Norwich Ogdensburg Olean Oneida Oneonta Oswego Poughkeepsie Rochester Rome Saratoga Springs Schenectady .,. Seneca Falls Syracuse Troy Utica Watertown West Troy Amount. State and city. Amount. 8178. 04 NORTH CAROLINA. Charlotte 843. 15 5. 15 Raleigh 208. 27 85. 52 Wilmington 19.39 103. 40 10.11 Total 271.35 161. 08 129. 90 2,989. 04 NORTH DAKOTA. Fargo 384.47 30. 12 3, 692. 36 OHIO. Akron 505. 11 Canton 379. 17 789. 25 Cincinnati 8,325. 85 5,358. 99 799. 45 Cleveland 32 Columbus 262. 07 Delaware 67.66 1) 527 . 44 Elyria 90.96 301. 39 Findlay 163. 74 1, 089. 91 Fremont 60. 79 4,055. 38 Lima 396. 60 Mansfield 684. 34 Massillon 109. 93 Middletown 227. 34 277. 91 Newark 675. 78 Norwalk . . 63. 10 223. 60 114.95 Portsmouth 229. 67 Sal em 161.50 1, 355. 96 Sandusky __ 333. 20 304.13 Steubenville 504. 53 22.68 Tiffin 262. 87 1, 452. 76 Toledo 2,941.19 7.42 124. 40 Urba n a 2, 776. 68 505. 91 Warren 383. 68 Wooster 414.44 636. 00 57.96 Youngstown 239. 82 Xenia 105. 77 67. 85 Zanesville 263. 35 1,681.74 23, 756. 25 9, 702. 53 Total 421. 04 OREGON. Portland 553. 30 477. 84 130. 38 239. 19 PENNSYLVANIA. Allegheny 7. 43 631.34 Allentown 794. 62 8, 647. 67 729. 12 Altoona 536. 84 Beaver Falls 309. 34 124. 45 Bellefonte 33.62 118. 58 Bethlehem 107. 72 92. 56 Bradford 619. 79 84.30 Butler 147. 64 158. 05 Carlisle *. 767. 18 194. 18 Chambersburg 83.38 331.84 Chester 90.50 97.92 Easton 94.76 1, 109. 99 94.46 Erie 1,074.96 1,388.83 Harrisburg 67. 76 Hazleton 200. 86 71.86 Huntingdon 626. 02 763. 02 Johnstown 856. 53 961. 99 Lancaster 104. 78 13, 700. 83 48. 36 Lebanon 40. 22 Lock Haven 87.44 160. 83 McKeesport 88. 95 185. 48 Mahanoy City 2, 161.61 413. 55 30. 31 Meadville 11.13 Newcastle 501 . 31 646. 89 Norristown 251.41 81.35 Oil City 112. 60 3, 697. 95 121.21 Philadelphia 14,888.12 5,550. 19 404. 39 Pittsburg 2,987. 29 496. 12 Pittston Pottstown 14.82 67.23 Reading 847. 08 1.696.80 2.200. 81 1,365. 87 156. 39 Scranton 1, 122. 76 Titusville 54.78 Warren 479. 28 Washington 246. 76 88.95 Wilkesbarre 720. 15 43,291.34 Total 35,831.22 Total UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 098504506