The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-04-25

! am, sir, yours, &c,
The Carmicl< and Ramsey Claim.
OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BLACK.
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, April 7, 1851.
Hon. A. v Brown, Postmaster General
SR-Your letter relative TO the claim of Edward H. Car.
mick and Albert C. Ramsey for damages under the
Congress passed August 49, 1885, and asking my opinion
certain questions therein propounded has been duly
ceived, and have considered the case
The claimants counsel have handed in a written argu-
mcnt, in which am urged not TO your questions
the ground that your department has with
the matter. If this true in point of fact might law
fully send back your communication without a reply
But what right have To believe h2 sure you have
business enough your hands give you abundant
ployment without volunteering to take charge of claim
whose adjustment lies outside OF your sphere. am bound
to presume (and do presume) that il does concern
the business OF your department 10 know what
the law is on the points you have presented would
have referred in this letter TO the argument have
toned, except for the that gives opportu
nifty Of stating the rule by which shall always be gov
erned namely, never TO decline answering question put
by the head of department. at the instance of private
party who desires 10 be silent Besides, il is obvious
TO me that your department concerned with the business
TO which your nterrogaories refer. The claim mentioned
IN letter arises out of contract for carrying the
mails If IT be unjust the rights of the government must
be protected by somebody 1t be pretended that
the Comptroller is to decide upon erar hcaang And
who should produce the evidence and make the defence
the Comptroller you notice Of his intention proceed
with the investigation What defence you shall make
whether shall make any, depends upon the
ton Of the law you inquire about
II seems that Messrs. Cormack Ramsey, the
Postmaster General for carrying the mail from Vera
Cruz to San Francisco, by way Of Acapulco, at
the sum OF $4,000 per annum for four years
commencing from the time that Congress shall ray this
contract The contract further stipulaes that
have force validity until II shall have received the
sanction Congress by passage an appropriation to
present time, made any such appropriation. II does
appear that the contractors carried the mails under this
contract incurred expense in preparing to do
But i not material whether they did OF did not they
distinctly warned that the government would be
liable until the sanction OF Congress should be gvcn and
they themselves admitted that they understood their
rights and obligations Your immediate predecessor Mr..
Campbell, did not approve U the contract He stated
IN his report and in his correspondence with the contract
but he declared that he had any intention
TO carry out Congress would raty by an appropria
ton.
Your first question is whether the valid
and binding answer this in the Affirmative. The law
authorizes the Postmaster General 90 make contracts
for carrying the mails from point Of the United
States TO another, through foreign country The pre-
requisites Of advertising, &c, seem 10 have been
observed and see no reason for declaring this contract
void But IT Is binding in all is parts The contractors
must take with all IT, nperfecnons on It's head and sub
jcc all the provisions expressed In H. One Of It's
Is that until Congress should approve the contractors
could not be called for any service the government
be required TO make any payment under IT, This part Of
the is binding any other and neither party
has right 20 disregard IL. II certainly does bind the
Post Office DeIartmt regard Carmck and Ramsey
having right carry the mails from Vera Cruz
Francisco by the Acapulco route and be PAID for doing
by the United States. My for saying this IS
because the contract Is vod but for the directly opposite
rcason--because IL Is valid, and because IL Is expressly
agreed that such effect shall be given it, except upon
the occurrence OF an event which never happened
. Was the contract sbrogaed by the Postmaster Gene
raH Certainly not. There Is act Of that officer
which can possibly be so construed He did not bind
himself and his SUCCESSORS TO recommend the rati-
fcaOn Of the contract by Congress. II was his
duty to express his honest conviction In his report,
and II would have been gross msbohavor 10 conceal H.
Nor there anything inconsistent with the agreement,
in warning the parties that they must proceed their
own responsibility, nor In the instructions " the pomas
AT New Orleans and san Francisco ~ let them have
mails without further order from the department. All
this but carrying out the contract and acting upon it,
according To the supu,ons which both parties had put
into II with their free will The government was
incur responsibility and to be holden for expenses.
The contractors were 20 exercise mo rights as such aud 10
claim payment until Congress would make appro-
paton The Postmaster General claimed nothing for the
government beyond what he barganed for. He warned
the contractors against making effort To bind upon the
back OF the government burhen which expressy
agreed that hand except that Of Congress should pre-
fsen there He stood upon the very o the
contract and only asked q the other parties that they
would observe them with equal good faith He did no.
change the schedule OF other routes in connection
order the po-tinastrs 30 let Carmick Ramsey
have tbe mails. II not his duty 60 do 90;
for those persons had contract which compelled
them carry n mail It would have been wrong TO bet
clear In the opinion that the contract in question
abrogated, annued, rescinded violated by the Post
But on the 18th cf August 1856, Congress passed a
law requiring the Comptroller Of the Treasury adjust the
ton Of this contract and award them according
law, equity and justice, what he should End 10 be due.
Does this compel you and the Comptroller 10 ignore the
truth and shut your eyes upon the fact that the
abrogated at aS Undoubtedly Congress may
order the money in the Treasury be paid a person
who has claim upon the government, well just
creditor II Congress had cho-cn to say that Carmck
Ramsey should have half million Of dollars n gracious
gf the executive could not refuse 10 ray IT, matter how
he tlIaft Tho Ivt.a
wrong recital In such law, that the "
be paid intended compensation for damages
which never accrued, would not take away the
right Of tho party receive what given The Icris.
ative viii expressed In the Constitutional form Is enough,
without more, TO avouch legislative act But here IS a
law which does not give W the claimants any specified
sum Of money The amount which they may lawfully
demand 10 be ascerained by the Comptroller To cnabe
him 10 do this a standard rule s furnished him. and
upon that he must base bis calculation. lie shall allow
them the damages due TO them on account Of the
abrogaton Of their contract He violates his duty he
allows them what Is not due on that particular account In
other words, he do than make them bist
compensation for the injury which they have suffered In
the Postmaster General Now, II the contract
abrogaed t abrogauon ccoas,oDcd any damage,
aud Of course follows tina, they have claim under this
law This view OF the subject Is made st palmer by
reference 10 another clause, which declares that
The oomrtroDer shall award and adjudge 10 the
claimants the amount found due according to law equity
give The claimants what they might recover " the
lnied stats were susble in court where justice is
administered according 70 the rules o law and equity In
court they would have no case, for judicial tribunal
would give parry damages for wrong that was never
The duty Of The Comptroller is very plain He canno
know what damages due account Of the abroaou
Of the contract without inqurng when, how and In what
manner and 10 what extent IL was abrogated N this in
curry shall lead him 70 the conooeion that the contract
Deyer was ao,oga'sd at all be win hay. reached the
compensation for loss they may have suffered IN any
| J. s BLACK