Chapter I: J. Brewin, of Cirencester, one of the Society of Friends, (2)

A mail is run at regular periods to Eagle River, Wisconsin, for the accommodation of the persons employed about the copper mines on Lake Superior. Without questioning the certainty of the great things that are to be done there hereafter, it is no presumption to express the belief that the expenses of that mail are hardly paid by the postage on the letters now carried to and from Lake Superior. Nor, after making all due allowances for the liberal distribution of copper stock at the East, is it rational to believe that all the people who write letters here, are so directly interested as to make a tax upon letters the most equitable mode of assessing the expense.

During the debates in Congress on the act of 1844, an incident was related by Senator Crittenden, of Kentucky, to this effect. He said he was travelling in the mail stage somewhere in the State of Tennessee. At a time of day when he was tired and hungry, the stage turned off from the road a number of miles, to carry the mail to a certain post-office; it was night when they reached the office, the postmaster was roused with difficulty, who went through the formality of taking the mail pouch into his hand, and returned it to the driver, saying there was not a letter in it, and had not been for a month. I will not inquire whose letters ought to be taxed to sustain that mail route, but only remark, that whatever consideration caused its establishment, ought to carry the cost to the public treasury, and not throw it as a burden upon our letters.

The Postmaster-General, in his late report, says that “the weight and bulk of the mails, which add so greatly to the cost of transportation, and impede the progress of the mail, are attributable to the mass of printed matter daily forwarded from the principal cities in the Union to every part of the country;” and “justice requires that the expense of their transportation should be paid by the postage.” I would add to this the qualifying phrase, “or by the government, out of the public treasury,” and then ask why the same principle of justice is not as applicable to long mail routes as to heavy mail bags. There is and can be no ground of apprehension, that mails will ever be overloaded or retarded by the weight of paid letters they contain. It was found by the parliamentary committee, that the number of letters, which was then nearly fifty per cent. greater than in all our mails, might be increased twenty-four fold, without overloading the mails, and without any material addition to the contracts for carrying the mails. They also found that the whole cost of receiving, transporting and delivering a letter was 76-100ths of a penny, of which the transit cost but 19-100ths, and the receipt and delivery 57-100ths. The cost of transit, per letter, is of course reduced by the increase of correspondence.

I have dwelt so long on this part of the subject, because I find that here is the great difficulty in the application of the principles and results of the British system to our own country—ours is such a “great country,” and we have so many “magnificent distances.” But disposing as I have of the unproductive mail routes, and showing as I have, the injustice of taxing letters with the expense of any public burthens, this whole difficulty is removed, and it is made to appear that two cents is the highest proper rate of postage which the government can justly exact for letters, on the score either of a just equivalent for the service rendered, or of a tax imposed for the purposes of the government itself.

This is the conclusion to which the parliamentary committee were most intelligently and satisfactorily drawn—that “the principle of a uniform postage is founded on the facts, that the cost of distributing letters in the United Kingdom consists chiefly in the expenses incurred with reference to their receipt at and delivery from the office, and that the cost of transit along the mail roads is comparatively unimportant, and determined rather by the number of letters carried than the distance;” that “as the cost of conveyance per letter depends more on the number of letters carried than on the distance which they are conveyed, (the cost being frequently greater for distances of a few miles, than for distances of hundreds of miles,) the charge, if varied in proportion to the cost, ought to increase in the inverse ratio of the number of letters conveyed,” but it would be impossible to carry such a rule into practice, and therefore the committee were of opinion, that “the easiest practicable approach to a fair system, would be to charge a medium rate of postage between one post-office and another, whatever may be their distance.” And the committee were further of opinion, “that such an arrangement is highly desirable, not only on account of its abstract fairness, but because it would tend in a great degree to simplify and economize the business of the post-office.”

Waterston’s Cyclopedia of Commerce says, “the fixing of _a low rate_ flowed almost necessarily from the adoption of a _uniform_ rate. It was besides essential to the stoppage of the private conveyance of letters. The post-office was thus to be restored to its ancient footing of an institution, whose primary object was public accommodation, not revenue.”

