The daily union., 1852-07-04


sound construction by Congress- and for that the
Postmaster General altered Inc terms ol his contracts, and
retained IN subsequent contracts an express power 70 eon'
uo the amount OF service if he chose,
Now, sir upon what principle OF justice or equity can
de ps people W were e'ssso ma had been
carried for years that road and the report lufiher
shows that the contractors transported the mai over ms
route for SIX months alter The contract had expired, nj he
request OF The Postmaster General, and seventh part
of that retained After the contract had expired
Congress passed law authorizing the Postmaster Gensr
al 10 extend the contract until the hrst day OF July. Ai
though the contract expired IN January, they carried the
mail until the first oil july al the request OF the Posnas
Ter General, he having authority BY law TO extend the
contract and seventh OF the pay for that service
retained Now, sir, if the money was dne and il It
was the money OF the contractor why should be not re-
ceive IL But the government having wfongtnly with
beld it, upon what principle can il be claimed that they
should not pay the interest There is none Il itismoney
which the government contracted 70 pay bn dd mol pays
and now what the contractor asks for is the sum which
has been thus wrongfuy withheld from him, and the
interes, upon IT, That is all he asks Ills just what
every other man has received who has has received the
whole amount of his contract for the whole service per-
formed and received pay Tor every day-seven days IN
the week
The case, say should be determined upon principles
OF justice and equity II is true that the Post Office De-
parlment embarrassed the time this service was
stricken of, bnt they knew that the mail was regularly
transported They knew that the condition oi the coua-
try and The business OF the country demanded IT, They
knew that the mail was transported Tor was delivered
the contractor every day in the week Tor hun to trans
hngnot even to the original one-sevenh ot the amount
which the government contracted TO pay. trasi The
Senate who have settled the question once OF twice be-
FORE will refuse 10 strike out the inters have
heard voice raised against the justice OF this original
claim until day; but rather than pay The interest
which Justly due il thought proper to resist the whole
claim Bu Twill leave il to the Senate 10 decide with
ont further debate on my part as 10 the justice OF se
claim.
reply 10 the honorable senator from Vermont [hlr Up
HAM do not intend TO enter into this discussion nr-
iher than simply 10 say regards the justice OF the org
nal claim being contested Tor the first time, that II
seems to me somewhat extraordinary that such alega
lion should be made, when at previous session the
Senate of the United States indefinitely postponed bi
providing for the payment OF the claim, and when, In
violation OF the express rules OF the Senate the papers
sent back, without additional testimony having been
obalned the committee, who afterwards reported ia
vorabIy upon it, The claim considered sufficiently
indefinite the time il first presented 10 induce The
committee 10 make unavoabe report upon i, and It
indefinitely postponed by the Senate; and yet am
old that The claim is questioned for the first time
although, without any additional testimony whatever,
and in violation OF the rules OF the Senate was sent
back to the committee, who reported favorahly upon IT.
and for the first timeat least in any report that can
ind-,his question Of power is brought mp.
Now, Mr. President, as regards myself, should not
base debated this cai attempted to discuss il il The
IN est had not been renstaed by vote OF The Senate
On the ground OF compassion Tor the individual who
actually performed the servce--though contrary TO law
in INV iudgmen-l should have been disposed TO OPP
ose il, being the will OF the Senate that 1t should pass
But when am told upon this floor, that although that
ing TO usage-according to usage which was con,inued
subsequently, that time, as an informed by the depar
ment-usage which was legal, according to the opinion
OF The law otcer of the government, whose reasons
read youunder these circumstances. the party makes
the claim because such power was exercised, and that
il was an outrage upon his rights. and therefore IS
case where we should allow interest then. say, there
is no of claim against the government 40 which
you not bound 10 pay interest am Tar more op-
posed the payment OF interest IN tins case than am
10 the allowance OF the principals but the interest being
inc luded feel compelled to oppose the bill IN toto be-
cause believe that the bill is wrong in principle be-
leve the Postmaster General had night TO exercise
the power he used
was also further informed OF the fact that there
large class OF dependent upon your action on ibis
claim which are yet before you for allowances
made hy contracts where tbey had submitted TO the
ton OF the Postmaster General to the amount of duty
to he performed But yet on ine ground o. want q
you establish this principle, you wi be Obliged TO allow
Il in one case well as another.
| deem il nv duty 10 oppose this bill deem il so,
although il i an unpleasant and hankess task to oppose
private claim know il is an unpleasant duty to per-
form-unpieasan 10 my feelings; bu DO not come here
TO decide questions upon arguments founded upon the
dictates OF my feelings hold myself bound 10 look at
the testimony in with deberanon, asd 10 en-
desvor far my judgment viii permit 10 decide case
according 10 certain recognised principles OF law ana
equity which suppose oug ght 10 apply n all cases, 10
all questions, and under a circumstances ! Know oil
no principles OF equity which induce me 10 think maj
this claim ought 10 be granted.
Mr. HALE | only wish to occupy the time OF The
Senate for moment; but as happen TO know this con-
tractor teei some interest IN lns ursHc W
justice done him II seems to me that the Senate mey
dvest themselves oil all these nice questions which have
been argued ably and learnedly by the honorable
senator from North Carolina [Nr BApoER1 and the hon
orable senator from Delaware Mr. BArARDl ito the
legal right OF this party who performed the service, and
the legal right OF the Postmaster General TO discontinue
the service because the service actually rendered
and IL the government o the United States were in st
uaion 10 be sued and the old action OF common law OF
quanfum merti was brought. IN which the pianuh al
leges that he only demands much he reasonably de-
serves to have for the service, he would be entitled TO
recovery and the Jury would be obliged 10 give him the
81 O0s, The sum in proportion TO The meihas one
| seventh
know that the old rule that the chief justice used TO
lay down to The juries when practsed law was this
that where there money due, which the party has legal
right recover, he has also right TO the interest upon
that su from the lime he FIRST makes his demand up to
/ The time OF the rendering OF the verdict
This plain, homes, principle and Il should be ap-
Piled as IL me, 10 the case before The SER
has been rendered. and the government ha. received
| the value OF the money which IS retained We have
got our moneys worth. The worked for IL, but we
| did not pay H.
will Just illustrate this case in The way in which
| had one illustrated 10 | defending man
before very respectable and sensible old magistrate for
not performing military duty by which he became subject
10 fine. raised ten dozen nice points IN the
caseas nice those raised by the senator from Della
ware MIR BAYkRD heresnd argued them At great length.
Well, SIR, when had got through the justice looked
me IN the face and said Squire, pears TO me the man
daughter That the end Of IT, and felt il so
plain and jnst that could not say another word Now,
LET apply here and think in this case the Judge
i would sat. 'peare o man carried The