Cases sometimes occur of the loss of letters apparently by the carelessness of post masters or their clerks; and in view of such cases, an important question arises; namely, to what extent a post master is responsible for the consequences of such carelessness?

The subject is not free from difficulties. In many cases it would be hard to say what const.i.tutes culpable carelessness.

It is common in country towns for persons to take from the post-office the mail matter of their neighbors, especially when they live at a distance from the office, as an act of accommodation to them; and many letters are thus safely delivered every day.

Now should a valuable letter in this way come into the possession of some dishonest person, and be retained by him, it would seem severe, if not unjust, to prosecute the post master for the loss; since in committing it unawares to improper hands, he did but act in accordance with ordinary usages, countenanced by the community.

It would undoubtedly be a safer way of doing business, to insist upon an order in every case where a letter is delivered to any other person than the one to whom it is addressed, or some one usually employed by him for this purpose. But the country post master who should rigidly insist upon this rule, would receive "more kicks than coppers" for his good intentions; and indeed, cases like the one supposed are few and far between.

In cities, also, something like the following might and does frequently happen. A person known to be in the employ of another, comes to the post-office, and says he is sent by his employer for his letters, and the clerk in attendance, believing his statement, gives them to him. He robs the letters and disappears. In this case, it hardly seems that the clerk was guilty of a culpable degree of negligence.

Here is another instance of the manner in which a letter may go to the wrong person, where the fault is not chargeable to post-office employes. In the list of advertised letters, one is found for John Smith. An individual calls for the letter, claiming to be the identical John, and receives it; but a day or two after the "Simon Pure" appears, and is indignant at learning that his letter has already been appropriated, or that the clerk knows nothing about it, having forgotten the circ.u.mstance. Of course the clerk, in such a case, might require the supposed John Smith to identify the letter as far as was possible, by mentioning the place from which he expected it; but many supposable circ.u.mstances might destroy the conclusiveness of this evidence of ident.i.ty, such as the acquaintance of the false John with the real one, and his knowledge of the place whence he received most of his correspondence. Besides, the real claimant might not be able to tell where the letter was mailed, for his correspondent might have written from some other place than the one where he usually lived.

But it is needless to multiply instances. Those that we have mentioned, and many others which will readily occur to the reader, will suffice to show that the number of cases in which a post master can justifiably be prosecuted, is very limited by the nature of the circ.u.mstances.

On the other hand, a proper diligence requires of the post master not only the obvious precaution of securing reliable a.s.sistants, but a care in relation to the minutiae of his office which shall prevent the mislaying of letters, by carelessness _within_, or their abstraction by theft from _without_. The boxes and delivery window should be so arranged as to render the interior of the boxes inaccessible to outsiders, and of course no one should be admitted within the enclosure, under any ordinary circ.u.mstances.

I am aware that these hints are unnecessary to the great body of post masters in this country; yet it can do no harm to mention such things, as it appears by the following report that post masters are sometimes held to answer before a court, for the want of diligence in discharging the duties of their office.

The suit was brought in 1849, by Moses Christy of Waterbury, Vermont, against Rufus C. Smith, post master at that place, for the loss of a letter containing fifty dollars, mailed at Salisbury, Ma.s.s., Nov. 23, 1849, by Moses True, Jr.

Moses True, Jr., testified that he carried the letter to the Salisbury post-office, and showed the money to the post master, who counted it, and it was then enclosed in the letter, and left with the post master, who testified that he mailed it in the ordinary way, and forwarded it to Waterbury by the usual course. The letter not being received by Christy, application was made for it to the post master, but nothing could be found of it. The post-bill, however, which accompanied it, was found in the Waterbury office.

It was shown that a son of Christy and one other person were in the habit of calling at the post-office for his letters; but they both swore that they did not remember receiving the letter in question, and that if it was taken out by either of them, it was, in the absence of Christy, laid upon his desk or placed in a private drawer.

It was further proved that the Waterbury office was kept in a room about sixteen feet square, divided in the centre by the boxes and a railing, which separated the part devoted to the office business, from the portion appropriated to the use of the public; that the boxes were so arranged that the box of Moses Christy could easily be reached through the "delivery;" and that persons were frequently allowed to pa.s.s behind or near one end of the counter within the enclosure, to transact business with the post master.

