The daily union., 1852-07-04

uliuk IL an extraordinary OF ult
having this mans money in its hands, and through this
officer, without excuse justification, apology, refusing
to pay il TO hml think IL is impossible 10 do JUS
lice without paying 10 the party The Interest as well as
Mir BAYARD I am sorry to say tina, take very
different of this subject from the honorable
from North Carolina, Mr.. BADGER conceive there
outrage the part OF the Postmaster General
the exercise OF The authority which he did exercise in
reference 10 this contract; and though am willing con-
cede bat the Questions one OF doubt, you please s by
clear that the authority OF the Postmaster
eral was not strictly and regularly exercised according
law, under the sipulations of the contract
Ihe case VIII endeavor TO present as briefly as can.
10 order 10 show that there was outrage and think
shall succeed. at least in showing that if this is
Tor compensation al all is questionable, and certainly
not case for allowance Of interest.
This claim came before Congress, in the first instance,
in The second session Of the Twenty fifth Congress, and
then the committee discharged from further cUnsid
Grafton OF The slam. At the third session there
bill Iepored but at the first session oi the Twenty
Congress the bill was laid the table AT the first
SION OF The Twenty eighth Congress the committee
discharged, and the bill was Indefinitely postponed This
shows, at least that the opinion OF the Senate then
adverse to the claim The present view which is taken
OF the is founded on the report Of the committee
made at this session Of Congress- upon the OF
facts precisely which existed at the first session OF the
Twenty eighth Congress, and the proof. arTi-
wing at different conclusion in the legal construction of
one OF the terms OF the contract existing between The
Postmaster General and the petitioner.
The case is not now passed upon, however, for the
first time petition presented to Congress under
similar clause in the contraci-whch clause well ad-
vert 10, having copy OF II in my hand-under which
the Postmaster General anterior to this lime had uni
versally. without hesitation, as a customary thing in
these contracts, exercised the power to cura under the
general power to put end 10 the That clause
was in these words:
"Itis mutually understood by the contracting parties
that the onre any part Of the route herein mentioned
the Postmaster General becomes useless or f line of
stages or steamboats, shall be established the whole
any part OF IT, where The mail is not SO carried under The
10 hall
be binding the Postmaster Genera-he giving notice
OF such event, and making allowance of one moths
pay"
There is also another clause, giving the right 10 alter
the route. in which the Postmaster General reserved the
right OF annnling the contract unless the contractor
should assent TO the alteration required in the route
these clauses had received customary construction
down TO subsequent to the year 1889, until application
was made by Mr.. Caldwell precisely similar clause.
where the Postmaster General had exercised the suiho
y For what motives he exercised is matter entirely
OF opinion, and is not question which affects the
There is nothing that appears in the order TO the
tves that influenced him. His discretion was absolute
and the order given without assigning any reason for
it. The terms OF the order were, that he party should
discontinue the contract for given time That power
the true construction of that clause of the down
subsequent 10 the time wben this contract curiaed
admit That subsequently 10 that ume-doubs having
arisen in the minds of members of Congress- in
the mind OF the department, and the power having been
questioned-ihere has been clause inserted in the
present posoce contracts which gives express right
customary
clause in the contract and under that customary clause
the Postmaster General has been in the habit in all
without regard to pares oil exercising the right OF cur
allmeni, under the general rgh! 10 put an end TO
tract certain. Well, under this petition of Mr.. Cad
well Congress passed bill for his relief and they made
The OF that relief be dependent upon he.ega
y OF The exercise OF this power the part of the Post
master Generahat is TO say, the question OF lis legality
TO be referred to the Attorney General OF the United
States for hs decision IL referred, and Mr.. Le
gare gave his written opinion. sustaining the power Of
hn n4n4nn Of fha
senator from North Carolina, tMr. BADGER He sus
tanned the power Of the Postmaster General under this
contracts and as that opinion ls entitled 10 great weight,
will read II 10 the Senate. think 1t will create doubt
in the minds OF senators quite sufficient 10 all idea
OF outrage the part of the Postmaster General in cur
failing this contract 1t is 10 be found in the Opinions
OF the Attorneys General" page 1862
oFFioE ATTORNEY GKNKRAL.
December 81. 1872
SlR In the Of F. Caldwell referred to me under
the act OF the last session. authorizing yon 10 audt and
settle hts accounts for cenain mails " the Attor-
General should be Of opinion that the Postmaster Cen
eIs had not the right under bs contract with Caldwell TO
which ordered by the department. have The honor
and am very clear I'm, The Po.imaster lad
under section 10 oil the contract TO make the change In
The right reserved 10 him. as between him and the con.
dtse0nfnas the he deemed useless
Snppose him have been guilty OF incapacly or even
department was responsible only 10 Congress md the
demand Of him notice OF the eventthat IT, unanes
tionabyof his having determined 10 discontinue the
aud the allowance Of months pay. Any claim
for damages beyond that iqudated against tho gov
enmeni for carriages and bor.es purchased and e his
hands would have been in snch clearly unfounded
Lake the creditor who has relied stipulated penalty. he
gets hi. bond. and no
Now, what has the department done In this case, and
been the habit OF doing all similar Il par.
tally disc ontinucd tho route has discontinued for
third bali of the time the may be and the ques.
ton is whether authority % do the less is not implied In
that TO do the greater Were 1t in irpiiun
could scarcely doubt u but II Is The In.
depreciation OF the contract and the conduct of the parties
is that gave option the contractor be
received hts noca that the Postmaster General
his and receive his months In advance Clear
he had right do II he preferred going on with the
service the new terms, he has nobody TO blame but him
se " he be paid only Tor the services he hos actually
dered the government Otherwise the would stand
II the Postmaster General discontinued the en-
tly, and gave employment all to the labor and
be compelled TO acqulesce ia this decision receiving
reasonable pay for the express that etft
aud he has nothing do with the question whether the dis
cretion Of the Postmaster General properly exercised
abfgU irJuria. But because arrangement, provid.
ing for his employment very considerable extent and
nishing the loss chances of loss he ncurs
offered him. lie is ented foil damages for all he suf.
Surely this were solecsm In law.
The construction of the which have adopted
appears 70 me, independent Of all practice precedent,
ths sound and reasonable and regret that
concur 10 the view Of this subject taken by the commce
o the House In 1888 But have no ubt that the MI
form practice Of the department be considered i'm
tBeos Il al Houghior PIT, s2o IL is univorsal
pncp and elementary rule the law of contracts that
contract vs. understood TO contain the clauses
although they not expressed IN cofracffb acife
have the honor 10 be, sir, your obedent servant,
III. s LEGARE.