Part 26

The boy Fletcher was at first supposed to be the only person concerned in the affair; but the investigation developed the facts above stated, and Barrett, who had suddenly left for New York, was arrested at Genesee on the 9th of June. On the 16th he was taken to Williamsport, Pennsylvania, where the United States District Court was held; on the 17th he was put on trial; on the 18th found guilty; and on the 20th he was lodged in the Western Penitentiary at Alleghany City, Pennsylvania, the court having sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Barrett’s age was fifty-six, which influenced the court in shortening the term of imprisonment.

The principal witness against Barrett was young Fletcher. A large number of letters was found at a place designated by him. One hundred and sixty dollars and other mailable matter were found where he said they were concealed. The most important item of testimony, however, was that which related to a silver half-dollar, which Fletcher alleged he had taken out of a letter, and which he had sold to Barrett for sixty cents in currency. It was ascertained that a drafted man, on leaving for the army, had taken inadvertently with him a half-dollar belonging to his little son. At the time the tampering was going on with letters at the post-office, he had enclosed a half-dollar in a letter to his wife to replace the one he had taken away with him. This letter had to pass through the Jackson office, but it never reached its destination. Doubtless this was the one out of which Fletcher got the half-dollar sold to Barrett. It is a curious fact in the history of criminals that their detection, in nine cases out of ten, is caused by some very trifling incident connected with the operations. So it was in this case.

The 126th section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1825, makes the opening, embezzling, or destroying of mail-letters or packages containing articles of value an offence punishable with imprisonment not less than two, nor more than ten, years. The 129th section of the same act provides “That every person who, from and after the passage of this act, shall procure and advise, or assist, in the doing or perpetration of any of the acts or crimes by this act forbidden, shall be subject to the same penalties and punishments as the persons are subject to who shall actually do or perpetrate any of the said acts or crimes, according to the provisions of this act.” It was under this clause Barrett was convicted, and it is, perhaps, the only case of the kind on record.

This interesting case—and were all the details given it would prove highly so—came under the official management of S. B. Row, Esq., special agent of the post-office department for the State of Pennsylvania. The moment the first intimation was received of the mails being tampered with, he fixed upon his starting-point, and, with a sure eye to the end, he pursued his course until he arrived at Jackson, and by a little stratagem the whole plot was discovered. He traced it from the first step young Fletcher made into crime, after receiving his lesson from Barrett, up to the loss of the silver half-dollar. The case, if fairly written out, with all the details, would make an invaluable paper for some Sunday-school tract-publishing institution. It is, indeed, a lesson for youth.

_THE DISHONEST MERCHANT._

Crime in high places has of late become fashionable; law itself has become aristocratic, and maintains its character for partiality by shielding aristocratical rascals beneath its wings. Justice is no longer blind,—at least, one of its eyes is open,—and the distinguishing marks on a greenback, denoting its value, are readily discerned by the goddess. The poor wretch who steals a loaf of bread to save his children from starvation invariably gets on the blind side of Justice, and, of course, the sense of hearing, and not of seeing, is exercised in his case. Bacon, in his Essay of Judicature, says, “The place of justice is an hallowed place, and, therefore, not only the bench, but the foot-pace, and precincts, and purprise thereof, ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption.” The fate of the bread-snatcher is an evidence that the precincts of justice and the foot-pace to its throne must be paved with gold, or his chance, or that of any other poor man, from escape is totally impossible. The man who steals a loaf of bread commits a crime: he should be punished: so should the man who swindles the government, robs the widow, commits forgery, nay, even murder, but whose wealth paves the way for his acquittal. (_See records of our courts._)

In the following case it will be observed that the postal department, having some knowledge of the manner business is conducted in our courts, took the matter into its own hand, the chief clerk acting as _detective, judge, and jury_, and who settled the case in a manner, without loss of time or money, highly satisfactory to all, save the guilty party, who, shortly after the scene we are about to describe, was compelled to quit the city and left for parts unknown.

