The morning call., 1894-07-03

tween the railroad company and the Gov
eminent for the carrying of the mails.
The remedy for this lay through the civil
courts.
Mr.. BretZ went away considerably "put
! out" and openly announced that he did
not think that was all the law there was
in the case. He afterward applied to
United States Commissioner Heacock, but
did not get what he desired.
II took this stand on good legal
grounds" said Attorney Garter to CALL
reporter. "Section 1875 of the Revised
Statutes states that anv person who will
fully obstructs the United States mail
shall be liable to fine of 500. Now.
that means physical obstruction. not
acts of the carriers.
This point was decided in the case of
the United States VS.. Edward Clarke in
the Thirteenth Philadelphia reports. In
that case the defendant was one of the
persons assembled at the Lehigh Valley
depot. and upon the arrival of train from
Mauch Chunk at Phillipsburg the defend
ant. who had no connection with the train,
said to the persons in charge that the mail
car might go on, but not the rest of the
train He afterward got on the train with
others and placed 1t on side track.
'In his charge to the jury in that case
Judge Ca1wallader said:
1.-the mail in point of fact was retained,
as the Postmaster testifies, two or three
days after the occurrence. What retained
it? The evidence went 10 show that sew
eral persons were assembled at the depot
for no lawful purpose. and that one or
more of them declared that the mail might
go on but that the passenger train should
not. They upcoupled the mailcar and
then coupled it again for the purpose of
carrying it as they did to the siding. If
that was the fact and their purpose was
to retard the train which transported the
mail, it is no matter, In point Of fact.
whether they were or were not willing
th at the mailcar or the baggage-car or the
particular car carrying the mails should
90 on. From the foundation of the Gov
ernment of the United States under the
present constitution mails have been car
ried in the same vehicles or trains which
also transported passengers. The public
authority, and no private person, regulates
the method of transportation.
I'm relation to the transportation of the
mails by means of railroad, it is true that
it appears by the evidence in this case
that these defendants were willing that
the mailcars should 60. but it must be
borne In mind that the mailcar can only
60 in such way as to enable the railroad
company to transport the mail where
there are no other cars accompanying it.
1t is not practicable as general thing for
a railroad company to transport macar
by itself, because that would be attended
by serious loss, SO that while nominally
they permitted the mailcar to 60 they
really by preventing the transit OF the
passenger cars interfered with the trans
portation of the mails. There Is familiar
proposition of law that where person is
concerned in performing an unlawful act
he is responsible for other unlawful acts
which he commits in the course OF the
many that he intends to commit Ii a
man intending TO strike A with stick
strikes B and breaks his head. he cannot
get off by saying to B that he did not mean
! to hit him, bnt meant to strike the other
man. That the purpose was here not to
delay the mails is OF no importance If the
act done was an unlawful act and its
effect was to retard the transportation OF
| the MALL"