Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-02-25
PosTOFFICE REGULATIONS.
Dr., Day Replies to the Statement Relativ.
to Mr.. Bronson.
To the Editor of the Globe.

to Mr. Bronson.
To the Editor of the Globe.
Upon my arrival at the postoffice this morn
ing my attention was called to an article in
your paper of this date headed, ''Duty of one
postoihce clerk, in which, among other things,
you state that 1T is due to Dr. Day and also to
the public that they should be informed that
clerk in the postoffce insists reading I'M
sealed communications, and govern themselves
accordingly" etc.
Upon reading the above article at once set
myself to work to ascertain what had given rise
to so grave n charge tampering with the pri-
vacy of tho mails at this office.
To begin, then, ut the beginning, Letter Car
rier Cronquist atates that on Saturday evening
last when he opened the street letter box at the
corner of Third and Robert streets, Mr.. Charles
IL. Manship came out from Palmes' tailor shop
and told him to give him two letters, one ad-
dressed to the Pioneer and the other to the
GLoBE both said to contain church notices;
this Cronquist told him he could not
do, as he was required to carry all letters COL
looted to the office. Manship followed BIN up
to the next box, insisting that he should deliver
the Letters and that he might read them to see
if they were not church notices as he stated.
Finding that he could not get them from the
carrier upon the street, he lost his temper, and
followed the carrier to the rear door, and into
the mailing room of the postofioe, in tower
to Mr.. Bronson the superintendent of carriers
at this office, stating that man was waiting to
get them at the back door-not being aware
that Manship had followed him in. Bronson
then, with the letters in his hand, started
toward the back door, and was confronted by
Manship, who demanded the instant surrender
of the letters, claiming he had no right to them,
and snatched one of them from his hand. The
prompt and energetic attitude assumed by Bron-
son at once convinced Mr.. Manship that he could
not take anything out of the mailing room
of the St. Paul postoffce by force, and he then
surrendered what he had snatched. Bronson
then required him to state what the unsealed
envelopes contained, and said if they had in
them what he claimed they would be given to
him. Manship claimed he had no right to
read them, and Bronson insisted that as there
was no return request on the envelope he must
see whether they were the letters claimed, and
took out the contents, and when he saw the
heading church notices." handed them to
Manship, remarking that if they had been
sealed letters he would have to give written
receipt for them. All who were present state
that Manship conducted himself in an over
acting his business, and that he sought to make
himself as offensive possible from the time
he made his first demand of the carrier on the
street until he left the Office.
Upon such information rs has came to me,
and have no doubt of its correctness. Mr..
Of his proceedings to recover the church no
tices he deposited in the letter box. I am not
prepared to say whether or not his conduct
with the letter carrier upon the street, while
he was wearing his uniform and in the dis
charge of his duty, was such as to bring him
within the penalties prescribed by act Of Con-
gress, and found on page 81, section IS, of the
postal code. Certainly if it does not, it comes
very near it. He was wrong in insisting that
the carrier should violate the law by delivering
him anything he collected from a street box
before taking it to the postotfice. He was
wrong in entering the mailing room at all.
Wrong in his demand that Bronson should not
examine what was contained in an unsealed en-
velope. This is required to be done with ev-
erything mailed at less than letter rates, to see
If the postage is properly paid. He was out
rageously wrong in his manner and conduct
while in the postofice.
One of the privileges most likely to be
abused is that of returning letters to alleged
writers before they 60 forward in the mail.
This in case of sealed letters, where their con-
tents cannot be examined, is only done at this
office for persons we'll known at the Office and
their receipt taken for them. have refused
to deliver such letters to messenger present.
ing written order, but have required the al
legged writer to come and personally identity
them before allowing them to be withdrawn
from the mail.
As to Bronsons manner of doing the BUSH
ness to which he is assigned only have to say
that this is thee complaint in regard to
him that has come to my knowledge.
l regret that the gravity of the charges con-
tanned in your article first referred to requires
me to make this explanation, and more espe-
cially so on Charley Manship's account, as it
places him in a position that he has not here
tofore occupied. I have always heretofore
known him as a pleasant, good natured gentle
man. Respectfully DAVID DAY. P. NJ.
ST.. PAUL. Feb. "a.
THE point made by the GLOBE was not
against the examination of the letter but
against the reading Of it. The GLOBE was in
formed that Mr.. Bronson insisted on reading
the letter, which is good deal different from
examining, and made it's comments on that
hasia-ED GTopr