The gentleman(?) who is the hero of the narrative—for he was recognized as a gentleman in society—had been in the frequent receipt, by mail, of remittances in large and small sums. Not long since he made his appearance at the desk of the chief clerk in the post-office, and alleged that he had just taken from his box a letter from which a draft on a city bank for about one hundred dollars had been fraudulently abstracted, and, as the point from which the letter had been mailed was but a short distance from Philadelphia, he was confident that the draft had been abstracted by some one in the post-office here. This imputation on the character of the office nettled the chief clerk, and that functionary determined to sift the matter to the bottom and ferret out the criminal, if such there was. He made the necessary inquiries as to the day the letter was due here, closely cross-examined the clerks, and, after a diligent investigation, proceeded to the bank on which the draft was drawn. He found that _it had been paid_, and bore the indorsement, or seeming indorsement, of the loser. He borrowed the draft and brought it to the office. On comparing the apparently-forged signature of the loser on the back of the document with the handwriting of a certain night-clerk, a remarkable resemblance was discovered. Several experts were called in, and declared that the handwriting of the clerk and the chirography of the “forger” were one and the same. A clerk in the bank was privately shown the suspected clerk, and he identified him as the man _to whom the money had been paid_! The network seemed to be closing around the poor night-clerk, and it was determined that he should be arrested. The chief clerk, jubilant at his discovery, sent for the merchant who said he had lost the draft. While the chief clerk and the merchant were closeted in the postmaster’s private office, and the former was detailing his success to the merchant, he observed, as he proceeded with the recital, that the merchant began to wear a livid hue; his countenance assumed a pallid aspect, in which a guilty conscience seemed to come to the surface to horrify and disgust the beholder. Trembling lips, too, were seen, and, as the truth in all its damning meanness flashed across the mind of the chief clerk, he at once boldly charged the merchant with having written his own signature _in a feigned hand_, so as to secure the spoils of his own guilt and ruin an innocent man. The guilty, miserable creature, overwhelmed with confusion, confessed his guilt and implored mercy. He acknowledged his criminality in the whole transaction,—a transaction which was about to stain forever the reputation of an honest, hard-working man, whose only capital was his skill as a scrivener and his integrity in his clerical position. The chief clerk, determined that the reputation of the night-clerk should be vindicated, threatened to have the guilty merchant exposed and punished unless he proceeded to a magistrate at once and made an affidavit confessing the crime in all its details. The merchant humiliated himself by signing and swearing to the odious confession, and the matter there rested.

_LETTERS ADDRESSED TO CITIES ONLY._

Many persons are in the habit of addressing letters and circulars for firms and individuals, simply, “Philadelphia,” “New York,” &c. This practice not unfrequently occasions delay in such letters reaching their rightful owners. In all cases, however well the firm may be known, it is most essential, to insure their correct delivery, that the street or locality in which they reside, and the number of the house, should form a portion of the address. Many of these circulars are prepared with great care and considerable expense: yet they are so carelessly directed that not more than one-half of them ever reach their place of destination, simply because that place is not designated.

There is another matter to which we would call the attention of merchants and others, and that is, to be very careful in putting postal currency on their letters, and not revenue-stamps.

This carelessness on the part of those forwarding letters has led to much loss and inconvenience, and if persisted in they cannot blame the department, which has from time to time called public attention to the fact. Some put on their letters revenue-stamps, others no stamp at all; and in many instances letters of importance have thus lain in the office until the parties have received through the dead-letter office information of their whereabouts.

_UNMAILABLE LETTERS._

“Letters attempted to be sent with stamps previously used or stamps cut from stamped envelopes.

“Unpaid letters for foreign countries, on which prepayment is required by the regulations.

“Letters not addressed, or so badly addressed that their destination cannot be known.

“Letters misdirected to places where there are no post-offices.”

It will be here seen that the government is not responsible for the ignorance and stupidity of all epistolarians.

In some instances, however, postmasters are to blame in not paying more attention to the mode of stamping letters.

The examination of dead-letters discloses much carelessness on the part of postmasters in post-marking letters, and also in cancelling postage-stamps.

The latter clause of the regulations of 1859, section 397, is repealed, and the use of the office-rating or post-marking stamp as a cancelling instrument is positively prohibited, inasmuch as the post-mark, when impressed on the postage-stamp, is usually indistinct, and the cancellation effected thereby is imperfect. The postage-stamp must, therefore, be effectually cancelled with a separate instrument.

Special attention is directed to the duty imposed upon postmasters by Regulation 396, which is as follows:—

“If the cancelling has been omitted on the mailing of the letter, packet, or parcel, or if the cancellation be incomplete, the postmaster at the office of delivery will cancel the stamp in the manner directed, and forthwith report the delinquent postmaster to the postmaster-general, as the law requires.”

_ADDRESSES SHOULD BE LEGIBLE AND COMPLETE._

We have under other heads alluded to the carelessness of persons in addressing their letters. To make them legible and complete, give the name of the post-town, and if there be more than one town of that name, or if the post-town is not well known, be careful in giving the name of the county, which in all cases is as essential as that of the State. The number of the house, too, if in a street, is a great assistance. It must not be supposed that because a letter will eventually reach its destination without a number, the omission is not a cause of hesitation and delay in the process of sorting for delivery; and when such small delays occur again and again, they tend greatly to retard the general distribution. In the case of letters for places abroad, the name of the _country_, as well as the town or city, should be given in full. Attention to this latter precaution will often assist in deciphering the name of the town or city, and will prevent the letter from being mis-sent when there are towns of the same name in different countries.

