Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1861-03-01
z.iabil t / of POstmasters.

It is very seri Gus question how far a post
master is to be held responsible, in cases @
peeuniary loss, resulting from failure TO d.
his whole duty in respect TO the custody O
lett !rs passing through his hands. When !
is clearly shown that such loss has been the re
suit Of his own gross carelessness, OF that O.
his sgbordinates, or the general bad manage
ment of his Office, it would seem no more thar
just that such iiabihty should follow.
! At least, such has been the opinions oi
courts and juries in some cases where this
! question of responsibility has been brought be-
fore them. The case Of Christy VS.. Smith
Postmaster at Waterbury, Vermont, which
/ may be found in "Vermont Reports" volume
F8, page 663, should e-rve as a warning to
! postnmsters who are prone to ineficiency and
loose management in the discharge of theil
dutiess
A letter containing a considerable amount
of money was mailed at Salisbury, VI. to a
party in Waterbury, in the same State. Ii
was iust Suit was brought against the post
master for the recovery of the amount with
costs. 1t was satisfactorily shown that the
letter reached the Waterbury Office, but was
not delivered. 1t was further proved that the
office was badly managed that letters could
/ be eesily distracted from the boxes by reach
ing through the delivery window, and that
persons in no way connected with the office
were allowed free access at all times benin Il
, the boxes and his assistants admitted hat
they had hcyer taken the required oath of of
Gee,
Fhis case resulted in q verdict for the plain
tiff, though no one attributed to the defendant
any greater delinquency or dishonesty than II
neglect o! that degree of watchulness a d care
implied by the acceptance Of his import ant
trust.
IIniwsy in the discharge of official duty is
not cpn;inc'i to abstaining from, or iepre'latng
upon the mails, or otherwise violating the
sancti'y of letter seals for purposes Of mere
curiosity.
1t Is not honest to allow others D1t connect
cd with postoIfce an opportunity t0 be dis
honest. by failing to provide all p ssi6le checks
and precautions against such contingencies
1t Is not honest to employ in such response
bic positions persons who, through ignorance.
bad habits, stupidity. or Indifference. are as
likely to go wrong as right in trAnsacting post
Office business
1t is not honest to acccP: Of higi. trust
from the Government, and vet consider and
treat the position in tbs light of eitiecarc,
whiting the Office often enough, perhaps, to
sign the quarterly account, and pocket the
largt OF small commissions, as the case may
be.
Ii is not honest to make the Ijostofice a
political csucus-room. where tobacco-smoke,
loud talk, and disorder, usurp the place Of neat
neSs and good orlcr, and where the tinlid ap
piiciTts for letters are turned off with a mega
tive growl from the lazy official in the dim dis
tance, who finds it easier to pronounce the
hac1n yel words nothing" than TO take down
his extensive legs from their eleya.el position,
a.Inl us;tltr faithful search for the letter.
1t. is far from honest 10 allow curious and
prying persons to inspect the letters Of others
for ary purpose, or under any pretext, or to
afford any information whatever, concerHing
.ucfT correspondence. -I In short, tn. public
have il right to expect and to demand the ut-
most clre, privacy, and vigilance, i'll the man
agcment of their postal affairs.