Western courier. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1837-1838, 1837-07-06

De1oTe IL was tnouSht oi, as tiSy a'u ="
any one of the four years through which
it has been extended, and that is none
at all. They did, indeed, after the ap-
plcation of March, 1888, again raise
their tri.weekly line into daily; but |
they were already under pay for that al
the rate of S6,40o per year. 1t has never
been shown nor pretended, that they put
on any other stock, ore dered any other
service, in pursuance of that application.
They ran Two full daily lines, and no
more. For the original daily line they
were paid $3.50. For the first improve
ment in speed, and tri-weekly mail,
they were paid S8,050. For the railroad
service. they were paid S2,046. For the
second Improvement of speed, they were
paid $6,750. For making the tri.weekly
daily line, they were paid $6, 400. For
"A extra horses and % postillions, en-
ployed by them upon both lines over the
mountains, in consequence of the great
speed and weight of the mails, they were
paid SO S12 These specific allowances
covered all the service rendered by them
and more. There was no additional line
of stages. not stage, nor horse, nor
postillion, employed by them in the mail
service, which was not thus specifically
and amply paid for. For what " extra
SERVICE" therefore, was this allowance
made? None whatsoever. There was
no contract" or additional contract"
there was no performance" 1t was
an addition Of S77.0l6 to these sums de-
nounced by the committees of Congress as
paid for services not performed, and d'"
rected by law to be recovered back ny
suit. But, although this claim did not
arise upon any contract" or " addition"
al contract nor was for any "extra SER
vices performed" yet under the liberal
construction given to the act by the Post'
master General, he was not disposed to
question the illegal authority of the Solici.
tor to allow it up to Slst March, 1885.
But he did question the legal authority to
the 31st December, 1885, for the reason
already given, and for this further reason;
Soon after the present Postmaster Cen
eral took charge of the Department, he
examined into the merits of this allow
ance, decided that it was illegal, and an
nounced 10 contractors that none Of it
would be paid. Ho will not say that he
directly countermanded any service on
this account, because none was beng per-
formed but he maintains tina: his annun-
ication annuled and abrogated whatever
there was on which this allowance was
based. If there had been contract, it
would have been an annulment Of that
contract; if there had been service, il
would have been countermand Of that
service. Whatever there was % justify,
excuse, or give color TO the allowance,
was rescinded, and made null, as efectu-
ally as if there had been formal order
of retreEchment. Had not the present
Postmaster General, as the head Of the
Post Office Department. an absolute and
undoubted right to annul and withdraw
this allowance? Was his decision less
authoritative than that of his predecessor
His right 10 annal the allowance, and the
fact that he did SO in the most efactual
manner,are incontestible. Whence, then,
the power of the Solicitor 10 extend it,
Did the act authorizing him to settle these
accounts give him authority to overrule
the decisions of the Postmaster General,
in questions clearly within his legal au-
thority, and force on the Department ex-
ira allowances for services not performed,
contrary TO the known policy and will of
its responsible headl The Postmaster
General was.-in 1885, most assiduousIy
laboring 10 restore the credit Of the De-
parment and guarding on all hands
against unnecessary expenditures. He
would have felt much concern if he had
not supposed that his decision put an end
to all ground Of claim on this score, or if
he had imagined that this allowance was
still accommodating at the rate of Sl9,254
year, Notwithstanding his published de-
cision against lis legality, sustained as it
was by the opinion Of the Attorney Gen.
eral No such conception entered into
his mind, nor did he hear any such sug-
| geshon from others. The allowance was
supposed 10 have been as effecually an.
nuled and stopped as il possibly could be
by any official act which he was capable
Of performing.
1t is, therefore, confidently maintained.
that the extension of this allowance to Slst
December. 1885, was illegal, because it
had been previously annulled by the Post.
master General, as well as because il was
new claim, moi included IN "the cIaims,''
referred 10 The Solicitor for adjustment.
The next item which the Postmaster
General refused to pay, arose from an
extension by the Solicitor of the retrench-
/ od ollowances from 1st Deceuher lS95