Western courier. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1837-1838, 1837-07-13

or.additi0nai contract, but Tor services not
performed. For the services performed,
The contractors were fully paid according
to their contracts.
But in this case, as in the proceeding.
whatever there was on which the allows
ance could be based, was taken away abb
rcgated and annulled by the present Post
master General after he took charge of
the Department. A direct order Of anull~
ment was not entered by him, because
there zvas nothing to annul. He found the
order of retrenchment recorded in the
books and entered on the contract, unre-
scnded. He found the contractors run
ming through one in two days and twelve
hours, and the other way in two days and
fifteen hours, in accordance with the Or
der of fretrenchment. He was informed
by the officers of the Department, that
his predecessor, when apprized that his
order allowing fifty per cent. was constru-
ed to restore the retrenchments by neces-
sary implication. expressly dsavowed
such all intention. There was nothing
therefore, in the records of the Departs
ment, or even in the breast Of the former
Postmaster General, which he could re-
scind or annul. But credit for these
allowances from 1st January, 1884. to
91st March, 1885, had been enormously
entered on the books. This he directed
60 Ge balanced by counter entry, deci"
ded the allowance to be unauthorized and
illegal, and so informed the contractors.
This surely was as perfect countermand
and annullment Of zchatcver there quas to
sustain this item, as it was possible to give.
1t is still deemed to be, in law and in fact,
an authoritative and efsctual counter.
mand, which the Solicitor had no right
to disregard. He could not lawfully set
aside lawful decision of the Postmaster
General, putting an end to an extra allow"
aace, and continue that allowance in def
ance Of his authority.
On this ground, therefore, if there were
no other, the continuance of these re-
trenced allowances to Slst December,
1885, was illegal. and justified the refus-
al to pay ihe item of S12,421 so.
The next item of the award which the
Postmaster General refused to pay, 10
s 800, added by the Solicitor to the al
lowance made by the former Postmaster
! General, for the swift line from Wash
ington to Philadelphia during the winter
Of 1S54-5.
The first additional objection to the le-
gality of this allowance is, that 1t is for
regalar service, and not ertrG service,
and had been already paid.
The contractors were uoder contract
and pay TO run two daily mails from
| Washington through Baltimore to PhiIa''
delphia; one Of them TO be run through
in 90 hours throughout the year, or to be
run through in steamboats, from Balti.
more during steamboat navigation only
in twelve hours, and six from Washing
( ton.
No second daily mail 'as ever run by
them upder that contract, by land or wa
ter, o.her than the swift mail, so called,
during the winters Of 1884, and lSS4-5.
| This mail. therefore, was hart ot their
regular contraet service. The only thing
extra about it is, that il ran through in
20 hours instead of 90, the time fixed for
the swift mail in the contract. For this
additional speed they were entitled to an
equivalent. A most ample equivalent
they had in the dispensation of the second
daily mail altogether for nine or ten
months in the year, and reducing the
other for like period each year to tri'
weekly mail from Baltimore to Elkton.-
Instead of running tSvo. they never ran
even one daily mail on this line more
than three months of any one year during
the whole period Of their contract.
| If this mail is to be considered ectra,
because it did not run more than fourth
of the time required by the contract
though little faster. the tri-weekly line
from Baltimore to Elkton during sum-
mer, may be considered extra also, be-
cause the contract required it TO be run
daily; and thus an omission to render
service according to contract, makes thai
actually rendered an !" extra service" fol
which contractors are entitledto extra
compensation, though receiving the full
pay stipulated for in their contracts!
! We have seen how strongly the COM
mittecs of Congress condemned the man-
agement on this route, 1.-The minority OF the
committee of the House of Representa-
tives declaring, that the contractors were
receiving over $4,000 year on it, and
others connected with it. without any
consideration whatsoever. Their repor,
was made to Congress on the 18th Feb
ruary, 1885 This additional mail, as i
is now called, had run during The quinfe'
! of 1854, and was running in that oj
l834-5, while the committees were max
ing their investigations. and at the mo-