The Washington union., 1857-08-28
pEPARrmENT NEWS.
ArronSsY-erSrnAI's oFrrcE,


Important Decisoa subjoincd Is the decision of the
Attorney General in relation TO the permission granted
by Congress to the Postmaster General to take into
possession of his department any money robbed stolen
from the maii, and pay it to the rghtful owner when
ever satisfactory proof thereof shall be made
ATTORNEY GTSEHAL's oyFIoE,
August 20, 1851.
SIR by the act Of Congress passed March /, ls47, o.
u S. Laws, l48) the Postmaster General may take into
possession of his department any money robbed or stolen
from the MAIL and pay it to the rghtfu owner whenever
satisfactory proof thereof shall be made
The mail between Mobile and Montgomery, Alabama
and its contents, stolen the 2lst OF May, 1856
IN that mail was one letter from St. John Powers Co..
containing 81, ll9, and another from agent of the
Bank OF Montgomery, containing So 9l3. These al
eged without contradiction to have been the only large
money-letters in that mail There several Others
containing nconsiderable sums Some time after the
theft, suspicion fell upon Welcome Loyelace, stage
driver the route who arrested, tried, and
viced At the time of the arrest there found upon
his person. and at different places of conceament pointed
out by him. divers packages of bank notes amounting in
all TO "a, ,694
The condition in life of the accused party was such
that he himself could not be the owner of a sum so
large He accounted for his possession of il by saying
he had found it on the road portion of it S425)
absolutely identified by the persons who had mailed it in
the smaller letters already mentioned St John and the
Bank of Montgomery were unable to prove the numbers
the dates any private peculiar marks of their notes
coesponded with theirs in their general description in
their size and the banks from which they issued
The deputy marshal who took this money from the
prisoner has 2G9 of yet in his hands, and refuses
let ST. John the Bank Of Montgomery have it, because
he alleges they do not show that is the identical
money lost by them. They invoke the exercise Of
your authority under the act of Congress to make him
disgorge IT, You do what they ask if they the
rgi ocaas of the money and If it was stolen ont Of The
mail
The evidence that this is the money of the claimants
and stolen out of the mail though it be indirect and
presumptye is 50 irresistible by the number nature and
strength of the circumstances that human mind
be perverse enough to doubt it,
That Loveace stole the contents Of certain mail in
which these claimants had about So 600 is settled fact
settled by his conviction Of the crime and by evidence
atiads which shows the conviction to have been Just
That all the other money in the mail besides that of
the claimants did not amount to much beyond $500
seems to be conceded, and it is probable, without
any concession about It, since nobody else has set
up cltim You have it ascertaned then, that a
theft committed and that the property stolen
was s, 900 belonging to these claimants, and $500
belonging to various other persons Now, what do you
expect TO find, when the thief Is arrested Not the
whole of the money for he had time to dispose of part
The amount taken from him corresponds with the amount
lost batting what he would probably part with put out
OF his reach in the interval Add to this the fact that
before his crime he poor enough to pawn his watch
and who will deny that the money found upon him WAS
the money he had stolen But this is not ALL Some of
the notes proved to be the by particular marks
ana all the othe notes correspond WIN the stolen money
in their general description From the theft alone there
is evident presumption that the thief had the
greater portion of the stolen money in his possession
at least knew where it was. The very officer who
now detains it acted on that presumption when he
compelled him to give it up. But when you COM
bine this with the still greater probability arising out
of the fact that of money found on
him which does not differ in any respect far it is
recollected from that of the claimants you have
which admits of no answer He himself made attempt
to it, except by saying that he had found the
notes the road do not say this could not be true
The thing is possible but who would believe it on the
word of detected thefY In short il this be not
the money of the claimants stolen out of the mail by
Lovelace the 2lst May, 1885, there is end of all
reasoning upon circumstanal evidence There not
chance in million that you will do wrong in acting upon
that belief.
You have right to this money as the Iegally-appont
ed trustee of the true The deputy marshal holds
it either without any pretcncc of right else he keeps
it for the of the elon who is convicted of stealing it.
Your claim is very mertorous and his is very much the
reverse
! am, very respectfully, yours, &C., ]. S. BLACK.
Hon. A. V. BRowy,
Postmaster General.