There was no evidence to show that any persons, other than the office a.s.sistants, were permitted to go behind the railing at the time the letter in question arrived at the office.

It appeared that the post master employed several persons as a.s.sistants in the Summer and Autumn of 1849, but there was no evidence to show that any of these persons were regularly appointed and sworn.

It further appeared by Christy's postage account, that one or two letters were charged to him on the 24th of November, 1849, and he produced four or five letters, which, by the ordinary course of the mails, would have been received on that day.

We here copy from "Vermont Reports," Vol. 8, p. 663:--

The defendant requested the Court to charge the jury as follows:--1. That the defendant does not in any manner stand as an insurer in relation to the business of his office, and is only held to ordinary diligence in the discharge of the duties of his office, and can only be made liable for losses occasioned by a want of such diligence, and that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, to establish the fact of the want of such diligence. 2.

That in order to establish the fact of want of ordinary diligence, the plaintiff must show some particular act of negligence in relation to the letter in question, and that the loss was the direct consequence of the particular negligence proved. 3. That although there may have been official misconduct on the part of the defendant, yet unless it be shown that the plaintiff's loss was the result of such misconduct, he cannot recover. 4. That if the letter were by mistake delivered to the wrong person, stolen by a stranger, or embezzled by a clerk, the defendant is not liable, unless he has been negligent, and the loss was the direct consequence of his negligence. 5. That it is not sufficient, to ent.i.tle the plaintiff to recover, merely to show that a letter was received at the office, and that the person to whom it was directed has not received it. 6. That the post master is not liable for the negligence of his deputies, unless he is guilty of negligence in appointing wholly unsuitable persons. 7. That the defendant being a public officer, he would not be liable in an action of trover, unless, at the time the letter was called for, he had the letter in his possession or control, and withheld it, or had actually appropriated the letter, or money, to his own use.

The Court charged the jury in accordance with all the foregoing requests, except the second and sixth. In relation to the second request the Court charged the jury, that it was not necessary, in order to enable the plaintiff to recover, that he should show a particular act of negligence in relation to the letter in question; but that, if the plaintiff had shown a general want of common care and diligence on the part of the defendant, either in the construction of his places of deposit for letters, so that they were unsafe, or in the management of the post-office, in permitting persons to go behind the railing who had no legal right to go there, and had also satisfied them that the letter and money in question were lost in consequence of such negligence or misconduct of the defendant, then the defendant should be liable.

In reference to the sixth request the Court charged the jury, that as there was no proof that any of the persons who were employed by defendant in the office had ever been appointed or sworn as a.s.sistants, they were to be regarded as mere clerks, or servants of the defendant, and that if, through negligence or want of common care and diligence on the part of such clerks or servants, the money and letters were lost, the defendant would be liable therefore.

Verdict for plaintiff. Exceptions by defendant.

The decision was sustained in the Supreme Court.

If the report of the above case shall have the effect to render any cla.s.s of post masters more careful of the custody of correspondence, and in the general management of their offices, the object of its insertion will have been answered.

CHAPTER XXIV.

OFFICIAL COURTESY, ETC.

The post-office clerk who fails to do his duty thoroughly, is like a light-house keeper, who now and then allows his light to go out, or become dim. Sometimes no harm may result; but it may be that the helmsman of some gallant ship laden with precious goods, and far more precious lives, seeing no light to direct him through the angry storm, steers blindly onward, and is wrecked upon the very spot whence the guiding star should have beamed.

Not only is it the duty of those connected with post-offices to exercise the utmost carefulness and exactness, in order that mail matter may promptly reach the persons for whom it is intended, but sometimes much caution and discretion are required from them, that letters may not fall into hands for which they were not designed.

There are other qualifications scarcely less desirable for post-office employes than exactness and caution. Patience and courtesy toward the various individuals const.i.tuting that public which it is the duty of these officials to serve, go very far in carrying out the idea of the post-office,--that of being a convenience to the community.

We have elsewhere shown that the life of a post-office clerk is not pa.s.sed upon a bed of roses, and we would here call his attention to the truth that many annoyances must be expected by him in the course of his experience. The ignorance and consequent pertinacity of those who apply for letters, frequently try his patience to the utmost.

