Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1858-08-16


finally ended.' Our doubt, which is indeed
only slight, hangs on the use Of thes e words.
American vessels - Construed strb ;tly, that
gardsthe United States, and retained as against
the rest Of the world But surely Lord Derby,
Lord Maimesbury and Mr.. Disraeli ca mot have
taken 80 one.sided and indefensibie step as
this. IL the claim be rightfui one, i. ought not
to he surrendered at all; II otherwise, II mus be
surrendered with respect TO all nation :, and not
those only who win not submit and w Dom we do
tuple treaty of Is4f for the suppress: ion OF the
slave trade, did, by that Instrument, virtually
concede a right Of visit and search, but that Is a
very different thing from. ass ertng such a right
over vessels Of nation which has not conceded
IL. And by ending our arroga NJ claim As az ainst
America, Ii that Is what has been done, we GER
tainly abandon the principle, md can never again
assume the insulting, high-l handed position OF
making the British navy the police Of the ocean
Considering the right as ally abandoned, and
looking back at the history .f the question, one
cannot but feel establishment At the obstinate per-
sistence Of the various Governments of this coun-
try in so offensive and unteni ble a claim. Over
and over again it bad been condemned and repu-
dated by the most eminent jurists. More than
forty years ago, Judge-one Of the most pro-
found and the most luminous, perhaps, who ever
adorned an English Judgment seat Lord Stow
ell-in decision given by him In the Court Of
question. 90 No nation, ~ said thar great lawyer,
" can exercise the right Of visitation and scare b
upon commerce and unappropriated parts Of the
ocean, except upon the belliserent claim The
time of peace. Ii it belongs to one nation II be.
longs to all, and would lead to gigantic mischief
and universal war"
This Is emphatic and clear. Nor do we under
stand how, when the question was fairly raised
by the operations OF our squadron in the guilt, and
when the Government of Washington was deter
mined that ii should not be evaded, the Derby
Ministry could do otherwise, with the opinion
recently given by its Alto rney General, Sir Fitz-
roy Kelly, In the Cagliari case, Affirming the
idersicA doctrine laid down by Lord Stowell,
than to frankly and finally end the claim and
surrender IT. rot specially as regards America,
but universally and on principle. Ifthey have
done so, all but cont dent that they have
the act Is one which claims tG have a solemn de-
c'aration and formal recognition; and as the Pie
nipotentiaries are assembled now at Paris. what
more appropriate and htting opportunity could
be found of placing this act upon official inter
national record, and, we may make bold To add ,
Of experimenting the declaration of April, 1856
by clause absolutely exemPting all private
property, whether of neutral or Of enemy, from
capture during war ?--Lo ndon Star.
DECISION In THE CASE OF THE NEW Or
LEANS, VERA CRUZ, ACAPULCO AND SAN FRAN
CISCO MAIL CONrRACr.-Governor Medill, First
Comptroller Of the Treasury, has rendered a
decision in the celebrated case of Carmiek and
Ramsey. The chief points in the case are as
follows during the latter part of President
Fillmore's Administration mail was carried
weekly between New Orleans and Vera Cruz
by the Mexican Ocean and Inland Mail Trans
portation Company. A project was started of
making road across Mexico, and continuing
the line from Vera Cruz, via Acapulco, to San
Francisco The aid of the Post Office Depart
ment was invoked; but there being no appro-
priation, and as the expense of the Pacific
mails was already severe, it was not granted.
On the Sd of March, 1858, however, the last
day Of the Administration, Postmaster General
Hubbard entered into contract with Carmick
and Ramsey for the transportation of a semi
monthly mail between Vera Cruz and San
Francisco, upon the above named route, for
four years, at four hundred and twenty four
thousand dollars per year Not knowing
whether it would meet the appreciation of his
successor, or of Congress- and wishing to en-
barrass neither the one nor the other, it was
stipulated that the contract was not to COM
mence until it should be approved by Congress,
and the necessary appropriation made, and
that until such approval it was to have no
validity. Carmick and Ramsey turned the
contract over to the Mexican Ocean and In
land Mail transportation Company, who were
anxious to extend their line as contemplated,
and who Immediately prepared and stocked
the road between Vera Cruz and Acapulco
without waiting for the action Of Congress.
When Congress next convened, Mr.. Camp
bell, who had succeeded to the position of Post
master General, disapproved of the contract
on the grounds of the probable impracticability
Of the route and the large amount it would
draw from the treasury, to the prejudice of
other sections of the country more in need of
such facilities. Congress neither approved the
contract nor made any appropriation to carry
ont its provisions, and the project of running "a
line between Vera Cruz and Acapulco was
abandoned. Carmick and Ramsey then me-
morlalized Congress for damages, on the grou nd
that they were injured by the alleged inter-
ference Of the Postmaster General, whose course
in connection with the matter they considered
an abrogation of the contract
On the 10th of August, 1856, Congress refer
red the subject to the First Comptroller of the
Treasury to adjust the damages due to Carmick
and Ramsey on account Of this alleged injury.
The contractors presented their claim. setting
forth that they expected to clear S3I 900 per
month on the contemplated route from the
Of passengers and freight alone,
over and above the expenses of maintaining it,
and to carry it on without any reference to the
contract price for the mail, and laid their dam
ges at something over 81, 500, COO
The case has been argued by able counsel.
and the Comptroller, after careful examination
Of the subject, decides that the contract was
merely conditional, and as the contingency upon
which it was to 60 into effect never occurred, it
was not subject to abrogation that he finds
nothing in the contract of the late Postmaster
General inconsistent with proper discharge of
official duties, or which so violates the provisions
Of said contract as to render the Government
liable to damages; that the contract stands as
it always stood, subject to the approval of Con-
gress, and therefore there are NO damages due
to the contractors for its abrogation. 1t is un-
derstood that this decision was concurred in by
Attorney General Black.