Papers Of Abraham Lincoln

THIRTIETH CONGRESS—FIRST SESSION.
Report No. 314.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FARLEY D. THOMPSON.
February 29, 1848.
Laid upon the table.
Mr. George W. Jones, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, made the following
REPORT:
The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the petition of Farley D. Thompson, have had the same under consideration, and report:

That some time prior to the 1st day of July, 1836, one Chilion White was appointed postmaster at La Grange, Alabama, who executed a bond in pursuance with the provisions of law, with the petitioner, Farley D. Thompson, and A. G. Westmoreland, as his securities, “conditioned for the faithful discharge of all the duties required by law, or which may be required by any instruction or general rule for the government of the department.” By letter dated September 5th, 1837, Mr. White informed the Postmaster General of his resignation, and stated that “he had committed the care of the office to Mr. John S. Napier, (merchant,) who will attend to the duties of the same until you make an appointment.” Also stating, “that his letter would be accompanied by a recommendation of the citizens in favor of the appointment of Mr. Napier as his successor.” Such recommendations, it seems, were never received. On the 11th December, 1837, after consultation with the representative from that district, who, although he did not know Mr. Napier, thought it would be well enough to appoint him. It was so determined; and a letter of appointment, accompanied by a bond filled in blank, were forwarded to him, which he was required to execute. It appears from the circular or letter of appointment forwarded to Napier, that he had no authority from the department to take possession of the office at La Grange until he had first executed the bond and been qualified as therein specified, and deposited

<Page 2>
the same in the post office, addressed to the Second Assistant Postmaster General. Mr. Napier failing to comply with these legal requirements, by which alone he could take charge of the office, as postmaster, was on the 14th of May, 1838, called on by the department, to forward his bond and oath. To this call, it appears, he never responded. On the 2d of August, 1838, a special letter was addressed to him, informing him that unless he complied his appointment would be surpeseded. Under date of September 5, 1838, Napier replied and stated, “that he had been acting as postmaster for the last twelve months, but had never desired the place, and requested the department to make some other appointment,” but without naming any other person.

This letter was received on the 19th October, 1838, and replied to on the 23d, with a request that some person should be recommended for appointment. None, it seems, was received.

Without recommendation, the department consulted the representative in Congress from that district, upon whose advisement, on the 19th December, 1838, an individual was appointed without knowing whether he would accept or not. He declined, and recommended James Kennerly, who was appointed February 2d, 1839, gave bond, and qualified as the law and the regulations of the department required, and entered on the discharge of the duties of the office on the 13th March, 1839, at which time the petitioner, in the opinion of the committee, was relieved from all further liability as the security of Chilion White, and not before.

By an account stated and furnished by the department, there seems to nave been due from Chilion White, late postmaster at La Grange, for quarterly returns, as postmaster from the 1st of July, 1836, to March 13th, 1839, inclusive, $870 66. Of this indebtedness $525 seems to have accrued between the 1st July, 1836, and the 31st December, 1837; and $345 66 between the 1st January, 1838, and the 13th March, 1839, at the time when Kennerly took charge of the office. Suit was instituted for the recovery of this balance, and, on the 25th November, 1840, judgment was recovered against the petitioner and his co-security, Westmoreland, for $800, being the full amount of the penality specified in the bond. Westmoreland proved to be insolvent. White, the principal, was also insolvent; and the petitioner, Thompson, being the only responsible person, after the rendition of the judgment, applied to the department for indulgence, which was granted him upon his executing his bond or note, with Wm. Leigh and John S. Abernathy as his securities, for the payment of the $800, the amount of the judgment, with interest thereon, on or before the 26th of February, 1842, fifteen months after the judgment was recovered. Mr. Thompson failing to pay his bond, executed under such circumstances, at maturity, suit was instituted, and, on the November, 1842, judgment was recovered thereon for the sum of $896 47. Execution was issued, and the property of the defendants levied upon. The marshal was instructed, that if one-half of the debt should be paid on the 1st of December, 1843, not to sell for one year from that day for the balance. Whether this last judgment, or any part thereof, has ever

<Page 3>
been paid does not appear in evidence before the committee. It certainly was not paid at the time the petition of Thompson was presented, in which he prays to be released from the payment thereof. For the reasons, first, that the department was direlict in duty in permitting the money to remain so long in the hands of White, when, if he had been required to pay it over at the end of each quarter, he, Thompson, could not have suffered seriously. Secondly, that, upon the appointment of Napier, the office passed out of the charge of White, and, consequently, from that period, all responsibility of the petitioner, as his security, ceased. Relief is prayed.