The adoption of this simple principle, of Uniform Cheap Postage, was a revolution in postal affairs. It may almost be called a revolution in the government, for it identified the policy of the government with the happiness of the people, more perfectly than any one measure that was ever adopted. It prepared the way for all other postal reforms, which are chiefly impracticable until this one is carried. We also can have franking abolished, as soon as cheap postage shall have given the franking privilege alike to all. We can have label stamps, and free delivery, and registry of letters, and reduced postage on newspapers, and whatever other improvement our national ingenuity may contrive, to the fullest extent of the people’s wants, and the government’s ability, just as soon as we can prevail upon the people to ask, and congress to grant, this one boon of Uniform Cheap Postage.

V. _Franking._

The unanimity and readiness with which the franking privilege was surrendered by the members of parliament—men of privilege in a land of privilege—is proof of the strong pressure of necessity under which the measure was carried. It is true, a few members seemed disposed to struggle for the preservation of this much-cherished prerogative. One member complained that the bill would be taxing him as much as £15 per annum. Another defended the franking privilege on account of its benefits to the poor. But the opposition melted away, like an unseasonable frost, as soon as its arguments were placed in the light of cheap postage. And the whole system of franking was swept away, and each department of the government was required to pay its own postage, and report the same among its expenditures. The debates in parliament show something of the reasons which prevailed.

_July 22, 1848._ The postage bill came up on the second reading:

Sir Robert H. Inglis, among other things, objected to the
abolition of the franking privilege. He could not see why, because
a tax was to be taken off others, a tax was to be imposed on
members. It would be, to those who had much correspondence, at
least £15 a year, at the reduced rate of a penny a letter. To the
revenue the saving would be small, and he hoped the house would
not consent to rescind that privilege.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the sacrifice of the franking
privilege would be small in amount. But at the same time, be it
small or great, he thought there would be not one feature of the
new system which would be more palatable to the public, than this
practical evidence of the willingness of members of this house, to
sacrifice everything personal to themselves, for the advantage of
the public revenue.

Sir Robert Peel did not think it desirable that members of this
house should retain the franking privilege. He thought if this
were continued after this bill came into operation, there _would
be a degree of odium_ attached to it which would greatly diminish
its value. He agreed that it would be well to restrict in some way
the _right of sending by mail the heavy volumes of reports_. He
said there were many members who would shrink from the exercise of
such a privilege, to load the mail with books. He would also
require that each department should specially pay the postage
incurred for the public service in that department. If every
office be called upon to pay its own postage, we shall introduce a
useful principle into the public service. There is no habit
connected with a public service so inveterate, as the privilege of
official franking.

On a former day, July 5, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said concerning the abolition of the franking privilege:

Undoubtedly, we may lose the opportunity now and then, of obliging
a friend; but on other grounds, I believe there is no member of
the house who will not be ready to abandon the privilege. As to
any notion that honorable gentlemen should retain their privilege
under a penny postage, they must have a more intense appreciation
of the value of money, and a greater disregard for the value of
time, than I can conceive, if they insist on it.

All the peculiarities which distinguish British institutions from our own, might naturally be expected to make public men in that country more tenacious of privilege than our own statesmen. In a land of privilege, we should expect mere privilege to be coveted, because it is privilege. This practical and harmonious decision of British statesmen, of all parties, in favor of abolishing the franking privilege, in order to give strength and consistency to the system of cheap postage, shows in a striking light the sense which they entertained of the greatness of the object of cheap postage. The arguments which convinced them, we should naturally suppose would have tenfold greater force here than there; while the arguments in favor of the privilege would have tenfold greater influence there than here. Can there be a doubt that, when the subject is fairly understood, there will be found as much magnanimity among American as among British legislators?

The moral evils of the franking system are far more serious than the pecuniary expense, although that is by no means undeserving of regard. It is not only an ensnaring prerogative to those who enjoy it, and an anomaly and incongruity in our republican institutions, but it is an oppressive burden upon the post-office, which ought to be removed.

The parliamentary committee ascertained, by three distinct calculations, (of which all the results so nearly agreed as to strengthen each other,) that, reckoning by numbers, one-ninth of the letters passing through the post-office in a year, were franked. And, reckoning by weight, the proportion was 30 per cent. of the whole. Of seven millions of franked letters and documents, nearly five millions were by members of parliament. If all the franks had been subject to postage, they would have yielded upwards of a million sterling yearly. This was after the parliamentary franks had been restricted to a certain number (ten) daily for each member, and limited in weight to two ounces. The amount of postage on parliamentary franks would be yearly £350,000, averaging about £310 to each member. But there were a number of official persons, whose franks were not limited, either in number or weight. These franks were obtained and used, by those who could get them, without stint or scruple.

