Under the Act of 28 February, 1861, which authorizes the
Postmaster General to
discontinue, under certain
circumstances specified, the postal service on any route, a
"suspension" during the late rebellion at the Postmaster
General's discretion, of a route in certain rebellious states, with
a notice to the contractor that he would be
held responsible
for a renewal when the Postmaster General should deem it safe
to renew the service there, was held to be a
discontinuance, and the mail carrier's contract with the
government calling for a month's pay if the postmaster discontinued
the service, it was adjudged that he was entitled to a month's pay
accordingly.
In 1859 and subsequently, Reeside made certain contracts with
the Postmaster General to carry the mail until 30 June, 1862, over
certain parts of
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Each contract contained a provision that the Postmaster General
might
discontinue or curtail the service in whole or in
part whenever the public interests required it he allowing
one
month's pay on the amount of the service dispensed with. Early
in 1861, as is known, the late rebellion in the Southern states
broke out, the states above particularly mentioned, joining in it.
In view of the condition of things, Congress enacted, [
Footnote 1] on the 28th February,
1861:
"That whenever, in the opinion of the Postmaster General, the
postal service cannot be safely continued, or the post office
revenues collected, or the postal laws maintained on any post
route, by reason of any cause whatever, the Postmaster General is
hereby authorized to
discontinue the postal service on
such route or any part thereof and any post offices thereon till
the same can be safely restored,"
and shall report his action to Congress.
And it was part of the case, as found by the court below that on
the 15th April following, "a state of actual war"
Page 75 U. S. 39
existed between the United States and the states in which the
contracts were to be executed.
On the 27th of May, 1861, the Postmaster General issued an order
suspending the service on all the routes till further
order from and after May 31. Reeside requested the Postmaster
General, instead of suspending the service, to annul the contracts.
But this the Postmaster General refused to do, and Reeside was
informed that he would be held responsible under the contracts and
be ordered to renew the service whenever, in the opinion of the
Postmaster General, it would be safe to do so.
No special notice of the discontinuance was ever served on
him.
On the 13th July, 1861, Congress authorized the President, under
certain circumstances which it set forth, to issue a proclamation
declaring any one of several Southern states, which it named (and
which included the three through which Reeside's contract called on
him to carry the mail) or any part of it to be in insurrection
against the United States, and enacted that
thereupon all
intercourse should cease between the same and the citizens thereof
and the citizens of the rest of the United States. On the 16th of
August following, the President did issue such a proclamation and
declared these three states, along with some others, to be in
insurrection, and prohibited the intercourse.
Reeside resided in Washington, and the case showed that it would
have taken him twenty days to have gone to Arkansas, and to have
disposed of his property on his several routes. No part of his
stage property was removed from them.
Reeside, who had been paid up but to the 1st of June, 1861, and
whom the Postmaster General considered entitled to nothing more,
now filed a petition in the court below setting forth that taking
into consideration the distance from the seat of government (where,
as already said, he resided) to the place of service, he was
entitled to receive a reasonable notice before suspending the mail
service on the
Page 75 U. S. 40
several routes where he was the contractor, and that he was
entitled, at all events, to his mail pay for one month.
The court below dismissed the claim; and hence this appeal.
Page 75 U. S. 42
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Upon the facts of this case, it is difficult to see how the
government can avoid the payment of the month's pay upon any
principle of justice or equity. The Postmaster General,
representing in this department the government, refused to put an
end to the contracts, but insisted upon a suspension only at his
pleasure, and at the same time gave notice that the contractor
would be held responsible for a renewal when he (the Postmaster
General) should deem it safe to renew them. Of course the stage
property must be kept on hand at the expense of the contractor,
ready to render the service when ordered, and, according to the
views of the government, without either remuneration or any
allowance for the same -- not even the one month's extra pay on the
amount of service dispensed with which in express terms is provided
in the contract.
The only answer given to all this is that a civil war existed
between the United States and the states within which these mail
routes lay, and that all intercourse with them was illegal upon the
principles of international law. Assuming this to be so, the
government would have been justified in putting an end to the
contracts, and in the absence of any interference on the part of
the government, the contractor might also have terminated them. But
the government did interfere and forbid the annulment or
termination of the service, and insisted, notwithstanding a state
of civil war, that the contract should continue and the service be
renewed at the pleasure of the Postmaster General. The truth is
(and this affords an explanation of the otherwise extraordinary
dealings with this contractor) that although a state of war existed
between the United States and several of the Southern states or
portions of them, the territorial limits within which it existed
was not well defined. Even as late as July 13, 1861, an act of
Congress was passed authorizing the President, under the particular
circumstances stated therein, to issue a proclamation declaring
anyone of these states, or any part of it, to be in a state of
insurrection against the United States, and thereupon all
intercourse should cease
Page 75 U. S. 43
between the same and the citizens thereof, and the citizens of
the rest of the United States. [
Footnote 2] This proclamation was not issued till the 16th
of August following, when certain states, including Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Louisiana, were first declared to be in a state of
insurrection within the act and all intercourse with the loyal
states was prohibited. [
Footnote
3]
This intercourse was but partially interrupted at the time these
contracts were suspended, and although a disloyal feeling prevailed
and was apparently increasing, yet the policy of the government was
to conciliate the people and separate them, if possible, from the
leaders, and one of the means used for this purpose was to continue
these mail and postal accommodations so long as any hope existed of
preventing the rebellion or continuing peaceful relations. The
suspension of these contracts, instead of putting an end to them at
once, and the demand upon the contractor to keep his stage property
on hand ready to render service, doubtless grew out of this
policy.
The Act of 28 February, 1861, provided that whenever, in the
opinion of the Postmaster General, the postal service cannot be
safely continued &c., for any reason, he was authorized to
discontinue the service till the same could be safely renewed. It
was doubtless under this act that he suspended the service in the
present case. But this act had no effect to control the legal
import of the contracts, nor did it confer any greater power than
he possessed under them. According to their terms, he had the power
to discontinue or curtail the service on any route for any cause,
allowing one month's pay.
It may, we think, be well doubted if the Postmaster General had
the power under this act to discontinue the service, and still hold
the contractor to renew it. It simply confers power "to
discontinue," for any cause,
"the postal service on said route, or any part thereof, and any
post offices thereon, till the same can be safely restored, and
shall report his action to Congress."
Nothing is said as to the duty or rights
Page 75 U. S. 44
of contractors, and, in the absence of any provision on the
subject, it would seem to be unreasonable to hold him responsible
to renew the service at any future indefinite period. But it is
unnecessary to decide this point.
Decree reversed and cause remanded, with directions to allow
one month's pay under the contracts.
[
Footnote 1]
12 Stat. at Large 177.
[
Footnote 2]
12 Stat. at Large 257.
[
Footnote 3]
Ib. 1262, appendix.