In answer to the first, the committee would state that this was a draft office; by which is meant an office from which money is never paid except upon the draft of the proper officers of the department. Other offices pay over, at the end of each quarter, to the contractor, who has a general power or authority to call on them for the amount of their quarterly receipts each quarter; whose receipt is a good voucher in the hands of the postmaster in the settlement of his accounts with the department. The committee suppose that the money received at the La Grange office not being needed to pay contractors at the time, it was permitted to remain in the hands of the postmaster for safety, and of this Mr. Thompson certainly has no right to complain. He undertook, as the security of White, that he, White, would discharge all the duties required of him as postmaster during his continuance in office. A part of whose duties as such, was to receive and keep without using, in any manner whatever, the moneys accruing to the department, and pay the same over whenever required. The department did not undertake with Mr. Thompson, if he would become the security of White, that it would watch over Mr. White and save his securities harmless. But the reverse is the true state of the case. Mr. Thompson, it is to be presumed, was the friend of White, lived in the same neighborhood, was acquainted with his business, and had confidence in him, and, under these circumstances, became his security, and as such bound himself for the faithful discharge of the duties of the office by White, and in default thereof to indemnify the department against loss at least to the amount of $800, the penalty of the bond. Again, he was in the neighborhood, and if he was not satisfied with the course White was pursuing, he could, at any time, have been released by application to the department.

In answer to the second point, Napier never had the lease authority from the department to take charge of the office, but was placed there by White as his assistant; and as such, in contemplation of law, his acts were the acts of White, for which White’s securities were responsible. But it is in proof, that the acting Postmaster General once, at least, addressed Napier as postmaster at La Grange; that Napier franked letters as postmaster; and that after the way-bills, which were on hand, with White’s name to them, when Napier took charge of the office, were exhausted, he signed his own name to them. To all of this is may be answered, that during the

<Page 4>
whole of the time from July 1, 1836, to March 13, 1839, the quarterly returns uniformly bore the name Chilion White as postmaster. It is also true, that a draft for a small amount was once drawn on Napier, which was not paid, and the department having no authority to enforce payment from him, the amount was correctly placed to the account of White. As already stated, one of the regulations of the department is, that no one can enter upon the duties of postmaster as such, until he shall have first complied with the law, which requires that he shall execute his bond with two good securities, and shall have taken the oaths of office, and placed the same in the post office, directed to the department, which never was done by Napier.

Another no less wise and salutary rule adopted by the department, and which is communicated to each postmaster upon his appointment, is as follows: “In case of resignation, you will continue in charge of your office, either personally or by assistant, until you are relieved from it by the appointment of a successor or the discontinuance of the office;” neither of which was done in the present case, and consequently neither White nor his securities were released from their liabilities on their bond. Mr. White, as a prudent man for his own, and particularly for the safety of his securities, should have attended to the matter, if he desired to be released from responsibility on account of Napier, whom he, and not the department, had placed in charge of the La Grange post office.

This, perhaps, was not desired by White; for, from the proof in the case, it seems that White was insolvent; that he owed Napier an individual debt. It is also in proof that Napier appropriated the proceeds of the office during the time it was under his charge, as before stated, to the payment of the individual debt which White owed him. This was in violation, as the committee conceive, of one of the plainest principles of law, which is, that no individual can appropriate public or other trust funds collected as agent, to the payment of a private debt, or otherwise divert the same from their legitimate object, without rendering himself responsible to those interested for the amount of such funds so collected. And the committee have been informed that Mr. Napier is a wealthy planter, residing somewhere in the neighborhood of La Grange. The committee have no doubt of the liability of Napier to the petitioner, Thompson, as security of White for the amount of money received and appropriated in the manner before stated, while in charge of the office under authority of White; and, had Thompson brought suit against him in the proper time and manner, no doubt is entertained by the committee of his having recovered the full amount, and Congress relieved from the investigation of this case for relief.

This, like all others in which securities have to pay money, is a hard case. But, if the petitioner has suffered wrong in this matter, it has not been the fault of the department; but, rather that of his principal, who placed Napier in the office, and, either by agreement, or from neglect and indifference, permitted Napier to collect

<Page 5>
and appropriate the money as above. And the committee know no reason why the petitioner should not now recover the amount off of Napier by suit.

And it may be that relief is sought by the petitioners, through Congress, in pursuance with agreement or understanding with Napier, that, in the event of failure, he (Napier) will account and pay over to the petitioner the amount collected while in charge of the office, and for which the committee entertain not a doubt of his legal and equitable liability. Of such agreement, however, the committee frankly admit they have no proof, and merely suggest that such might be the case. Be this as it may, the committee cannot perceive the slightest ground for granting the relief prayed for, upon either legal or equitable principles.

The case has been investigated and decided in a court of justice; indulgence granted the petitioner; a new obligation for the payment of the amount of the judgment taken; a second suit brought, and judgment recovered, upon which indulgence was again granted; and has frequently been referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, and twice adversely reported upon—January 24, 1843, and February 15, 1844, and never has been the subject of a favorable report. After a thorough examination of the whole case, the committee are of opinion that the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.