The celebrated Dr. Dionysius Lardner, who then occupied a
prominent place among men of letters in Great Britain, testified
before the parliamentary committee in 1838, that he was in the
practice of sending and receiving about five thousand letters a
year, of which he got four-fifths without postage—chiefly by
franks. While he lived in Ireland, his correspondence was so
heavy, not only as to the number of letters, but their bulk and
weight, that he was obliged to apply to the Postmaster-General of
Ireland, Lord Rosse, who allowed them to go under his franks. From
the year 1823, or soon after he quitted the university, until the
year 1828, his letters went and came under the frank of Lord
Rosse, who had the power of franking to any weight. Since he came
to England, his facilities of getting franks were very great.
Without such means, he would have found it very difficult indeed
to send his letters by post. His heavy correspondence was chiefly
sent through official persons, who had the power of franking to
any weight; and his correspondents knew that they could send their
letters under care to these friends; so that he received
communications from them in the same way. He endeavored to save as
much trouble as he could, by dividing the annoyance among them,
and by enclosing a bundle of letters for the same neighborhood
under one cover. He said that, to obtain these privileges a man
must be connected or known to the aristocratic classes, and that
it was certainly unfair, as it gave unfair advantages to those who
happened to have friends or connections having that power. His
foreign correspondence was carried on through the embassies; and
in this way the letters came free. He got his letters from the
United States free in that way. Any man who was a Fellow of the
Royal Society, or who lived among that class, could avail himself
of these means of obtaining scientific communications.

The number of franked letters posted, throughout the kingdom, in two weeks in January, 1838, is stated in the following table.

Week ending Country to London to Country to Total London. country. country. 15 January, 41,196 43,345 36,361 122,902 29 January, 46,371 51,046 37,894 135,311 ——— ——— ——— ——— Total, 87,567 96,391 74,255 258,213 Proportion, .339 .373 .287 1.

It was stated in the debates, that before the franking privilege was limited, it had been worth, to some great commercial houses, who had a seat in parliament, from £300 to £800 a year; and that after the limitation it was worth to some houses as much as £300 a year. The committee spoke of the use of franks for scientific and business correspondence, as “an exemplification of the irregular means by which a scale of postage, too high for the interests and proper management of the affairs of the country, is forced to give way in particular instances. And like all irregular means, it is of most unfair and partial application; the relief depends, not on any general regulation, known to the public, and according to which relief can be obtained, but upon favor and opportunity; and the consequence is, that while the more pressing suitor obtains the benefit he asks, those of a more forbearing disposition pay the penalty of high postage.” It also keeps out of view of the public, “how much the cost of distribution is exceeded by the charge, and to what extent therefore the postage of letters is taxed” to sustain this official privilege. The committee therefore concluded in their report, that “taking into the account the serious loss to the public revenue, which is caused by the privilege of franking, and the inevitable abuse of that privilege in numerous cases where no public business is concerned, it would be politic in a financial point of view, and agreeable to the public sense of justice, if, on effecting the proposed reduction of the postage rates, the privilege of franking were to be abolished.” Only the post-office department now franks its own official correspondence; petitions to parliament are sent free; and parliamentary documents are charged at one-eighth the rate of letters. Letters _to_ the Queen also go free.

In our own country, the congressional franking privilege has long been a subject of complaint, both by the post-office authorities and the public press. There are many discrepancies in the several returns from which the extent of franking is to be gathered.

From a return made by the Postmaster General to the Senate, Jan. 16, 1844, the whole number of letters passing through the mails in a year is set at 27,073,144, of which the number franked is 2,815,692, which is a small fraction over 10 per cent.

The annual report of the Postmaster-General in 1837, estimates the whole number of letters at 32,360,992, of which 2,100,000, or a little over 6 per cent, were franked.

In February, 1844, the Postmaster-General communicated to Congress a statement of an account kept of the free letters and documents mailed at Washington, during three weeks of the sitting of Congress in 1840, of which the results appear in the following table.

