Case Name: F. H. Hopkins, appellee, v. The United States, appellants
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1880-03-29
Citations: 15 Ct. Cl. 624
Docket Number: 
Parties: F. H. Hopkins, appellee, v. The United States, appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 624–628

Head Matter:
THE POSTMASTERS’ CASES.
(12 C. Cls. R., 236;
not reported in U. S. R.)
F. H. Hopkins, appellee, v. The United States, appellants.
On the defendants’ Appeal.
The quarterly returns of a postmaster show that the salary allowed to him by the Postmaster-General is 10 per centum less than it would have been on the basis of the commissions allowed under the act SOdJune, 1854. The claimant requests that the salary be adjusted in accordance with the increased business of the post-office. The Postmaster-General declines to review or readjust the salary until the next biennial readjustment of salaries.
The court below, being divided upon the law of the case, and the claimant having no right of appeal, decides pro forma for the purposes of an appeal: (1) That it became the imperative duty of the Postmaster-General to review and readjust the salary, to the end that at the beginning of the succeeding quarter the postmaster should begin to receive an increased salary as provided by the Act 1st July, 1864, 13 Stat. L., 335, § 2; (2) That no court can execute a discretion confided by law to the Postmaster-General, and hence, that the claimant’s recovery' must he limited to-the minimum compensation provided by the statute. Judgment pro forma for the purposes of an appeal in favor of the claimant. The defendants appeal.
The judgment pro forma of the court below is reversed without an opinion being delivered.
The Reporters’ statement of the ease:
This ease, it is supposed, w is regarded by the Supreme Court as ruled by the decision in McLean’s (9o U. S. B>., 750). The following are the findings of fact of the court below:
This case having been heard before the Court of Claims, the-court, upon the evidence, finds the facts to he as follows:
I. The claimant was, by the Postmaster-General, appointed postmaster at Ooneburgh, county of Marion, State of Kansas, and entered on the discharge of the duties of the office on the 20th of February, 1871.
II. His appointment was announced to him in a letter in the following form, with, tbe blanks properly filled up for tbat purpose :
(Form 6 a.)
‘ ‘ P ost-Office Department,
“Appointment Office,
,187 .
“ Sm: Accompanying this you will receive a letter of appointment as postmaster at . The salary to which you will be entitled, and which you will be allowed to retain out of the proceeds of your office, has been fixed at the sum of $ per annum until it can be ascertained what the amount of business will be.
“ You will, therefore, at the end of each quarter, make and forward to the Third Assistant Postmaster-General a statement, uuder oath, of the total value of postage-stamps canceled during the quarter. Under the present regulations you are not required to keep a regular account of mails sent and received as heretofore, except only of unpaid mail-matter ; but informal memoranda, made day by day, of mails sent from your office prepaid by stamps, will enable you to make the required quarterly statement.
“Your salary cannot exceed the amount to which the office would be entitled from commissions and box-rents under the former law, but will be readjusted at the proper time by the Postmaster-General, on the basis of the amount of business done, as shown by the quarterly statements above required.
“ I am, respectfully, &c.,
11 Mrst Assistant Postmaster-General.
“ To , Esq.”
III. The claimant acted as postmaster at Coneburgh from February 20,1871, to October 30, 1871, when the name of the office was changed to Peabody; and he was appointed as postmaster at Peabody, and served as such from the last-named date.
IY. The salary of the .claimant was, at the time of each of said appointments, fixed by the Postmaster-General at twelve dollars per annum.
Y. The revenue of the office from February 20,1S71, to July 1,1871, was $324.05; and the amount of the salary paid the claimant for that period was four dollars and thirty-three cents.
YI. On the 24th of October, 1871, the claimant petitioned the Postmaster-General for an increase of his salary, and that officer ordered that from January 1, 1872, his salary should be fixed at $480 per annum.
VII. No other application was at any time made by the claimant for a readjustment of the salary of the office; but on the 4th of August, 1873, H. Spalding, claiming to be the attorney of the claimant, addressed a letter to the First Assistant Postmaster-General, requesting that an adjustment thereof should be made on returns of revenue, from February 20,1871, to January 1,1872, and that a corrected readjustment should be made, to cover the period from January 1,1872, to July 1,1872, so as to make the salary conform to what Mr. Spalding considered to be the legal basis. This letter not being accompanied by a sworn statement of the operations of the office for the six months preceding, as required by the regulations of the Post-Office Department; and being not from the postmaster himself, but from an attorney; and the Assistant Attorney-General for the Post-Office Department having given it as his opinion to the Postmaster-General that, in law, the 'application for a readjustment of the salary of a postmaster must be made directly by the postmaster, and could not be properly made through an attorney ; the Postmaster-General declined to consider Mr. Spalding’s letter as an application for a readjustment of the claimant’s salary.