The following is an expressive lesson:—

A gentleman posted a letter containing drafts, checks, &c., to a well-known New York house. Its failure to arrive at the proper destination, of course, created great anxiety, and all the ordinary and some extraordinary means were employed to head off any attempt by the “mail-robber” to negotiate the “stolen” remittances. Journeys were made to and fro between the mailing point and the Empire City, the newspapers were liberally patronized with notices of “stolen from the mail,” circulars descriptive of the lost enclosure abounded,—all at an aggregate expense, according to confession, of over one hundred dollars.

During this short season of precaution and excitement, the letter in question had been making the official acquaintance of the worthy postmaster of New Haven, Connecticut, and that of his clerks, then, under the rule, skipping off to shake hands with our friends of the dead-letter office, and from thence finding its way back to the writer, who says he “never before did such a stupid thing as to write New Haven, Ct., instead of New York, N.Y.”

_A LAW TO BE REPEALED._

It is only necessary to give this section of the postal law to show its inconsistency and the necessity of its repeal (Section 131, Printed Regulations, 1859):—

“_Bonâ fide_ subscribers to weekly newspapers can receive the same free of postage, if they reside in the county in which the paper is printed and published, even if the office to which the paper is sent is without the county, provided it is the office at which they regularly receive their mail-matter.”

In justice, however, to many publishers, who look upon the law as too _liberal_, they disdain taking advantage of it.[52]

_POSTAGE ON TRANSIENT PRINTED MATTER._

Books not over 4 ounces in weight, to one address 4 cts. ” over 4 ounces and not over 8 ounces 8 ” ” over 8 ounces and not over 12 ounces 12 ” ” over 12 ounces and not over 16 ounces 16 ” Circulars not exceeding three in number, to one address 2 ” ” over three and not over six 4 ” ” over six and not over nine 6 ” ” over nine and not exceeding twelve 8 ”

Persons anxious to possess a general knowledge of the post-office laws, rules, and regulations are referred to “Appleton’s United States Postal Guide,” published quarterly, by the authority of the postmaster-general, New York. It contains the chief regulations of the post-office, and a complete list of post-offices throughout the United States, &c. The following accompanies each number:—

“WASHINGTON, D.C., ———, 1865.

“This volume has been prepared with my sanction, and is an authorized medium of information between the post-office department and the public.

“POSTMASTER-GENERAL.”

_NEWSPAPERS, EXCHANGES, ETC._

“Gazettes sent gratis down and franked, For which thy patron’s weekly thanked.”

The question of the right to send and receive letters and packets through the mail free of postage is not denied, for it is so expressly stated in the “Laws and Regulations of the Post-Office Department,” chap. xviii. sect. 228. It is viewed in the light of “personal privileges,” or as an official trust for the maintenance of official correspondence. In both its forms the right varies in respect to different classes of officers and individuals, in the kind as well as weight of matters which may be so sent or received. An interchange between publishers of pamphlets, periodicals, magazines, and newspapers of their respective publications is allowed for the purpose of promoting the dissemination of this kind of information, of which they are the vehicles. This is the head and front of the franking privilege, nothing more, but should be considerably less.

“There are many other channels of knowledge, and of very important knowledge, too, which are not privileged. Newspapers are daily or weekly letters, written to a number of persons at once. They may be good or bad, sound or vicious, as any other letters; and the intensity of their action is increased by the multiplying process of printing. This action may be good or bad: if, therefore, the community is believed to stand in want of newspapers, as we certainly believe it does in a very great variety of ways, it is already going very far to grant them the privilege of a greatly-reduced rate of postage [1841].”[53]

Since the above was written, these rates have been reduced to almost a nominal value. Indeed, we cannot see any reasonable objection to be made for such exchange, both as regards the franking privilege and the postage on exchange-newspapers. Patriotism on the part of those claiming the right of the first would induce them to forego it, while those who enjoy the latter should remember that, as they derive profit from their labor, the government should not be the sufferer in consequence. Upon this subject we consider the following article from the very able report of Postmaster Joseph Holt in 1859 as containing the best and the most forcible arguments that can be used to correct what we consider more in the light of an error than that of an abuse. The press of our country is too enlightened to persist in claiming a privilege that militates against the financial interest of the government; and we feel assured that, if the subject is properly brought before them, they will readily conform to any law that may be established to correct the error or do away with an abuse.

(From the Report of the Postmaster-General.)

“POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, 1859.

“The act of 1825 authorized ‘every printer of newspapers to send one paper to each and every other printer of newspapers within the United States free of postage,’ and such is the existing law. However slight the support which this statute may seem to give to publishers, it imposes in the aggregate a heavy and unjust burden on the department. The advantage thus conferred inures to the benefit alike of the publisher who sends and of him who receives the paper in exchange. I have in vain sought for any satisfactory explanation of the policy indicated by this provision. It seems far more exceptionable than the franking privilege, since the latter professes to be exercised on behalf of the public, whereas the exemption secured by the former is enjoyed wholly in advancement of a private and personal interest. The newspapers received in exchange by the journalist are, in the parlance of commerce, his stock in trade. From their columns he gathers materials for his own, and thus makes the same business use of them that the merchant does of his goods, or the mechanic of the raw material which he proposes to manufacture into fabrics. But as the government transports nothing free of charge to the farmer, the merchant, or the mechanic, to enable them to prosecute successfully and economically their respective pursuits, why shall it do so for the journalist? If the latter can rightfully claim that his newspapers shall be thus delivered to him at the public expense, why may he not also claim that his stationery and his type, and indeed every thing which enters into the preparation of the sheets he issues as his means of living, be delivered to him on the same terms? It has been urged, I am aware, that postage on newspaper exchanges would be a tax on the dissemination of knowledge; but so is the postage which the farmer, merchant, and mechanic pay on the newspapers for which they subscribe, a tax on the dissemination of knowledge, and yet it is paid by them uncomplainingly. If it be insisted that the publishers of newspapers, as a class, are in such a condition as to entitle them to demand the aid of the public funds, it may be safely answered that such an assumption is wholly unwarranted. Journalism in the United States rests upon the broadest and deepest foundations, and is running a career far more brilliant and prosperous than in any other nation of the world. The exceedingly reduced rates at which its issues pass through the mails secure to it advantages enjoyed under no other government. Under the fostering care of the free spirit of the age, it has now become an institution in itself in this country, and controls the tides of the restless ocean of public opinion with almost resistless sway. It is the _avant-courier_ of the genius of our institutions, and is everywhere the advocate of progress and of the highest and noblest forms of human freedom. Is it not, therefore, to the last degree unseemly, if not worse, that in its own enterprises, and in furtherance of its own pecuniary interests, it should claim permission to violate habitually a great principle of which it is the constant advocate, and which underlies our whole political system,—the principle of equal rights to all and special privileges to none? If, however, from the grandeur and beneficence of its mission, the press is to be excepted from the operation of this wholesome democratic doctrine, and is to be subsidized to the extent of its postages by the government, then undeniably such subsidy should be contributed from the common treasury, instead of being imposed, as at present, on the oppressed revenues of the post-office department, which, under all circumstances, should be maintained inviolate.

“Into the same category, but for more cogent reasons, must fall that class of weekly newspapers which the statute of 1852 requires shall be delivered free of postage to all subscribers residing within the limits of the county in which they are published. This requisition is less sound on the score of principle than even the discrimination in favor of the press. There may be something in the characteristics of the latter—ennobled as it is as the organ of the intellect and heart of millions of freemen—which might induce many to grant to it special and distinguishing immunities; but why a citizen who chances to reside on one side of a county line shall be exempted from a postage on his newspaper, which his neighbor on the other side of that line is obliged to pay on the same paper, surpasses my comprehension.”

_LETTER ADDRESSES._[54]

To Nathaniel K. Latting this letter I write, With the hope that the contents his mind may delight. If it don’t make him good, it can’t do him evil, For it comes from a friend, and not from the d—l. In Mount Vernon village, New York State, He works for his daddy, both early and late.

To Miss J. E. Peck this letter is sent, To be read by herself it only is meant. In “Sandy Hook,” Conn., she leads a gay life, Where Yankees make nutmegs and hams with a knife.

P. M., this letter cannot wait, To Burlington County send it straight. To Jos. Wright this message give, Who in Medford, New Jersey, himself doth live; At least he did six months ago, And still does if the _draft_ or the _small-pox_ has not laid him low. If he is alive he will read this letter, And if he is dead so much the better.

Over the plain and over the level, Carry this letter like the Devil; Let it not stop for flood or fire, Until it reaches Bill Crawl, Esquire.

To Lexington, Sanilac Co., Oh, swiftly, swiftly let me go, To cheer the heart, or cloud the brow, Of Mrs. Anna M. Monro.

Mich.

Mr. James Smith, Fort Wayne, Antwerp, Ohio, in care of William Herring, Cayuaga Co., N.Y.