Week ending Letters. Public Doc. Weight of Doc. May 2, 13,674 96,588 8,042 lbs. June 2, 13,955 108,912 9,076 July 7, 14,766 186,768 15,564 ——— ——— ——— Total, 42,395 392,268 32,689 Average, 14,132 140,756 10,896 Session 33 466,345 4,314,948 359,579 weeks,

Whole number of Letters and Documents in a session of thirty-three weeks, 4,781,293.

Average weight of Public Documents, 1-⅓ oz.

Of the 42,375 free letters, 20,362 were congressional, and 22,032, or 52 per cent. were from the Departments.

In the month of October, 1843, an account was kept at all the offices in the United States, of the number of letters franked and received in that month by members of Congress. The number was 18,558, which would give 81,370 for 19 weeks of vacation. To these add 223,992 mailed in 33 weeks of session, and four-fifths as many, 179,193, for letters received, and it gives a total of 484,555 letters received and sent free of postage by members of Congress in a year, besides the Public Documents. The postage on the letters, at the old rates, would have been $100,000.

From the same return of October, 1843, it appears that the number of letters franked and received by national and state officers, was 1,024,068; and by postmasters, 1,568,928; total, 2,592,998, the postage on which, at 14-½ cents, would amount to $376,073.

These calculations would give the loss on free letters, at that time, $476,073. This is besides the postage on the public documents, 359,578 pounds, the postage on which, at 2-½ cents per ounce, would come to $147,581.

Total postage lost by franking, $623,654.

Document No. 118, printed by the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, 1848, gives $312,500 as the amount of postage on franked letters, and $200,000 for franked documents, making a total of $512,500.

The report of the Post-office Committee of the House of Representatives, May 15, 1844, contains a return of the number of free letters mailed and received at the Washington post-office, during the week ending February 20, 1844, with the corresponding annual number, and the amount of postage, at the old rates—allowing the average length of a session of Congress to be six months. From this I have constructed the following table.

Departments Letters Letters Total No. Postage. received sent Annually. House of 1,882 1,505 Representatives Senate 7,510 10,271 —— —— Total of 9,392 11,776 550,368 $114,697 Congress President U. S. 304 174 24,856 4,895 Post Office 6,041 3,615 502,112 102,474 State 1,989 2,253 220,584 41,600 Department Treasury 6,800 2,405 478,660 100,949 Department War Department 2,592 2,626 271,336 61,475 Navy Department 1,709 2,082 197,132 39,809 Attorney-General 52 816 45,136 10,678 —— —— —— —— Total 2,290,184 $476,577

Whole number of letters franked at Washington: 2,290,184 Add, franked by members at home: 111,348 Franked by postmasters: 1,568,928 Total of free letters: 3,970,450 Add, franked documents: 4,314,948 General total number: 8,285,398 The postage on all which, at the old rates, would be at least: $1,000,000

The annual report of the Postmaster-General, December, 1847, estimates the number of free letters at five millions, the postage on which, at present rates, would be at least $375,000, to which the postage on the documents should be added.

The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the postage due on the free letters and documents, if reckoned according to the old rates, would be at least one million, and under the present rates above half a million of dollars annually; equal to 12 per cent of the whole gross income of the department.

When our present postage law was under consideration, the committees of both Houses recommended the abolition of the franking privilege, for reasons of justice, as well as to satisfy the public mind. The report of the House Committee has this passage:

“As the post-office is made to sustain itself solely by a tax on
correspondence, it should derive aid and support from everything
it conveys. No man’s private correspondence should go free, since
the expense of so conveying it becomes a charge upon others; and
the special favor thus given, and which is much abused by being
extended to others not contemplated by law, is unjust and odious.
Neither should the _public_ correspondence be carried free of
charge, where such immunity operates as a burden upon the
correspondence of the citizen. There is no just reason why the
public should not pay its postages as well as citizens—no
sufficient reason why this item of public expenses should not be
borne, like all others, by the general tax paid into the public
treasury.”