VIII. On the 1st of June, 1871, the following letter was sent by the First Assistant Postmaster-General to the claimant:
“ Post-Oeeice Department,
“Appointment Office, Washington, June 1,1871.
“ Sin: To enable the Postmaster-General to review ancl readjust your salary from and after the 1st day of July, 1872, upon a proper basis, as required by the act approved July 1,1864, you are hereby required to keep an account of the total amount of stamps canceled at your office for the six months beginning July 1,1871, and ending December 31,1871; also, the amount collected on unpaid letters, on newspapers and other printed matter, and for box-rents during the same period.
“ You are hereby instructed to make out on the 1st of January, 1872, and forward immediately thereafter to this office, a sworn statement of the amounts arising from each of the above-named sources.
‘ ‘A blank form for this purpose is sent herewith. Y our prompt and faithful compliance with this order is required, and you will be held to account for neglect thereof.
“I am, respectfully, &c.,
“ J. W. MARSHALL,
“First Assistant Postmaster-General.
“ This order should be kept in a conspicuous place, and in tbe event of a change of postmaster, the attention of your successor must be called to it and the account kept by you turned over to him.”
IX. In compliance with the requirement of said letter, the claimant transmitted to the Postmaster-General, in January, 1872, a sworn statement, showing the total revenue of the post-office at Peabody from July 1,1871, to January 1,1872, to have been $580.88.
X. For the period of time between the two dates last named, the claimant was paid a salary of six dollars.
XI. At the regular biennial readjustment of salaries, on the 1st of June, 1872, the Postmaster-General, from the said sworn statement, readjusted the salary of the postmaster at Peabody, and fixed the same at $670 per annum, from the 1st of July, 1872.
And upon the claimant’s request the following additional facts were found by the court:
V. That the claimant was, during his term of service, required by regulations then in force, made and published by authority of the Postmaster-General, to make full and detailed return of the whole business and revenue of his office to the Auditor for the Post-Office Department, on the last day of each quarter, to wit, March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 3 L.
YI. That claimant fully complied with, carried out, and performed during his term of service all requirements made upon him by the Postmaster-General, through special instructions and regulations, with reference to time and manner of reporting and exhibiting to the Post-Office Department the whole business and revenues of his office.
XIII. That the claimant, during his term of service, returned ninety-four dollars revenue “ from box-rents,” as follows:
For the quarter ending June 30, 1871. $18 00
For the quarter ending December 31, 1871. 22 00
For the quarter ending March 31,1872 . 25 00
For the quarter ending June 30, 1872 . 29 00
and that said revenue was derived from boxes constructed at his own expense, and the same has been, by order of the Postmaster-General, paid to the department.
And upou the foregoing findings of fact, the Court of Claims, being divided upon the right of the claimant to recover, did, for the purposes of an appeal, decide as
CONCLUSIONS- OE LAW:
I. The purpose of the Act 12th June, 18CC (14 Stat. L., 59, § 8), was to prescribe rules to govern the action of the Postmaster-General in the cases therein enumerated; and when the quarterly returns of the claimant showed that the salary allowed to him by the Postmaster-General was ten per centum less than it would have been on the basis of the commissions allowed to postmasters under the Act 22d June, 1854 (10 Stat. L., 298), then it became the imperative duty of the Postmaster-General to review and readjust the claimant’s salary to the end that, at the beginning of the succeeding quarter, he should receive an increased salary as provided by the Act 1st July, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 335, § 2).
XL Although the purpose of the Act 12th June, I860 (14 Stat. L., 59, § 8), was to prescribe a rule to govern the action of the Postmaster-General in regard to the salaries of postmasters of the third, fourth, or fifth class therein referred to, yet nevertheless the court cannot execute any discretion confided by the Act 22d June, 1854 (10 Stat. L., 298), to the Postmaster-General; and, therefore, the claimant’s recovery must be limited to the minimum compensation provided in like cases by that statute.
Mr. Solicitor-General Phillips for the United States, appellants.
Mr. Harvey Spaulding for the claimant, appellee.

Opinion:
The Chiee Justice
announced the decision of the Supreme Court March 29, 1880; but no opinion has since been filed.