Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-07-09

The P0stmasteT.Genefal's DeetstOu In
the Matter o. DaIphin Receiving
Registered Letters and Money Or
ders.
WASHINGTON, July Sine following is
the decision OF Postmaster General Gres'
ham in the Louisiana Lottery case:
~ have carefully considered Postmaster
General Keys order touching the orders
and registered letters, the character OF
which he specially describes. In view Of
the subsequent action of the department
and the conflicting views to which it has
given rise, have deemed it my duty to
name the following change:
The Postmaster General quotes the order
OF Key to the postmaster of New Orleans,
forbiddtng the payment of postal orders
sdrawn to the order Of Dauphin, and direct
sing the return Of all registered letters sent
to the same address, and continues as fol-
lows: There can be no doubt that this
order will be clearly justified by the pro.
visions of sections 8, ,929 and 4, ,0il, Revised
Statutes. It expressly recites that the evil
Sdence which authorized the Postmaster
General to act in the premises was satisfac.
tory to him.
was, therefore, conclusive upon his sub.
Qidinates and other departments OF the
Seyernment,s ,solopg as the statutes remained
Mf0fee. Fhe only guestiof'if c0nnettfon
with it which could be judiciously exam.
ined relates to the power of Congress to
confer upon him the authority under
which he acted. The doctrine is now set
tied that the courts will not interfere by
mandamus or injunction with an executive
department in the discharge OF its duties,
unless they are Of a character purely min
sterial and involve no exercise OF Giscre.
tion or judgment. A subsequent order of
Postmaster General Key is in these words:
PosToFpCE DEPARTMENT,
WAsHIHGToN, February %, 1850.
SIR: On the 18th of November, 1879, /
issued an order addressed to you forbid
ding the payment of any postal money
order to NJ. A. Dauphin and return all reg.
stered letters addressed to him TO post
masters at whose offices they were mailed.
This party having brought suit against me
10 enjoin the performance OF this order,
and having appealed the same to the SD
preme Court of the United States and
having this day presented a certificate of
the Governor and State officers OF the
State of Louisiana, that he has complied
with all the legal requirements Of the
Stdle anu olHeL eNlueuCe, anu nv oeihs
satisfied with the evidence submitted me,
that said Daurhin is engaged in conduct
ing a scheme or device for obtaining money
through means OF false preten.
sions and promises, l hereby authorize
and direct the suspension of the order of
November 18th, 1879, so far as relates to
said Dauphin until the case shall have
been heard and determined by the Supreme
Court OF the United States.
[Signedl J. NJ. kEY,
Postmaster-General.
To the Postmaster at New Orleans.
The First Order.
1t appears by the recitals that the suit
has been brought to enjoin the execution
Of the first order and that the CON plainant
had appealed the case to the Supreme
Court OF the United States. The decree,
therefore, of the court of original jurisdc.
ton, was adverse TO him and the Post
master General consented to temporary
suspension of that order until the
case should "have been hearl and deter.
mined" by theTribunal OF last resort. The
previous order was not revoked or
cancelled, If such had been the intention
of the Postmaster General it would have
been expressly declared. 1t was simply
and in effect provided that during the
pending appeal the execution OF the pre-
ceding order should be suspended. The
dismissal of the appeal, therefore, in Vaca-
ton by appellants counsel with the con-
sent of the Solicitor, put an end TO the
Suspension and restored
Binding Effect OF That Order.
It has been strenuously insisted that the
original order was not TO be enforced until
the case which the second order refers that
have been actually determined by the Su-
preme Court. | cannot aCquiescc in this
view, inasmuCn as the complainant could
at any time, by dsmissing his appeal with:
draw the case from the determination OF
the court. The second order would thus
at the option OF the complainant have the
effect of absolute revocation OF the preCed-
ing order, while no suspension OF IL was OBJ
NiGusly intended. There is no difference
between perpetual suspension and revoca'
ton.
The controlling, indeed the only
question in the case was the ConStItu-
tional power Of Congress to exact the stat
ute upon. have no doubt the Supreme
Court affirmed the cOnstitutionaiity OF the
act, which declares, NO letter or circular
concerning lotteries, so.callcd gift con-
certs, or other similar enterprises Offering
prizes, shall be carried in the mail.
In view of this decision the cOnstitu-
tiOnaiitv Gi the act appiiCate 10 the case
cannot he seriously questioned. l have
confined myself 10 matters as they appear
fir, m the records OF the Department. Som =
thing was stated by the counsel represent
ing The parties interest as to verbal agree.
ments'or understandings, but l have not
considered any other facts than such as
the yartment records establish. The
first order will therefore be executed as i.
the second had rot been entered.