The report of the Senate Committee goes still more fully into the argument, leading to the same conclusion. In explaining the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the post-office, then so widely felt by the people, and the consequent diminution of its revenues, it argues thus:

“The _immediate_ benefits of the post-office establishment
accruing to that portion of the people only who carry on
correspondence through it, and these enjoying those benefits in
very unequal degrees, according to their various pursuits, habits,
or inclinations, it has seemed to be required by the principles of
equal justice that the expenses of the establishment should be
defrayed by contributions collected equally from each person
served by it, in proportion to the amount of service rendered. The
obvious justice of this rule, admitting as it does of so near an
approximation to exact justice in its practical application to the
business of this department, has commended it to all: and,
accordingly, the department has always been _professedly_ governed
by it: but, unfortunately, so wide has been the departure from
this just and equitable rule in the actual practice, that it has
become a word of promise, kept only to the ear, and broken to the
sense. Far from exacting of all equal contributions towards
meeting the necessary expenses of this department in proportion to
the amount of service rendered to each, about one-eighth part
numerically, and probably not less than one sixth part in weight
and bulk of the whole correspondence, has been privileged to pass
free of all charge—to say nothing of the immense amount of public
documents conveyed under similar privilege, while the expense of
the whole has been borne by high charges upon the non-privileged
part of the correspondence. It may be said this privilege was
granted, and has been extended, from time to time, for the public
service, and in furtherance of the public interest. Admitted; but
is it not perceived that it still involves a palpable violation of
the principle of equal justice, before shown to be at the
foundation of all our institutions, and an adherence to which is
indispensable in the conduct of all our affairs? How can it be
made to comport with any just conceptions of right, for the
Government to levy so large a tax, for the common purposes of all,
upon a portion only of its citizens? As well might the post-office
be used as a source of general revenue, as to be taxed specially
with the expenses of this branch of the public service—a mode of
raising revenue for general purposes universally admitted to be so
unequal and unjust that it has never been resorted to in this
country but in a single instance of extreme necessity, and then
only for a very short time. It is true, the post-office may be,
and is in other countries, successfully resorted to as a means of
extorting money from the people; but this must be where the
principles of government are widely different from ours, and the
leading policy being not the promotion of the happiness and
welfare of the many, but the advancement of the few, justifies the
use of any means which may subserve that end. There force and
fear, not justice and mutual good will, are the controlling
influences. According to the nature of our government, it might
with much more propriety be asked, by those who use the
post-office establishment, that its whole expense be borne by the
general treasury, than that they should be required to defray the
expense of the public service performed in this or any other
department; because it may with truth be urged, that although the
advantages of this department accrue _immediately_ to them, yet
mediately at least they inure to the great benefit of the whole
country.”

These objections are of great weight, even under the old or the present postage. With cheap postage, they ought to be conclusive. In the language of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, men who would then wish to retain the franking privilege “must have a more intense appreciation of the value of money, and a greater disregard for the value of time, than I can conceive, if they insist on it.” The only other reason for retaining the privilege would be, that honorable gentlemen, in the receipt of eight dollars per day for attending to the business of the nation, would be willing to spend their time in writing franks at two cents a-piece, for the sake of having their names circulate through the post-office with the letters M. C. attached to them.

A serious objection to the franking system is, that it unavoidably tends to constant strife and altercation between members of congress and the department. The head of the department, naturally and properly careful of the income of the post-office, sees with pain the vast encroachment upon the revenue made by the franking system. He becomes rigid in the construction of the law; he deems every frank that does not come within its letter an abuse; he adopts the assumption that franks were only designed for the personal accommodation of the individual, and not for his family or friends. He watches to detect some unwarranted stretch, he finds a plenty; he examines a franked letter, he stops it; complaint is made to the member whose signature has been treated with disrespect, an explosion follows, the public service is hindered, and the honor of law is lowered. At this moment there is a bill pending in congress, to protect the franks of members, in consequence of a franked letter having been stopped, on the ground that the direction was not in the handwriting of him who gave the frank. Any espionage upon men’s letters, is plainly an intolerable grievance in a republican government. The British government were compelled to allow franks of members to cover all that was under them, and they therefore restricted them in weight and number. The only available method for us is to abolish the privilege itself. The experience under the present postage law proves that it is impossible to abolish the privilege, except by establishing cheap postage. The act of 1844 attempted greatly to restrict the franking privilege, but in three years every material restriction has been practically done away. There is no middle ground between boundless franking and no franking. The bill above referred to has passed the senate, in spite of the most earnest remonstrances of the Postmaster-General, so that now the frank of a member of congress covers all that is under it, within the prescribed limit of two ounces weight. Those members who are so disposed can frank envelopes for their friends, in any number, and send them in parcels of two ounces, to be used anywhere, without any more meddling of the post-office clerks. The remedy will be, to reduce the rate of postage so low, that it will be worth no person’s while to use the franking privilege, or to seek its benefits from those who hold it; or so that, if it is retained, those who use it will at least show that they “have a more intense appreciation of money, and a greater disregard for the value of time,” than ordinary persons can conceive!

