The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1872-09-21
ly "Chorpenning' and 1.-The Chorpenning

l respectfully request that you will read
these articles carefully, and then advise me
what reply You have to make to the allega-
lions therein concerning your former rela-
lions with myself, the Post Office Depart
ment, and the Chorpenning case.
Very truly, yours, JNo.A. J. CREswELL.
WASHINGTON, d. c., August 81, 1872.
Hon. j. A. j. CrespeI, Postmaster General:
My DEAR SIR.-Your letter calling my
attention to two articles in the New York
Tribune of the 10th of this month, one en-
titled "Chorpenning' and the other 1.-The
Chorpenning Case" has been received.
You wish to know what reply l have to
make to the allegations made in these arti-
Giles concerning my former relations with
you, the Post Office Department, and with
the case of George Chorpenning.
In the article entitled "Chorpenning,
after making allusion to the appointment
of General Giles A. Smith as Second AS
sistant Postmaster General, | find the fol-
lowing language:
"This significant appointment was speed
lily followed by that of Mr.. George Earle as
First Assistant Postmaster General, Mr.
Earle being the lar partner Of Mr. CresareN,
and also the attorney Of tile Chopenning
ring"
also find this further language in the
same article:
''Mr. George Earle having remained in
office until he had become familiar with
the routine eff its business, resigned the
First Assistant Postmaster Generalship,
and presented the Chorpenning budget"
A brief recital Of facts will completely
falsify these allegations. certainly was
not your law partner in April, 1860, when
appointed First Assistant Postmaster Cen
eral. Our partnership commenced on the
1st day of January, 1854, and ended March,
1868, when | was appointd clerk of the
Court of Appeals Of Maryland and left
Elkton for Annapolis to attend to my of
fetal duties. From that time to the pres
cnt, no partnership relations have existed
between us, except for closing our old bust
ness. Thus, it appears, that six years e.
lapsed between the dissolution of our law
partnership and the time of my taking po-
sition in the Post Office Department.
entered that Department about the list
of April, 1869, and resigned on the LIST day
of the following December. Up to- the
date of my resignation | had never seen
George Chorpenning; had never examined
paper connectd with his case; had no
knowledge Of his claim, and had never
been approached, directly or indirectly, by
any person whomsoever i'll his behalf
On leaving the Department l had no pur-
pose of representing his claim or any other
before you as Postmaster General. had
never been employed in any case before
your Department or any other Department
of the Government.
In May, 1870. almost six months after
my resignation as First Assistant Postmas-
ter General had been accepted, Major Choir
penning. in company with another gentle
man, called at my office and retained me
as his counsel.
Thus, in May, 1870, commenced my con-
nection with the claim of George Chorpen-
ming. which has been styled ''Me great
Chorpenning ,frdud.' | examined his case
with great care, and satisfied myself that
he had just claim against the Govern
ment. Having arrived at that conclusion,
the next pout to be considered related to
his remedy.
You had already rejected an application
to reopen that branch of his claim which
arose under the act of 1857, on the ground
that it had been adjudged, and / well
knew that it was useless to appeal to you
for a rehearing.
But the other branch of his claim had
and agreed with Chorpennng to bring it
to your notice. AS soon as the case was
stated. you decided promptly that you
would not undertake to adjust the damages
growing out of the annulment of an old
contract without express sanction of law,
and thus my client was without redress,
unless he could obtain the necessary legis-
lation from Congress.
At this crisis Of the case learned that he
had already memoralized Congress for re-
lief. On the 10th day of February, 1870,
Qong before | had anything to do with his
case,) he had filed in the House of Repre-
sentatives printed petition. wherein his
entire claim was clearly and succinctly
stated. This petition, on the day of its
presentation to the House. had been referr-
ed to the committee on Post Offices and
Post Raods, and by that committee Tor in
vestigation.
At the request of my client, prepar-
ed for the committee report setting forth
the facts in his case, and also drafted the
joint resolution which was aftprwa; DIS pas
sed by the House and amended in the Sem
ate. These papers were handed to the
chairman of the sub committee several
weeks before the final adjournment of Con-
gress, and the fact that the joint resolu-
ton was not introduced in the House at
an earlier stage of the session is attributed
to the rules and orders of business and not
to any design on part of the friends of the
measure to bring it forward and hasten its
passage at the close of a prolonged session.
Congress was in session full five months
after Chorpenning lad presented his petit
ton in the House of Representatives, and
ample opportunity was allowed for thorough
These circumstances are
alluded to for no other purpose than to re-
pei imputation of undue haste in procuring
this legislation. So far as my knowledge
extends, no improper influences were re-
sorted to for the purpose of securing the
favorable action Of Congress.
Soon after the passage of the law, | ap-
piled to you for hearing on that branch
of the case which related to the act of 1857,
and was then ready for argument. The
other branch of the case, owing to the alb
sence of u witness whose testimony was
deemed important, was not in condition
for the final hearing, and hence the desire
for its posponement.
But you refused to hear one branch of
the case until the whole was ready for ar
gument, and thus ChorpenniDg was sub
iected to delay, and his attorneys were
held to the strictest rules of the practice.
The evidence, on which we relied was
arranged and presented to you,
with the arguments of counsel, in printed
No part Of the evidence bearing on the
case has at any time been suppressed. All
allegations to the contrary have been made
in error. The famous letters of ChoIpan
ming, one to the special agent in Callfor
mia. and the OTHER to the Postmaster Cen
eral. asking for permission to carry the
mails at certain seasons of the year by the
Southern route, will be found in printed
pamphlet of evidence on the seventh and
fourteenth pages respectively. These let
tiers have always been relied upon by Choir
penning as evidence in his favor.
He presented them to the Committee on
Post Office and Post Roads, when his ap-
plication for relief was pending in the Thir-
ty-tourh Congress, and they are comment
ed on in the report of that committee made
to the House in 1856. These very letters
are alluded to in the act of 1857, under the
expression ''aGidarHs and proofs on file in
the House of Representatives. they are
mentioned in my printed argument, and
were placed before you at the trial under
form for examination. 1t is to
be hoped that nothing further will be said
II