to Mr. Baker.
Washington, November 1, 1884.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Nos. 1027 and 1028, of the 13th and 14th ultimo, in relation to the case of the late John Dalton, and to say that the expression used in your No. 1028, “taken [Page 597] (or accepted),” when speaking of the imprisonment of the son instead of the father, the precise alternative is formulated. It is regarded as material to know whether Dalton senior being the real object, young Dalton was “taken” as a personal and vicarious substitute, irrespective of his being a member of the firm, or whether he was “accepted” as a sufficient representative of the firm, and equally competent, with his father, to extinguish the penalty arbitrarily imposed on “John Dalton & Co.” In other words, would the son or any other substitute have been taken if not a member of the firm.
* * * * * * *
The Department’s decision is therefore reserved awaiting further proof.
I am, &c.,