The daily union., 1852-07-04

which was also not in writing SO that there are Nc
10 be found upon which the bhl ultimately
passed But there this great distinction between
tint case and the one now before the Senate Mr. Cat
well protested at the time that The curtaed
against The power OF the Postmaster General do H. Ia
the OF this CONTRACTOR he assented the exercise
OF the power He discontinued the mail for three days
the proof shows il 10 be so y and subsequent that
because the surrounding inhabitants OF the district and
the local postnas,ers chose to ask him TO renew
the transportation. OF the mail Sunday he did so.
mosi be remembers ed that the question was whether te
Sunday mail should be abosaed The inhabitants tound
i an Inconvenience to have the mail discontinued on Sun.
day, and prevailed upon hun go and carry IT, not
wthstandng the fact that he had stopped ID in obedience
10 the order OF the Postmaster General, aud nowilhsland
ing the postmaster at Royaon had certified 10 the Post
General under date of the Sd of December, 1884,
he order having been given 10 The preceding November
that the discrimination OF the Sunday mail TO Burng.
ton had taken effect He went voluntarily carrying
this mail and passengers, doubtless besdessubsequent
To- tina, time without giving any notice 10 the department.
whatever without presenting any claim upon the de-
parment until the contract had expired, which was IN
1889. three years afterwards, He then comes forward
been ordered BY the Postmaster General to discontinue
the mail Sunday and had assented to that order and
discontinued il for short time, and, far the Post
General could know, assened the order alto
geher yet he went and carried the mail the repre-
sentaon of these parties that he would be Iecompensed
hereafter but he never communicated that fact to the
postmater General nor was there ever any communica,
ton made to him that his orders had not been complied
with during the whole period of four years The
therefore, is distinct. There protest, question
of right The order was assened to. The party repre-
sens in bis petition that he wasnduced TO and carry
the mail during The remainder OF the contract Sunday
which OF the Postmaster General directed him not
to, by the wishes OF the inhabitants of the neghborhood,
and at the suggestion of the local masters, they tell
ing him that they had no doubt he would be com
pensa ed; but he took good not to communicate to
the department the fact that he had no, obeyed the order
and carrying the mail defiance OF the order, and
expected compensation for IT, The therefore is
essentially different from the case OF Caldwell Caldwell
objected to being curaied OF his contracts this
did not, but went on acquiesceny, the Postmaster Cen
era being ignorant Of his movements and only after the
contract had expired did he make his claim II is there
FORE essentially different from the other case.
ask, then, whether in Casa doubtful case, ii you
villas TO the construction OF apower, but which power
had been universally exercised anterior 10 that tme
where the propre,y OF the exercise OF the power was
sustained by the judgment of the then able Attorney
General Of the United States, are pay INTEREST,"
This change was made, il was made throughout the
country public grounds The party assenled to it he
postmaster at Royalton that the party had discontinued
and the papers show that he stopped The mail for
three days, but afterwards resumed it, without comm.
nicatng with the department. the mere solicitation Of
the surrounding neighborhood, putting the mere will
of the local population against the express order OF the
officer OF the government, who was entitled 10 give his
order in reference to the subject matter ask, thea
whether this is for compensation at all, much less
Tor the allowance OF interests?
did not intend TO have touched upon the question Of
in this case, (the amount not being great
had the interest not been restored to the bill But il
seems 10 that II is assuming very bold ground indeed
tell us, the face OF the opinion which have read
that this OF plain outrage; that The government
has retained in the department qudated due the
party, without cause, without any power whatever
and that we therefore bound pay interest | am
not willing concede this; cannot agree with the
aor from North Carolina II the Senate determine, con
trary to the opinion OF Mr. Legare, that this is in
which the Postmaster General exercised doubtful pow
exceeded his power; still, ii is OF
mere doubt it is clear that il is for the allow.
ance OF interest II must be recolleced that the party
on he acquiesced in the order, far be made
any communication 10 the department. he made no sub.
sequen application till his contract had expred he went
on and received his money according 10 the order for
tailed service down TO 1887 But, after 1897, he
forward and the representation Of The postmaster at
Roysl,on and other citizens OF the neghborhood. he
asked the Postmaster General to compensate him for
ming the mail Sunday, contrary 10 order. The POST
master General declined doing the ground that the
party was entitled TO IT, because the order bad d..
recled dsconRusnce, and he had discontinued in obe-
dence 10 the order, and subsequently revived il without
any authority at all
WELL sin, supposing that the right to discontinue were
doubtful is it in which interest ought TO be
allowed do not now to 20 into discussion OF
this question Of interest at large. Perhaps on some iu
occasion shall endeavor to sustain the general view
which entertain upon the subject OF the payment OF
interest by the government and that 49, thatln
except a OF agreement, will my vote ever be given
for paying interest claim against the United States.
know principle that would sustain IT, II is contrary
tbe doctrine and practice OF other governments, well
as our own. And on this question OF interest ! beg
fcer from whom have already quoted. They not
long and OF them is very important in its statemen
o the principle upon which interest ought TO be granted
One is to be found page l47S OF the volume o
the opinions OF lbe Attorney General from which shall
only read extract, in which he merely states the
principle and the practice. He says
"There may be case, in which might think the head
OF department authorized allow interest, but they
would be and singular exceptions. What feature fs
there in this which is to be found in every
delay caused by the claimant himself In settling
count liza mistake ofaw the part OF accounting
officer leading 10 the rejection Of an ten renders tbs gov.
ernmen liable Interest a reconsideration OF the
why should other mistake laches OF its
fcers have the effect
But nothing Is better established, general rule
than that the Is damsge, in such
casesa stern but necessary rule adopted everywhere in
the practice OF government"
The other opinion TO which refer Is 10 be found on
somewhat more extended, and goes somewhat into
the subject This opinion given the OF Cogs.
we'll Mr.. Legare says:
"The state Of the IL, that, In passing Mr. Cog.
Wells accounts allowances refused him which
20 have been ade from mistaken view Of the law
the part OF the executive officers.
1t s admitted that the government ought not In general
70 tntere In the absence OF special effect
Il Is admitted that this Is but necessary rne and
plies 70 the vast msjoy OF cases. Notwithstanding the
Them Why should the subjected to the pay
ment Of interest In In which delay to pay the prfn
cipal owing bona fds conviction hs part OF Il.
officers that u was not due Such mistake rather iorifc'
the case OF the government; for interest Is due only
because the money OF in the hands OF another
when payment OF II might have been demanded, but be
cause that other IS presumed 70 have made orght 10
common prudence to have MAJ de, advantage by IT,
Now, II be thought II his own and had good reason "a
Think so, IL is evident he bound trustee for an
other, 70 tnn u to account for his profit Accordingly