A person, for instance, anxiously expecting a letter, and not understanding that the mail by which it would come arrives only once a day, inquires at the office half a dozen times on the same day, and it is not very wonderful that the clerk in attendance should give short answers to the persevering applicant, or even omit to search for the letter. Yet, even in a case like this, much allowance should be made for the possible circ.u.mstances of the person in question. He may be waiting for news from a sick child, or for some other information of the utmost importance to him, and it is surely hard enough to be disappointed in such expectations, without being obliged to suffer the additional pain of a harsh response.

Of course post-office clerks seldom know the peculiar circ.u.mstances of those who apply for letters; but the exercise of patience and mildness toward all, would be sure to spare the feelings of those who often rather need sympathy than rough words.

Many who carry on little correspondence, and therefore have little occasion to be informed respecting post-office matters in general, often make blunders which are very annoying; but it is to be remembered that those in charge of the post-office, were employed for this, (among other things which contribute to the perfection of this branch of public service,) namely, to bear with all cla.s.ses of correspondents, and to maintain a uniform courtesy toward every one.

This would render it possible for even the most timid to approach the "delivery window," without experiencing the sensation of looking into a lion's den, as has sometimes (but I trust seldom) been the case.

On the other hand, it is reasonable that those who avail themselves of the conveniences of the post-office, should take pains to inform themselves on those points which it is necessary they should know, in order to avoid giving inconvenience to themselves, and unnecessary trouble to those appointed to serve them.

The times of opening and closing mails, and similar matters, should be known, that the post-office may not bear the blame due to negligence outside its walls.

Cases now and then occur, similar to the following, which happened but a few years ago.

A letter came into the Windsor, Vermont, post-office, containing a draft on the Suffolk Bank for three hundred dollars, and directed "Johnson Clark, Windsor, Ct." The "Ct.," however, was written so indistinctly as to resemble "Vt.;" and as there was a person by the name of Johnson Clark (as we shall call him) in the latter place, the letter was handed to him.

When he looked at the post-mark, (that of a town some twenty or thirty miles distant,) he remarked, "I can't imagine who can have been writing to me from there," and after opening and reading it, he returned it to the post master, saying that it was not for him.

But his honesty was only of a transient nature, for he could not keep the money out of his thoughts, and he soon began to think that he had been rather hasty in returning the letter, when, for aught he knew, he could have retained its contents with impunity. For was not the letter directed to Johnson Clark? And may not one take possession of a letter directed to himself?

This course of thought and these queries were followed by the determination to recover the letter, and appropriate the contents.

Clark accordingly went to the post master the next day, and stated that he had heard, the evening before, of the death of a relative who had been living at the West, and who had left him a small legacy, namely, the sum contained in the letter. On the strength of these representations, the post master gave him the doc.u.ment, without, so far as appears, making any attempt to verify his statement. The inheritor of legacies proceeded forthwith to the Bank in the village, and obtained the money on the draft, endorsing it, as is customary. It only required his own name to be written, and where was the harm?

thought he.

A few days after this, the person who had written the letter came to Windsor, Vt., having been informed by his correspondent at Windsor, Ct., that it had not reached him; and thinking it possible that it might have gone astray.

On his arrival at the former place, he soon ascertained that the Vermont Dromio had taken possession of his letter.

This worthy found that the name of Johnson Clark was not a spell potent enough to protect him in the enjoyment of his unrighteous gain.

He was sent to the State Prison for two years.

In this instance, the post master was clearly guilty of carelessness in allowing Clark to obtain the letter on the pretext that he offered.

As there was a well known town in Connecticut of the name of Windsor, prudence would have required a closer examination of the address, after the letter was returned by Clark. And the story by which Clark imposed upon him, was sufficiently lame in some particulars to have called for a closer investigation of its truth. If the post master had requested to be allowed to read that part of the letter which referred to the pretended legacy, a refusal on the part of Clark to permit it, would of course have created a strong suspicion that he was playing a dishonest game, and would have justified the post master in withholding the letter until further proof could be obtained as to the ident.i.ty of Johnson Clark with the one for whom the epistle was designed.

Cases similar to the above are not unfrequent; and in all such instances, those who rely on a name identical with that of some other person, as a shield for attempted dishonesty, have found their defence fail them in the hour of need.

The matter seems too plain to need elucidation; yet not a few persons, equally compounded of folly and knavery, have actually supposed that the possession of a name like that of another man, would enable them to keep on the shady side of the law in making free with his purse also.