Papers Of Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln to Daniel D. Page and Henry D. Bacon, 31 May 18561
Springfield, May 31. 1856Messrs[Messieurs] Page & Bacon:Gentleman
The letter of M^r Parsons, of the 22^nd accompanied, ac by one to M^r Dickson, and also ^by^ one from M^r Dickson to your M^r Bacon, owing to my absence, was received on yesterday only–2 I went to M^r Dickson at once, and had a conference with him– I do not think he is acting in bad faith– He is a new Marshal; and when he made the agreement with M^r Parsons, he did not know of the law and regulations out of which the difficulty grows– The sum of the difficulty is that the Government is entitled to a contingent residuum of his fees and emoluments, and he fears and believes he can not lawfully lessen, or destroy that residuum–3 He says the Judge is of that opinion; and really I have fears of it myself, though it did not occur to me, when the stipulation was made–

M^r Dickson instructs me to say to you that he wishes nothing for himself beyond what he stipulated for; but that he can not make a false oath to conceal the real truth of the transaction; and he can not subject himself to pay a large sum, or any sum, to the government, out of his own own pocket– He says if you give him perfect security that he shall lose nothing, he is still willing to

<Page 2>
stand to his agreement– Herewith I send you a statement of the matter handed me by M^r Dickson, containing references to the laws & instructions–4 Your counsel at S^tLouis can examine the question;5 and if they conclude you can not safely give the security, so much the more certain is it that M^r Dickson can not safely proceed without it–

In the mean time I shall try to examine the question more fully myself–6
Yours trulyA. Lincoln–

1Abraham Lincoln wrote and signed this letter.

2Lewis B. Parsons, Jr.’s May 22, 1856, letter to Lincoln has not been located, nor has Parsons’ letter to Archimedes C. Dickson, nor Dickson’s letter to Henry D. Bacon.

3In American law, a residuum is an amount that remains after any process of deductions, such as the subtraction of debts or other pecuniary obligations. An emolument is the payment someone receives from an office or employment, and includes salary as well as other fees.
As the marshal of the United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois—a federal court—Dickson was entitled to salary and certain fees, as stipulated by the U.S. Congress in “An Act to Regulate the Fees and Costs to be Allowed Clerks, Marshals, and Attorneys of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, and for Other Purposes.” Per the act, in addition to being entitled to salary and specific fees related to the performance of standard duties such as traveling for court or serving process papers, Dickson was entitled to 2.5 percent in fees for the sale of any vessels or other property related to navigation and shipping valued under $500, and to 1.25 percent in fees for the sale of the same if valued above $500. In cases where debts or claims of property related to navigation and shipping were settled without the sale of the property, the marshal was entitled to a commission of 1 percent for the first $500 of the claim and 0.5 percent on any claim over $500. Per the act, federal marshals were also required to report, twice per year and in detail, the fees and emoluments they received. These fees and emoluments were not permitted to exceed $6,000 for any given year.
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West, 1979), 470, 1177; “An Act to Regulate the Fees and Costs to be Allowed Clerks, Marshals, and Attorneys of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, and for Other Purposes,” 26 February 1853, Statutes at Large of the United States 10 (1855): 164-66.

4Marshal’s Notes, Document ID: 138755; Eads & Nelson v. Ohio & Mississippi RR, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, 2d edition (Springfield: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 2009), http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137547.

5Daniel D. Page and Bacon employed George P. Strong and Newton D. Strong, both who practiced law in St. Louis, Missouri at the time.
The Bench and Bar of St. Louis, Kansas City, Jefferson City and Other Missouri Cities (St. Louis: American Biographical, 1884), 246; W. V. N. Bay, Reminiscences of the Bench and Bar of Missouri (St. Louis: F. H. Thomas, 1878), 560; Eads & Nelson v. Ohio & Mississippi RR, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137547.

6Lincoln is discussing the roles Dickson, Page, Bacon, and Parsons played in relation to the case, Eads & Nelson v. Ohio & Mississippi RR. In the case, the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad contracted with the firm Eads & Nelson in 1852 to use a flatboat to transport sixty of the railroad’s cars from Louisville, Kentucky to St. Louis, Missouri. During the transport operation, waves from a passing steamship on the Ohio River sank the flatboat. Through an insurance contract, Eads & Nelson were able to salvage fifty-two of the cars from the riverbed. At the request of one of the railroad’s agents, the salvaged cars were placed upon the railroad’s own boats, taken to St. Louis, and placed on the opposite side of the Mississippi River, in Illinois. The Ohio & Mississippi Railroad paid Eads & Nelson $1,000 as freight for the fifty-two cars, but the parties never agreed on compensation for salvage. In 1853, Eads & Nelson brought a libel salvage suit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the District of Missouri. In 1855, the court ruled for Eads & Nelson and directed the railroad to pay the firm $3,027.85. Eads & Nelson subsequently realized that the federal court in Missouri could not execute the judgement because the salvaged cars were in Illinois. In 1855, Eads & Nelson filed another libel for salvage suit against the railroad in the United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois. The railroad retained Lincoln as well as George and Newton Strong.
In October 1855, Bacon, Parsons, and others agreed to be sureties for Eads & Nelson in the case. A surety is a person who legally binds themselves to pay a penalty or assume responsibility in the event that their principal failed to perform some obligation. Bacon, Parsons, and others agreed to bind themselves to Eads & Nelson in the sum of $7,000. Bacon, Parsons, and the other sureties also agreed that if the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad lost the case and forty-three of the railroad cars—which were in the custody of Marshal Dickson—were deemed forfeited by the railroad, they would pay the court costs plus $35,000, the latter of which was an amount based upon the value of the cars. As Lincoln discusses in this May 31, 1856, letter to Page and Bacon, Dickson eventually ascertained that he could not legally make compromises with regard to his fees or commissions based upon the value of the property, but rather had to rely upon the amount the property sold for in the event that the railroad lost the case.

Lincoln and the Strongs argued that the federal court in Illinois did not have jurisdiction because the federal court in Missouri had already tried the case and ruled for Eads & Nelson. When this argument failed, Lincoln and the Strongs argued that Eads & Nelson were not entitled to compensation because they had not salvaged the other eight cars. In July 1856, Judge Samuel H. Treat of the United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois ruled that Eads & Nelson had a valid lien against the cars, awarded them $3,480.72 plus more than $500 in costs, and ordered Marshal Dickson to sell the cars to satisfy the judgment. In January 1857, Lincoln and the Strongs appealed the ruling on behalf of the railroad, but the parties apparently reached an agreement, as Judge Treat dismissed the appeal in February 1858.

In 1857, Lincoln wrote at least one more letter related to this case.
“Surety,” Reference, Glossary, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Reference.aspx?ref=Reference%20html%20files/Glossary.html; Libel, Document ID: 63762; USDC Transcript, Document ID: 63763; Release Bond, Document ID: 63766, Order, Document ID: 63772; Marshal’s Notes, Document ID: 138755; Eads & Nelson v. Ohio & Mississippi RR, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137547; Order, Document ID: 63784, Eads & Nelson v. Ohio & Mississippi RR, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137548; Abraham Lincoln to Newton Deming Strong and George P. Strong.