The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-02-01

for j. The philosophy up is that the government is
ready at Al Sss e pay is debts but this not s0 i
OF Congress The OF Congress certi6ss that the
deb, was due al the time It's payment was demanded II
relates back 70 the time Of the demand and from that
The theory philosophy OF the law failing In principle,
The practice itself should be aside. and the
should set the example in being Just repeat that L
have here list OF fifty taken from the Statutes
at Large, IN which interest has been pad upon private
claims
Mr.. RUSK think that The senator from Virginia
Mr. HusTERl could scarcely have attended very careful
y 10 the reading OF the report or he would have
pressed doubts whether the principal oil this claim
due Perhaps, however, that was thrown in a mere
matter OF gumeni 10 get rid of the interest," know
that that senator has some little hostility TO allowing IN
teresi.
daily mail. The Postmaster General arbitrarily, with
out any authority in law, and without any authority in
the contract reduced by one-seyenth OF the amount
Now, sir, he had no right TO violate the contract he
made the contract with provision Tor carrying the
mail daily this route, and he reduced the amount
profiered one seventh and Tor what For the purpose
OF relieving himself and the department from embar
rassment He had no authority TO make this reduction,
either from the law or the terms OF the contract
Mr.. HUNTER. Mr. President, will The Senate permit
me ask one question: | know nothing of the terms
OF the contract My question is his Has not the Post
master General, by the provisions OF the contract, right
to discontinue the whole service whenever he shall
choose to do it -
Mr.. RUSK Certainly.
Mr.. HUNTER. So understood il.
Mr.. RUSK The route might be discontinued-lhe en-
tire service might be discontinned-when IN the opinion OF
the Postmaster General an important route becomes
less when the mail takes different direction through
the country Then. sir he might discontinue the entire
service by allowing the contractor the compensation
guaranteed him by the contract, which months extra
pay, and by giving him notice, in which case he could
repeal the law establishing such route.
But here is different case; here the Postmaster Gen.
era has violated the terms OF the contract for the benefit
OF the department II is not pTetended- is not stated
anywhere and such not the fac-that there was any
m ace
of carrying daily mail than there at the time the
CONTRACT was entered into The proof is conclusive; for
Immediately after this reduction was made, the only
pretence upon which il was made, and upon which the
violation OF the contract took place. account OF
the embarrassment Of the department II the daily mail
was unnecessary, the contract would not have been
made; but it made, and that daily mail was dscon
tnued The testimony goes on 10 show, according to the
report that great Inconvenience resulted from il, not
only to the business OF the country but TO the travellers
who had occasion 10 pass this The indvld
uals along the route called upon this TO go in
cordance with the terms OF the contract they urged him
to do 50, and he did He performed the service, and
the country had the benefit OF that service
So far rs the interest is concerned in my opinion the
question is just this Has the Postmaster General when
no law authorized him, when the terms oil the contract
do not authorize him 10 do II. simply on account of
embarrassment, any right 10 violate the contract which
existed between him and the contractors Why. sir II
the service was not necessary and II put upon that
groundtha is the ground that two three bills have
before passed for the relief Of others who performed
similar services; and of course il those services were
ega!-no only equitable but legal
Now, sir, with regard TO interest In the discussion
OF the OF Rufus Dwnal the other day, the honora
bic senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD] put The re-
usa TO pay interest upon the ground that this step
ped over his rights II was regarded at least upon that
ground by the Senate; and because could satisac
orlly answer question put by the senator from Geor
gia and show that Mr. Dwina had commenced pros
ecuton Immediately that part providing for interest
struck out Now, this man demanded pay for his SER
vices almost Immediately after his services were rendered
his claim was presented here as early as 1899 do not
think, under the circumstances be pretended that
the Postmaster General had the right TO violate the
tract in the manner which he did violate it. 1t therefore,
them becomes legal just and equitable debt against
the government of the United States, beginning in 1897
and here every session Of Congress, this has pre-
sented his claim and because have delayed the mat
ter, is it his faul repeat that this performed his
services according 10 the direct spulatons OF the con-
tract and The government took the benefit Of those
vices he has been constantly attempting 10 get his pay
and The interest which is proposed 10 be struck out had
accrued IN consequence OF your own negligence by not
adjusting this matter before ~
Mr.. BADGER. Mr. President, according TO the terms
OF the contract which was entered into with the Post
master General, II was agreed between the two parties
that the contractor should transport the daily mail upon
this route There was power reserved TO the Post
master General, and but one powers that was, to make
that contract cease In order 10 put end TO the
tract either for the whole distance for any portion OF
m one OF Two events must happen-either that Congress
discontinue the postroue, that the Postmaster Gen.
eral should himself discontinue II, upon the ground that
u had ceased TO be necessary and bad become useless
That, sir is the state Of the The Postmaster Gen.
eral had right TO make end 10 the contract but he
had no right TO alter the terms OF the conractio put il
IN force in one part but 10 put out OF force in another
part. My friend from Virginia Mr.. HUNTERl says If
the Postmaster General had fright to put end 10 the
contract altogether, he also had The right 10 put end TO
part oft Surely, this is very inaccurate and nconcu-
sive reasoning.
Two men may enter into an agreement and there may
be power reserved TO either the the other put
end to the contract putting both parties liberty and
putting them IN such a condition they would have
cuped had the never been made But sir il is
very al hava tla N
say the contract shall be in force in part and that the
residue shall not be in force. | undertake TO say that
there is foundation for such an opinion, that the
Postmaster General had the right put an end to the
contract in part II he leaves II in force al all, il is in
force altogether. When the Postmaster General under
took say that he should carry the mail days,
but six days, in the week, his declaration was absolutely
egal--a violation OF the lava violation OF the
tract The Postmaster General has no more control over
such contract than individual has his
tract with another individual except far law
gives him control, reservation in the contract
has put him in like position. This is clear Now, be
says TO tins man, do not put an cad 10 the contactnot
at all but say you shall carry the mail six days in the
week, and you shall not carry IL on the seventh,
Now, my friend from Virginia Mr. HUsTERl Gays that,
II the contractor did not like that, all that he had 40
not 10 carry the mail at all deny that conclusion.
the power OF the Postmaster General Illegal then
the contract stood il no such order had been made and
the contractor had right to perform the whole of his
contract and, doing entitled 10 compensation
for The whole. There can be doubt about that So
much with regard to the principal. Now, the whole
is whether the United States, through their officers. have
a right 10 make contracts and then violate them That
is the whole amount OF it,
And then with regard To interest, agree 10 a consider.