The Portland daily press., 1883-07-26
To The Public.

der of Postmaster General, d. NJ. Kew.
charging me With "being engaged in fraudu-
lent schemes and devices.' etc. Conscious
that such charges had no foundation, made
application for the evidence upon which he
acted, and demanded an investigation. |
also brought suit against him, alleging the
false and injurious nature of the statements
made. challenged his authority to make
the order that Registered Letter should not
be delivered to me, and that Money Orders
RENTED should not be paid. wished to
test the validity of this order. and | was adj
vised that he was liable for damages if his
statements were false, which / was prepared
to prove. Whilst this suit was pending, an
investigation was made by Postmaster Gen
eral Key. which resulted in his issuing a
new order in place of the first, in which he
stated in substance, that the evidence upon
which the first order was issued was inaccu-
rate and incorrect, mot being satisfied that
was engaged in any fraudulent schemes"
Upon the PRONUNCIATION of this new order
tFeb. lSS0l, interference with my Registered
mail and Money Orders ceased.
A new administration came in, and with
il a new Postmaster-General, who, in the
routine came 10 my case, which he referred
to Att'y-Gen'l MacVeagh, who examined
the Statutes and the powers of the Postmas-
ter-General Hereunder, and decided in SUBJ
stance that Notwithstanding my suit and
he second order of Postmaster-G General Key,
the power was always in the hands of the
Postmaster-General, and that whenever
there was evidence of fraud he could issue
his order denying to me the use of the Reg
istry department Thereupon. the Postmas-
ter-General made thorough investigation
Of my business, and decided that there was
no fraud therein. and that interference with
my affairs was not authorized
Upon these conclusions the question came
up, naturally, with regard to the dismissal
OF the pending suit against Postmaster Gen
eral Key, which had been appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States; he as
sured my representative that there would be
no further interference with my business
unless fraud was discovered; in consequence
OF this assurance, consented to dismiss the
appeal. 1t was dismissed under this agree
ment, in good faith on my part, relying, as
/ implicitly did, upon the assurance of the
2. o. Department.
Some time after this dismissal was entered
Of record, my affairs were called to the at
tention of Postmaster en'l Howe, the third
Postmaster-General who, within two years,
made inquiry into my business This off
Ger, in an official letter "a copy of which ac-
companies this) to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, stated the substance of
the agreement which induced me TO consent
to the dismissal of my case; he affirmed this
agreement, and conceded that, even if no
other question was involved, the p. o. De-
partment ought not now to avail itself of the
dismissal to revive the Objectionable order.
He thus recognized that the fulfillment of
the agreement was obligatory upon the De
partment.
Notwithstanding the agreement, its recog-
milton and affirmation, the Department of
Justice, through ASST Att y-Gen'l freeman,
n0ac comes forward, and, without charging
fraud, THAT being impossible to be done
truthfullv), demands that the obsolete order
shall be enforced.
When the attention of Asst Att'y-Gen'l
Freeman is called to the gross breach of
faith in this demand, in thus availing him
self of techricality to revive the obsolete
order, which hough appearing of record,
was In fact abrogated by fair agreement,
he replies that be himself is not responsible
to the Department of Justice, and, refusing
to recognize said agreement, he insists up
on the revival of the order.
Thus 1t results that | am deprived of the
opportunity of having a trial of case, which
| was advised would fully vindicate nv
rights, and now the P. o Department takes
all the advantages which would have ac-
crued to it had the case been tried and de-
cided against me.
Pending the full establishment of my
rights iii the courts of law, | appeal to all
those who respect fair play to carefully con-
slider my statement above, and no less so the
exceedingly interesting and conclusive letter
from ex-Postmaster General Howe, here
with appended.
M. b. DAUPHIN,
Pres't Louisiana State Lottery Cona'y.
NEW ORLEANS, July 18th, 1888.
PosT-OFFIcE DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
WASHINGTON, d. c., APRIL 3, 1882.
Hon. j. W. KEIFEB,
Speaker Of the House Of Representatives.,
SIR: | have the honor TO acknowledge
the receipt of the Resolution adopted March
30, 1882, directing me to inform the House
of Representatives "whether an order was
issued by the Post Office Department forbid
ding the payment of any postal money order,
or the delivery of any registered letters, to
M. A. Dauphin, or any other agent of the
Louisiana Lottery Company, and directing
the return of the same to the post-office
where first obtained or deposited; if said or
der was issued. has there been any enforce
ment thereof, and If so, for what period of
time was it enforced, and what was the
character of the enforcement? IF sucb an
order was issued, has there been anv snbse-
quent order issued by the Post-Ofice Ne
partment suspending the first-named order.
and If so, when was it issued, and for what
purpose? Is it operative now as the rule of
the Department, and what are the limitations
affecting it?''
In answer to such resolution / enclose
herewith copy of an order by Hon. D. NJ.
Key, Nov. 10, 1879, as Postmaster General,
forbidding the delivery of Registered Letters
and the payment of Money Orders TO M. A.
Dauphin, NJ. A. DauphiD, Secretary, or NJ.
A. Dauphin, Post-Ofice Box 692, New Or
leans, La.
also enclose a copy of another order is
sued February 27, 1880, suspending this or
der for the reason stated therein, that M. A.
Dauphin, having brought suit against the
Postmaster General to enjoin the perform
ance of the order of Nov. ID, 1870, and hav-
ing appealed the same to the Supreme Court
of the United States, and having, on the day