^1^

The Committee on the Post office and Post roads to whom was refered the petition of Farley D. Thompson have had the same under consideration and Report.

That some time prior to the 1^st day of July 1836 one Chilion White was appointed Postmaster at Lagrange Alabama who executed a bond agreeably in pursuance of the provisions of Law with the petitioners Farley D. Thompson and A. G. Westmoreland as his securities “condition for the faithfull 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 case 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

^2^

^2^

received. On the 11th of 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. to appoint him And a letter of appointment accompanied by a bond filed in blank were forwarded to him with a request which he was required to execute. It appears from the circular or letter of appoint forwarded to Napier that he had no authority from the Department to take possession of the office at Lagrange until he had first executed the bond and been qualified as therein specified and deposited the same in the Post office addressed to the 2^nd assistant Postmaster General. Mr. Napier failing to comply with the ^these^ legal requirements, by which alone he could take charge of the office as Postmaster, was on the 14^th May 1838 called on by the Department to forward his bond and oath. To this call it appears he never responded. On the 2^nd of August 1838 a special letter was addressed to him informing him that unless he complied his [...?] appointment would be superceded. Under date of sept 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

^3^

^Basson^

^3^

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

Without recommendations, or the Department consulted the Representative in Congress from that district, upon whose advisement ^on the 19^th December 1838^ an individual was appointed, without knowing whether he would accept or not. He declined, But, and recommended James Kennerly who was appointed February 2^nd 1839, gave bond and qualified as the 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 have been due from Chilion White late Postmaster at Lagrange for quarterly dues ^returns as PM.^ from the 1^st of July 1836 to March 13th 1839 inclusive $870.66 of this amount ^indebtedness^ $525. Seems to have accrued between the 1^st July 1836. and the 31^st December 1837 and $345.66 between the 1^st Jany 1838 and the 13th March 1839 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

^4^

^4^

the penalty 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 W^m Leigh and John S. Abernathy as his securities for the payment of said Judg the $800 the amount of the Judgment ^with interest thereon^ on or before the 26th of February 1842 fifteen months after the Judgment was received. This bond Mr. Thompson failing to pay his bond, executed under such circumstances, at maturity, suit was instituted, and on the November 1842 Judgment was received thereon for the sum of $896.47. Execution was issued and the property of the defendants levied upon. The Marshall was instructed, that if, one half of the debt should be paid on the 1^st of Dec^r 1843, not to sell for one year from that day for the balance, Whether this last Judgment or any part thereof has ever 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 derelict 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

^5^

^5^

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 sceased, relief is prayed[.]

^ [Butler?] ^ 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 vocher in the hands of the Postmaster in the settlement of his accounts with the Department. The committee [suppose?] that the money received at the Lagrange office not being needed to pay contractors at the time it was permitted to remain in the hands of the Postmasters 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 money 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

^6^

^6^

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 faithfull 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 least authority from the Department to take charge of the office by ^but^ was placed there by White of course 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 [?] at least addressed Napier as Postmaster at Lagrange, 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 it may be answered that during the whole of the time from July 1. 1836 to March 13th 1839 the quarterly returns ^ were ^ uniformly bore the signature ^name^

^7^

^7^

Chilion White as Postmaster. It is also true that a draft for a small draft ^amount^ was oncee 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.

^Heath^ Another no less wise & salutary rule adopted by the Department and which is communicated to each Postmaster upon his appointment, as follows “In case of resignation, you will continue in charge of the ^your^ office, either by 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 wh 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 an account of Napier whom he and not the Department had placed in charge of the Lagrange Post oOffice.

This perhaps was not desired by White, for from

^8^

^8^

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 planest 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 direct 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 Lagrange. The committee have no doubt, of the liability of Napier to the petitioner Thompson as security of White for the amount of money recived and appropriated in the money 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 the case for relief. ^This^ Like all cases ^others^ in which securities have to pay money, is a hard case. But if the petitioner his suffered wrong in this matter, it his not been the fault of the Department, but, rather that of his principle, who placed Napier in the office, and either by

^9^

^9^

agreement or from neglect and indifference permitted Napier to collect and appropriate the money as above. And the committee know no reason why the petitioner should not not ^now^ receive the amount off of Napier by suit.

And it may be that this relief is sought by the petitioner through congress bin pursuance with Napier 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 equ^I^table liability. Of such agreement however the committee frankly admits, 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 to the petitioner, a n new obligation of 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 Jany 24^th 1843 and February 15th 1844 and never has been the subject of a favorable report. After a thorough examination of the whole case the committee recommend ^are of opinion^ that the prayer of the petitioner ought ^not^ to be granted.

^All^