The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-07

tons would not have been heaped ON the Attorney
General and the Postmaster General for their con-
duct But the Postmaster General sought most
carefully 10 restrain his authority within all the
limitations derived from the positive snaetments Of
the statute, or a fair construction oft.
Here was another law which was passed the sans
day. he believed, Of the latter law making appropr-
atoms for the Post Office Department for the wear
ending 3Oth June, 1916; and il happened that the
amount Of appropriations under that bill (for he had
cast up The 'temsl came to ", 100000 within 1884,,
UUU. While the Postmaster General limited his dis
cretion as he had done, by expanding this amount,
allowed TO be expended IN the 2ad section according
to the construction of that section embodied in the
subsequent act, could he, or could the Attorney
General have had greater regard for the law than
they had had
His colleague Informed them that the department
had received in ore day more than 100 designations
Mr.. II. admitted If the law did not authorize him to
make these allowances, he ought not TO authorize
them. But this 22d section invested him with dis
cretion These designations made case In which
this discretion TO be exercised and applied; and
in applying it, Mr.. II. maintained that he had
doubtless been governed by the will OF Congress,
and by the words Of the law, as far as IL was pos
sible 10 be governed by words so loosely put to-
gether.
He agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky,
that the law ought to be amended He hoped that
his colleague would soon bring in a bill regulating
| the payment Of pOstmasters He dislikod TO leave
as much discretion as this law left to the Postmas-
ter General. He regretted that such legislation had
been placed on our statute book. But he maintain
ed, while It was there that the Postmaster General
was bound TO act as he did act and il he had not
done II, and, IN consequences Of his failure 10 do il
these large post offices had gone down. thsre would
have been a motion 10 impeach him. for he would
have disegarded this positive provision Of the law.
What 1t was his duty TO do he had done, and what.
ever blame there in the matter attached not 10
the Attorney General or 10 the Postmaster General
but to the law itself, and il ought to be reformed
He would go with the gentleman from Kentucky for
limiting the discretion far possible and pfacti
cable 70 do SO by legal enactment but when they
had invested this discretion in him. and his respon-
sbility TO exercise il so tremendous as invoy,
ing the failure Of the entire mail service Of the coun
try he could not blame him for using this discre
| He would 60 with the gentleman TO remodel thi,
section not only, but other provisions Of the Law
which would doubtless meet the gentlemans sane
| ton.
He was in favor Of striking out this section TO
the very reason that the section was In opposition
| TO this law. He believed unless some such bill a
that Of which the chairman Of the Committee on tn
Post Office and Post Roads had given notice wer
passed, without this 22d section we could not &c
along with the mail service Of the country; and be
cause of the fact that this pToyiso proposed by tn
gentleman from Georgia Mr.. CoBBl TO be strickeI
out would be a repeal Of this provision, he woul,
90 with the gentleman for striking out; but woult
much prefer that we should regulate il all by law
and leave little possible to the discretion Of tn,
Postmaster General, or anybody else But he mus
be allowed to say that unlike the gentleman from
Kentucky, so far from regarding the opinion Of tn
| Attorney General rs enismaucal he considered
| remarkably clear and explicit
| Mr.. G. DAVIS briefly rejoined. n the Attorne,
| &c neral were here The sadJ he would put to hin
this proposition: does the law OF Congress REGULATE
| ,,a. Of ro
ply must be in the affirmative, because here III
law, referring to the law of 1925, which prescribe
| the tariff of commissioner
Mr.. HUNTER lin his seat) The law of lS4
is the law in force also.
Mr.. DAVIS. When certain per eentun
on the receipts Of an officer is fixed for hi
compensation, that Is just ds specific compensation
as though the same was distinctly stated. III
urged that there was no ambiguity In the law G
1925, and that il precluded as distinctly and posi-
lively in words it could be done, any discretion
on the part Of the Postmaster General in referenc
10 their compensations excepting in the cas-
(Which was provided for in the subsequent law
where the amount Of commission for the year is les
than SIS, in which case ii may be increased OF
exceed 80 per cent Of the receipts Of the Office.
! He appealed to the gentleman from Virginia, a
a lawyer, whether, when a subject was expressl,
provided for by law in words, that express pro
vision of law could be overruled by any implication
or construction of law w..
Mr.. HUNTER (indistinctly heard) was under
stood to say that this was not Of the class Of
alluded to by the gentleman. In this case, whe
the commissions Of the postmaster were less tina
SOS, and being increased as they were authorized t
be not to exceed So per cent. on the receipts wer
still insufficient, it obviously the intention of tn
law that the post Office should be discontinued Blu
in the case Of these large post Offices il was not de-
signed to discontinue them. 1t would not do to d
it, because the Inconvenience to the country woul
be too serious and too extensive and in these case
the Odd section came in and was expressly applics
BILE.
/ Mr.. DAVIS (continding) said the Attorney Ger
era had not said, and he would not risk his reputs
ton in saying, that he could increase the commits
sions Of the deputy postmasters by law in any othe
mode than that fixed by the law of 1895. Ate
further enforcing this view Of the case, he said
was not legal intelligence that had induced the Al
torney General to give this opinion, but it was tn
necessity Of the case. But the moral force of III
law the acquisitions Of the law the sanction Of tn
law ought to be the only necessity known, and n
other necessity should be tolerated or practsed or
Il The Postmaster General, he coDtended, under hi
plea of necessity set aside the positive requirement
Of the law by implication. He supposed the cas-
that the contractors should refuse to execute the
contracts unless the Postmaster General would a
low them as much more as he allowed the deput
4 postmasters: would the gentleman from Virgin
say then that his discretion under the 22d sectio
l
was an analogous case precisely.
Mr.. DARRAGH said, according to his recollet
ton of the discussion which took place on the pa.
sage of the law Of 1S45, the compensation of tn
deputy postmasters at the large offices was not cal
ed in question. He had now heard with some a,
constituent from the chairman Of the Committee O
the Post Office and Post Roads, that under this la
/ these postmasters were left without compensate,
and some Of them brought in debt to the depar
ment. In that discussion it was pretended that Ii
small Offices might be the sufferers. And he rath,
supposed that this food Of designations which he
J inundated the Postmaster General had come fro
| the small Offices. .i."ta" H"R.r8 .asAtH
He considered il mistaken policy Of the gentl
man from New York to desire this public lab,
3 to be done for nothing. BY paying them literally,
? better service would be insured. For one, he wou
go to give these deputy postmasters the frankir
! privilege. ....... ...,. .Iab. o-a.Fi l@ .hf7
{, He would not undertake to discuss the opinion
the Attorney General For the gentleman persons
y, and for his legal attainments he had the highe
respect. II seemed TO Mr.. ID. that his constructit
was based on the absolute necessity oftho case b
let that pass. #e.H a' 10 85 ~
Eut 10 this