It has been said that it will be impossible to secure the services of postmasters, without giving them the franking privilege. But it will be found that the cheap and uniform postage, always prepaid, will so greatly diminish the labor of keeping the post-office, as to remove the objection in most cases to taking the trouble. And for the rest, it is only for the department to demand that, if the people of any neighborhood wish a post-office they must furnish a postmaster, and this difficulty is annihilated.

With regard to the transmission of public documents, printed by order of the two houses of congress, it is undeniable that very much of the printing itself, and the circulation of them through the mail, is a sheer abuse and wanton waste. And it is probable that a great check would be given to these abuses, if there were an account required and a charge made on the public treasury of all this circulation, at the same rate with other pamphlet postage. The circulation, even if kept up at its present rate, would in fact cost no more than it does now; but the burden would be taken from the letter correspondence of the country, and placed where it ought to be, on the general treasury. The statement of 1844, that four millions of public documents are circulated in a single session, attracted much attention of the public press at the time. One influential paper, the New York Journal of Commerce, has the following remarks under the head of “National Bribery:”

“It has just been stated in congress, that the two houses had
ordered _fifty-five thousand copies_ to be printed, of the Report
of the Commissioner of Patents: and that the cost to the country
would be $114,000. This Report is a huge document, printed in
large type, with a large margin, containing very little matter of
the least importance, and that little so buried in the rubbish, as
to be worth about as much as so many ‘needles in a hay-mow.’ Then,
this huge quantity of trash, created at this large expense, is to
be _franked_ for all parts of the country, by way of _currying
favor and getting votes next time_, lumbering the mails, and
creating another large expense. We have taken the trouble to weigh
the copy of this document, which was forwarded to us, and find its
ponderosity to be 2 lbs., 14 ozs., or, with the wrapper, about
_three pounds_! The aggregate weight of the 55,000 copies, is
therefore EIGHTY-TWO AND A HALF TONS! Eighty-two and a half tons
of paper spoiled; and the nation taxed $114,000 for spoiling it;
and then compelled to lug it to all parts of the Union through the
monopoly post-office and the _franking_ privilege! Poor patient
people!

“Such taxes, to be defrayed by high postage on letters and
newspapers, grow out of this _franking_ privilege; and the power
which congress reserve to themselves, of distributing free, as
many documents as they choose to print at the public expense!
These documents, it seems, are the grand means resorted to by many
members, of ‘_currying favor_’ with the influential, and thus
‘_getting votes next time!_’ ”

A late number of the Boston Courier contains the following humorous but not untruthful description of this franking business, written by a correspondent at Washington:

“The object of assembling the representatives of the people is
_discussion_, not business; or at least, no other business to
speak of. And this is labor enough for any man. Why, one gentleman
of the house informed me that he had 2700 names on his list of
persons to whom he must send documents, and he is _not_ a
candidate for re-election.

“Now, let us suppose that the average number of each member’s
_document_ constituency is but 2500, and that each gets _four_
favors only from his servant in congress. This would throw upon
the shoulders of each member the labor of procuring, and franking,
and directing _ten thousand_ speeches in the course of a session.
What more business than this should be expected of a man?
especially, when we consider that the representative must receive
and answer, at length, all sorts of letters, from all sorts of
people, upon all sorts of topics, from Aunt Peg’s pension to Amy
Dardin’s horse. If each member requires 10,000 speeches to his
constituents, somebody has got to make them. And as there are
something over 280 members of both branches there must be a supply
of about _three millions_ of this kind of ‘fodder.’ How can it be
otherwise than that the congressional talking-mill must be kept
constantly going? And what a famine would there be should it stop
grinding? Going into a Western member’s room the other day, and
seeing him with his coat off in the middle of the apartment, up to
his middle in documents, and speeches, and letters, laboring
lustily with his pen, I alluded to his press of private business.

