The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1855-11-22

w. H. DUNDAS,
I'd Assistant Postmaster General
E. FoNTAiNE, Pres't Central Railroad Compliant
1t will appear from the above that the Department
ha5 saved upwards of six thousand dollars per annum
by the existing contract We didn't it-but in the
first place this does not relieve the Department ofthe
shame OF having offered upwards of six thousand dol
lars more than 1t had been paying for the same
rce-end, IN the second place, utterly deny that
the different onehorse mails, which have been sub
sttuted, have at all equalled the former mail fsciI
ties IN any respect met the wishes and expecta-
lions OF the people. As long the fact stands appa-
rent that the Department expressed a Ioiingness to
pay $4,000 More than it had been paying before, we
submit that II s the coolest sort of elfrontery claim
credit for soting of $4,000, under Arrangement
which entirely fails to satisfy the people who
supposed to be accommodated by it.
This further fact is developed. The Postmaster
General is now paying only So 1874 90 for service for
which he offered II pay $l9,5t0! If his object was
economy, why did he offer to pay thirteen thousand
dollars for the mail than he could get it done
for : Does not this prove that consdera
ton OF saving of money actuated him-but that,
from first to last his only object has been take away
the through mail from the Fredericksburg Company
regardless Of cost and entirely indifferent to the
commodation of the people!
however great show he may make of saving
OF the public money, did IN the st instance set
out with the idea of economy-but, the contrary,
voluntarily offered to pay thirteen thousand dollars
more than he is now paying.
But no one will assert that economy alone should
be consulted in the making of mail contracts Speed
and reliability ought both to be considered. mer-
chant may send letter to New Orleans which will
cost him only three cents postage-but he frequently
prefers to pay one dollar for teegraphic message
Why Because time is FREQUENT more important than
money. Under the present gocart system, instituted
by Mr. Campbell, more time is required TO write to
the Northern Neck OF Virginia and receive
than Is required for the passage of letter from New
York to Liverpool. If economy alone is be the rule
let Mr. Campbell carry out the principle to its fullest
extent, and discontinue all the mails. He will then
save all the money
We come now TO the second official publication,
making comparison of the mail failures the two
routes 1t is in the shape ofa letter from Mr.. John
Oakford chief clerk of the Inspection office, TO Mr..
N b. HILL of the Directors of the Central Rail-
road Company:
Posi- OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
Inspection Office, Oct q, 1855.
Slr:-In aswer to the enquiries contained in your
letter of the 18th inst have to state, that from the
records othis office it appears that during the year
which ended the 30th of June 1855, the Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company made
one hundred and seven failures at Washington and
Richmond, sixty-fve of which failures at Washing
ton and Richmond occurred during the quarter year
which ended the 3lst of March.
Upon the new route by the Orange, Alexandria and
Central Railroad Company which service commenced
the LIST of July 1885, appears that during the
year, which ended the 30th of September, 1855 ten
failures made four of which occurred at Wash
lngton and six at Richmond.
Signed, Respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
JOHN OAKFORD Chief Clerk
N. b. HILL, Richmond, Va.
at glance. Mr.. Oakford makes comparison between
three winter months of the year. the Fredercks
burg Company--and three summer months as to the
Central Company. Every body knows that this is not
lar comparison. The winter months are known TO
be the worst in the year for mail service-and the
sumner months are known to be the best. Why did
no. Mr. Oakford give the failures the Fredericks-
burg road for three months last year. ending the S0th
of Septemhere 1t would then have been fair com
parson. Why not have told how it at the same
season Of The year that he reports the failures
of the Central Company! The records are all
in his office, and could easily have been copied.
This alone, 1t seems TO shows the evident PARTIAL
ty of the Department. and its determination to
one-sided statements for the purpose of justiying its
extraordinary conduct.
Mr.. Oakford says there 07 failures on the FIRE.
dercksburg road for the ending S0th june 1855.
BY this he that there were l07 failures to deli
yer the mail in Richmond and Washington, according
to the schedule time. Now, when the reader is told
that the Fredericksburg company instructed by
the Department 10 watt at both ends OF the line, for
the connections he will then be enabled TO form some
idea of the Justice Cd of charging l07 failures it,.
II the Fredericksburg line had TO wait in Washington
and Richmond, was frequently the case in order to
get the mails from the Baltimore road and the Peters
burg road respectively, and il that detention in
pursuance of the special Instructions of the Pest Office
Department, with what propriety can It be charged
with failures! Is it to be blamed for obeying the ex
press orders of the Department itself! Must its yr-
tues be visited upon IL as sins!
Moreover the records OF the Post Office Depart
ment show that there has never been solitary fine
imposed upon the Fredericksburg company for mail
failures through the whole series of years in which IL
has been carrying the mail Now, before Mr. Camp,
bell reasonably complain of the service performed
by the Fredericksburg Company, we submit that he
ought to show that he did his duty II the service
performed so badly, why did not Mr.. Campbell
inlictehe penalty of the fine, 10 not this pregnant
fact sufficient of itself TO convict the Department of
Implicitly, when it complains of bad mail service on
the part of the Fredericksburg company?
IL the company was derelict, then was Mr.. Camp
bell also derelict in not imposing the penalty II 1t
not derelict then admission TO this effect
knocks the argument for change, based on the nef-
ciency of the Fredericksburg company into minutes
sinai pieces.
But there only ten failures on the new line for
mond. Here ID is evident that Mr.. Oskford does not
include the failures arising from conneetionfai
burg company, but not TO be charged to the new
line. II may be that the new line Il NOT instructed 70