The daily union., 1852-07-04

tract and il you are to avoid that rule in exceptional
al least you ought to have some stronger case han
this before you. II would be dangerous dis
ceton TO exercise, at best Tor ts moment you depart
from that rule, what rule are you ABIDE oy isH pfl-
vate compassion Is II personal Partially 10 an init
vdual Or is political considerations that Will some
times necessarily creep these matters that are 10 de-
ermne your aclion If you abandon The general rule OF
the government and pay interest claims not founded
upon general principles OF policy but upon the particular
circumstances OF The which, according 10 The mere
caprice Of individual members may happen TO determine
the minds OF majority the lime the claim IL presented,
where will lead submit that, IN all governmental
acon general rules, especially n matters OF this sori
must be adhered to, or inevitably the result VIII De cor
rupiion In its worst sense "i
In regard to the particular case before the Senate, then,
i stands thus The best that be made out Tor
The argument the other side is, that there was nus
apprehension OF the construction OF the law on the part
OF the Postmaster General-a construction which had
been acted upon Tor years BEFORE under similar contracts
which was never questioned before which was sustained
subsequently by the opinion OF the ofceT OF The govern
ment, and which certainly after reading no man can tell
me is matter OF doubt. The Postmaster General bad
exercised authority on the public construction Tor the
benefit OF the country not in reference 10 thus Individual
alone but 10 others also and shall be told that this IS
case Of ouragea OF withholding mans money
plain naked case Of wrongand that, therefore, You
are TO make exceptional case and allow interest 10
him II seems TO me that II you allow interest IN this
there is in which you possibly refuse IT,
The party assenied without objection TO the exercise OF
this power by the Postmaster General. He withdrew
the Sunday mail for days afterwards he resumed
il, notice 10 the department; not by subsequent
agreement with the department. not with the knowledge
of the department, but the Will and desire o
the inhabitants OF the local neghborhood IN which he
resided and OF the postnasters there Without any com
municalion 10 the department. he carried this mail con-
trary its order and at period three years subse-
queny, when the contract itself expired, he came for
ward with this claim against the government. This,
then, in my Judgment, is no case for the allowance OF
interest and it is doubtful whether the principal
ought TO be paid.
Mr. RUSK | do not think have seen case where
the claim was just that struck me as stronger case than
this one About the facts do not disagree. CON
tract entered into Tor the transportation OF daily
mail certain route. This individual took that
contract and commenced the transportation of that daily
mail Afterwards, without any authority being given
by the contract for that purpose the Postmaster General
dscon,nues this service one day in the week Now,
how does the question present itsef Here IS clear
violation OF the contract by the OF the contracting
parties holding the power The senator from Delaware
tMr BAYARDl smiles will come TO the opinion Of the
Attorney General soon Here, say, is clear violation
of the contract upon the part OF the party holding the
power, where, under the contract no such power had
been given, and which done after the had
been going on Tor some time. This man ran daily
mail. employing certain number OF coaches certain
number of horses and teams Tor the purpose Of carrying
on This He went TO all the expense
for this purpose and the moment i was done in full
compliance with the contract upon bis part, the Post
master General proper 10 stop oneseventh OF the
service Now, the expense is just the same to him II
draw the coaches-he could lessen his expenses Now
between Individuals to do this there must be
,horty reserved in the contract and think the govern.
ment ought to be bound by The same rules oil justice as
between two Individuals
Now, what is the excuse given by the Postmaster
General for this violation OF the contract, as insist it
should be called Ii is, that he TO himself the
power discontinue this contract altogether Then there
penalty consideration for this discontinuance Of
that contract and that is months additional pay
But SAYS the senator from Delaware, Mr. BAYARD The
greater power includes the less and he reads the opinion
the Attorney General al the lime being Now, that very
opinion OF the Attorney General admits away all this
at once have not read over but paid attention 10 the
reading Of by the honorable senator. II said this that
assuming that The greater power included the less when
the contract discontinued for day, according
The order OF the Postmaster General the contractor had
the power 10 throw up his contract, and demand his
months additional pay. That is admission that this
is violation Of the coniracthat the Postmaster Gen
era exceeded his authority That is admission of this
case and 10 that ii IL strikes others So there
Ii sno further need Of arguing the matter.
The authority TO discontinue the contract and give for
master General and il be had exercised tat power as re-
served TO him, do not think that this could have
any claim beyond the additional months pay III he had
discontinued the contract altogether then The claimant
could have taken of his teams and coaches and put them
upon other route used them somewhere else.
Ii the Postmaster General could have discontinued Tor
one day in week under this authority then be could
have done for days IN the week and therefore
kept, this claimant subject to all thus expense order
carry out the contract as applied to the seventh day of The
week Now. is there anything Just or proper Ia this !
To my mind, clearly not Then, the services contracted
for were performed, while the pay agreed be given for
hoss services refused by the Postmaster General
The services all performed with the exception OF
three days; hut the pay which the Postmaster General
had contracted 10 give for those services withhed
and is withheld TO this day Ought not that to be paid
II seems TO me there be question at all about that
The facts plain that do not have to look into
legal opinions and abstract and metaphysical reasonngs
upon the subject The government made the contract for
so much service They got the service, and they ought
to pay for it. That strikes me perfectly clear.
Well sir, If they ought to pay the money, ought they
not 10 pay the interest This man, or rather men-for
there were three OF them who took this contract
were poor They expended all the money necessa
or ten years ago. The service performed The pay
was withheld. Within very shon time after that was
done, they called upon Congress for feef and almost
ever since that time they have been asking Congress 10
pay them for this service, performed number OF years
ago II is not their fault that they have been paid
Ii on account OF iaches their part that they have
not been paid bat in consequences Of iaehts and inaen
lion upon The part OF the government OF the United States
| The honorable senator from Delaware [Mr BAYAeDl
has referred 10 previous action OF the Senate upon
this subject prove that there doubt about it,
Now, this question has been argued here twice
upon the supposon that the authority curta the
vices included in the contract and not until the last
report upon the has the fact been made known that
such authority included in the contract at all
| Mr. BAYARD. The first report in this case comedies
that right under the contract
Mr.. RUSK II comedies 1t not 10 consequence of any,
thing that iranspired then, but upon the fact that il is
under contracts entered Ato At this time the
horty cual the service vested in the Postmaster
General and inserted in the contract in plain terms and
Is not TO be found the reasoning that the larger
contains the smaller That is the ground why all this
reasoning has heretofore been bad upon this subject and
not apprebend upon any action that took place before
pf rtlrep