“ ‘Stranger,’ said he, ‘I never came to congress before, and I
never want to come again. I tell _you_ that this office of member
of congress is not what it is cracked up to be. I calculated to
have a good time here this winter, after racing all over my
district, and making more than five hundred stump speeches in
order to get elected. But the fact is you can see the way I enjoy
myself. It is what I call the enjoyments horribly. Why, sir, I
never began to work in this way before in all my life.’ I asked,
‘How comes on the loan bill in your branch?’ ‘O, they are spouting
away, sir, and here I am franking the speeches. The Lord only
knows what is in them.’ ‘And the Ten Regiment Bill?’ ‘I know
nothing about it, and don’t want to. Look at them thar letters,’
pointing to a two bushel basket of private correspondence—‘not one
half of them answered; look at these speeches, not a quarter of
them franked. What attention can I give to loan bills and regiment
bills? Sir, I must attend to my _constituents_.’ And we left him
to his labors. Our impression is, that it takes all day Saturday,
and Sunday too, to bring up the franking and letter writing
business of the week, for the members seldom get out to church.”

VI. _Letter Postage Stamps, for Prepayment._

In England, as a part of the system devised by Mr. Rowland Hill, the prepayment of letter-postage is greatly facilitated, and, of course, the tendency to prepayment is increased, while the management of the post-office itself, in all its departments, is simplified to the highest degree, by the use of adhesive postage-stamps. The stamp is a small oblong piece of paper, with a device upon it, (Queen’s head) so skilfully engraved and printed as almost to defy counterfeiting, against which indeed the small value of each one, the danger of speedy detection, and the high penalty for counterfeiting a royal signet, are equally effective safeguards. The stamp is coated on the back with an adhesive gum, which securely fastens the stamp to the letter, by being slightly wet and pressed down with the finger. These are printed in sheets, and are sold at all post-offices, at precisely their postal value; 1_d_., 2_d_., or 1_s_., as the case may be. The postmasters purchase them for cash, of the general post-office, and are allowed a deduction of one per cent for their trouble. The small shop-keepers of all descriptions, who buy from the post-offices without discount, generally keep postage-stamps to sell for the accommodation of their customers and neighbors, just as they would give small change for a larger piece of money with the same view. Such a shop would lose favor by refusing to keep stamps to sell.

Each individual buys stamps for his own use, in as great or small numbers as he pleases, always at the same rate. You keep them on your writing-desk, along with wafers and wax. You carry a few in your wallet, ready for use at any place. You seal your letter, and direct it, and then attach one of these stamps, drop it into the letter-box, or send it to the post-office, and that wonderful machinery takes it up, passes it about, finds the owner, and delivers it into his hand, without any additional charge. Nothing can exceed the simplicity of the process but the perfection of its working.

As the current value of these stamps is the same in every part of the country, and is precisely identical with that of the coin they represent, they serve as a currency to be used in payment of small sums at a distance. This is more useful in England than in the United States, because there they have no bank notes of small denominations. But even in this country, as soon as they are in general use, they will be found vastly convenient in making small payments at a distance.

Besides the label stamps, the English post-office manufactures and sells stamped envelopes, which will at once enclose the letter and pay the postage. The price of the envelope is half a farthing, in addition to the 1_d._ for postage; that is, eight stamped envelopes are sold for 9_d._, or 24 for 2_s._ 3_d._

Stamped half sheets of paper are also furnished by the post-office, a farthing being charged for the paper, besides the 1_d._ for postage. These are much used for printing circulars, for which they are very convenient. They are also bought by the poor to write brief letters on.

It is a common practice, in writing to another person on your own business, to enclose a postage stamp to prepay the letter in reply. Some persons, who have much correspondence, procure their own address printed in script on the back of stamped envelopes, and then send these enclosed to bring back the expected return. Persons doing a great deal of business with each other, through the post-office, keep each other’s envelopes on hand. The child at school or the son in college, is furnished with his father’s envelopes, stamped and directed.

