WASHINGTON CITY, _January 25, 1861_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I return with my objections to the House, in which it originated, the
bill entitled "An act for the relief of Hockaday & Leggit," presented to
me on the 15th instant.
This bill appropriates $59,576 "to Hockaday & Leggit, in full payment
for damages sustained by them in reduction of pay for carrying the mails
on route No. 8911; and that said amount be paid to William Leggit for
and on account of Hockaday & Leggit, and for their benefit."
A bill containing the same language, with the single exception that the
sum appropriated therein was $40,000 instead of $59,576, passed both
Houses of Congress at their last session; but it was presented to me
at so late a period of the session that I could not examine its merits
before the time fixed for the adjournment, and it therefore, under
the Constitution, failed to become a law. The increase of the sum
appropriated in the present bill over that in the bill of the last
session, being within a fraction of $20,000, has induced me to examine
the question with some attention, and I find that the bill involves an
important principle, which if established by Congress may take large
sums out of the Treasury.
It appears that on the 1st day of April, 1858, John M. Hockaday entered
into a contract with the Postmaster-General for transporting the mail
on route No. 8911, from St. Joseph, Mo., by Fort Kearney, Nebraska
Territory, and Fort Leavenworth, to Salt Lake City, for the sum of
$190,000 per annum for a weekly service. The service was to commence on
the 1st day of May, 1858, and to terminate on the 30th November, 1860.
By this contract the Postmaster-General reserved to himself the right
"to reduce the service to semimonthly whenever the necessities of the
public and the condition of affairs in the Territory of Utah may not
require it more frequently." And again:
That the Postmaster-General may discontinue or curtail the service, in
whole or in part, in order to place on the route a greater degree of
service, or whenever the public interests require such discontinuance
for any other cause, he allowing one month's extra pay on the amount of
service dispensed with.
On the 11th April, 1859, the Postmaster-General curtailed the service,
which he had a clear right to do under the contract, to semimonthly,
with an annual deduction of $65,000, leaving the compensation $125,000
for twenty-four trips per year instead of $190,000 for fifty-two trips.
This curtailment was not to take effect till the 1st of July, 1859.
At the time the contract was made it was expected that the army in
Utah might be engaged in active operations, and hence the necessity of
frequent communications between the War Department and that Territory.
The reservation of the power to curtail the service to semimonthly trips
itself proves that the parties had in view the contingency of such
curtailment "whenever the necessities of the public and the condition of
affairs in the Territory of Utah may not require it more frequently."
Before the Postmaster-General ordered this curtailment he had an
interview with the Secretary of War upon the subject, in the course of
which the Secretary agreed that a weekly mail to St. Joseph and Salt
Lake City was no longer needed for the purposes of the Government--this,
evidently, because the trouble in Utah had ended.
Mr. Hockaday faithfully complied with his contract, and the full
compensation was paid, at the rate of $190,000 per annum, up to the
1st July, 1859, and "one month's extra pay on the amount of service
dispensed with," according to the contract.
Previous to that date, as has been already stated, on the 14th of
April, 1859, the Postmaster-General curtailed the service to twice per
month, and on the 11th May, 1859, Messrs. Hockaday & Co. assigned the
contract to Jones, Russell & Co. for a bonus of $50,000. Their property
connected with the route was to be appraised, which was effected, and
they received on this account about $94,000, making the whole amount
about $144,000.
There is no doubt that the contractors have sustained considerable loss
in the whole transaction. The amount I shall not pretend to decide,
whether $40,000 or $59,576, or any other sum.
It will be for Congress to consider whether the precedent established
by this bill will not in effect annul all restrictions contained in the
mail contracts enabling the Postmaster-General to reduce or curtail the
postal service according to the public exigencies as they may arise.
I have no other solicitude upon the subject. I am informed that there
are many cases in the Post-Office Department depending upon the same
principle.