National Republican., 1883-07-25
THE LOTTERY AND MAILS.

mr.. NJ. A. Dauphin Enters suit Against
Postmaster General Gresham, Claiming
Damages Co the Amount OF One Hun
drod Thousand Dollars.
Macmillan A. Dauphn yesterday entered
suit through his attorneys, G. w. Moulton
and jeff Chandler, against Walter Q.
Gresham, postmaster general, for 100000
damages. The bill sets forth that tho
plaintiff is a citizen of New Orleans, La., and
that the defendant is the postmaster general
of the United States; that the plaintiff is
engaged in u lawful and legitimate business,
and that he has never been or is not now
transacting Illegal business. He states that
the postonlce of New Orleans was established
for the purpose of distributing the mail to
citizens, and that he, as one, is entitled to
receive such mail addressed to him. The
plaintiff then AYERS that on the thirteenth
day of November, 1879 the then postmaster
general directed his subordinates, among
them being VIM. Mcmillan, the postmaster of
New Orleans, not to pay any postal
money orders in his favor and directed the
postmaster to return all registered letters
which shall come to his office directed to the
plaintiff, TO the postmaster at the Office at
which they wer originally mailed, with the
word "fraudu lent" written or stamped on
such letters. This order the plaintiff sets
forth was made without there being any evil
dence against the plaintiff that he was en-
gagged in any scheme for obtaining money by
means of false or fraudulent pretenses. repre-
sentations or promises that the postmaster
general who made the order exceeded his au-
thority. Ahearing was granted to the plaint-
iii between the time the order was made and
Feb %, $780, before the said Postmaster Gen
eral ID. M. Key, and no evidence was brought
to show that there was any illegal trans.
aatf f1. - L.. .I,s.. a
An order was made by the postmaster
general resembling the order of
November 80, as the plaintiff had complied
with all of the legal requirements of the state
where his business was conducted. Since the
order Of Feb q, $780, the plaintiff has been
paid all registered letters up to July 0, 1883.
When Il. o. Howe was postmaster general he
was asked by the house of representatives
for information about the orders of ID. M.
Key, and in reply sent the orders and
stated that the appeal of NJ. A. Dauphin
from the first order of ID. M. Key had been
dismissed. Mr.. Howe also cited the laws
bearing on the case and stated that the
second order of ID. NJ. Key showed that the
postmaster general had no longer power to
keep such an order in force. Mr.. Howe also
stated that under the existing state of affairs
he had taken no steps in the matter, there
being no proof that the said NJ. A. Dauphin
was engaged in unlawful business
UuueT Une decision OF postmaster General
Howe the plaintiff AYERS that he is entitled to
receive his mail, and by the decision he
was entitled and did receive his mail until
the ninth of July, 1883.
Plaintiff says that on tn Q ninth of July,
1888, the defendant, Walter O. Gresham, post
master general, without reasonable or probable
cause therefor, and without hearing any evil
dence whatever concerning the matter, made
an order restoring the said order of ID. M. Key
to full force and effect prohibiting the plain
tiff from receiving mis- registered mail. In
making the order the plaintiff declares the
defendant did SO without legal authority, and
that said order injured the business of plain
tiff. The plaintiff offered to the defendant
such evidence competent, pertinent, and sufi-
cient to show that the business transacted by
him, and which was damaged and in
jured by said order, was lawful, and not such
rs was condemned by any law or rule gov
erning the action Of the Postofice depart
| ment.
Plaintiff further AYERS that the defendant
did not make the order, because he was salts
| fled from the evidence submitted that the
plaintiff was not engaged in any illegal or
| fraudulent business, but said order was will
fully, maliciously, and oppressively made as
aforesaid. Plaintiff holds that the first order
of Mr.. Key is null and void, and was null and
void at the time the defendant made the
order, and that the plaintiff was grossly il ,
| jured and his business damaged.