The postage stamps are cancelled, by an obliterating stamp in the office where they are received, so that no postage stamp can ever be used a second time. Each post-office is furnished with a cancel stamp, and an ineffaceable ink for this purpose. There are five different forms of cancel stamps, one used for London letters, deliverable within the London District, one for letters mailed in London for places elsewhere, one for all other places in England and Wales, one for Scotland, and one for Ireland. Thus it is seen at a glance, from what section a letter comes. Sometimes the stamp denoting the place at which a letter is mailed, is not sufficiently plain. To meet this, and to serve some other conveniences, the cancel stamps have a blank in the centre, in which is inserted the number belonging to that office. Thus the shape tells the district, and the number the office from which each letter comes. The London stamp has a circular blank for letters that are mailed within the London circle, and deliverable also within it, and a diamond-shaped blank for letters going out of London.

The post-offices in each section are all numbered consecutively, and each office is permanently known in all other offices by its number as well as its name. Each office has its number engraved in the blank space of its cancel stamp, as in the first and last above, so that the place from which the letter comes is known at a glance.

The total number of Label Stamps issued in the year ending

1_d_. Stamps. 2_d_. Stamps. 5th January, 1841, 74,856,960 7,587,960 5th January, 1842, 110,878,344 3,391,800 5th January, 1843, 121,648,080 2,866,080 ——— ——— First three years, 307,383,384 13,845,840

321,229,224 stamps, nominal value, £1,396,146 Expense of manufacture and distribution, 42,763 ——— ——— Net proceeds, £1,353,382 Average yearly, 451,127

The present cost of Label Stamps is reported, July 16, 1846, thus:

Paper for a million labels, £5 11_s_. Printing and gumming, 25 -- Salaries, proportion of, 46 10_s_. Contingencies, poundage, &c. 46 10_s_. ————— ——— Cost per million, £79 --

The entire cost of the Stamped Envelopes is thus stated:

Year Ending. Cost. Sold for. Profit. 5th January, 1841, £4,268 £4,292 5th January, 1842, 5,530 5,470 5th January, 1843, 5,290 5,415 5th January, 1844, 6,190 6,540 5th January, 1845, 6,948 7,261 Total, five years, £28,229 £28,978 £749

The original cost of the machinery, £435, is divided and apportioned on six years. The whole number of envelopes issued is 83,694,240. The present cost per million is £359; proceeds, £371; profits, £12.

Whether it would be advisable for our own post-office to go into the manufacture of envelopes, may be doubtful. Probably it will be judged that the Label Stamps would afford all needed convenience, so far as the government is concerned, and the rest would be left to private enterprise. From the returns of the actual expense of manufacturing envelopes, £359 per million—about a mill and three quarters apiece, it will be seen that there is yet room for individual competition among us, to bring down the current price to the rate of only a reasonable profit.

The third assistant Postmaster-General remarks, in his late report, that the demand for Label Stamps has not been as great as was anticipated, the amount sold being but $28,330, which would only pay for about 500,000 stamps. This is indeed a very great falling off from the number purchased in England, which must be not less than two hundred millions of stamps in the year. He says that “many important commercial towns have not applied for them, and in others they are only used in trifling amounts. But it should be borne in mind, that people are more likely to invest a dollar in stamps, when they get fifty for their money, than when they only get ten or twenty. And when purchased, they are likely to use them up a great deal more freely, when they look at each one as only two cents. With so great a convenience afforded at so cheap a rate, it is not possible but that the demand must be immense, and the use abundantly satisfactory to the people and to the department.”

These stamps would obviate the practical difficulty apprehended in the administration of the cheap postage system, in those parts of the country where the use of copper coin is not common; as it will always be easy to purchase stamps with dimes. I do not believe any persons in this country would be so fastidious on this point, as to be unwilling to send five letters for the same money that it now costs to send one.

VII. _New Arrangement of Newspaper Postage._

The principles of cheap postage have been recognized from the beginning of our government, in reference to the postage on newspapers—the charge being regulated, neither by weight nor distance, but, with a single exception, by the rule of simple uniformity. The postage on newspapers is one cent for each paper, within 100 miles, or within the state where printed, and a cent and a half for greater distances. The act of 1844 allowed all newspapers within 30 miles of the place where issued, to go free, but this militated so directly against every principle of equity, that it has been repealed. But cheap postage on newspapers, for the sake of the general diffusion of knowledge of public affairs, has always been the policy of our government. Even during the war of 1812, when it was attempted to raise a revenue by letter postage, the postage on newspapers was not raised. No proposition whatever, to increase the cost, or lessen the facility of the circulation of newspapers by mail, would be sanctioned by the people, under any conceivable exigency of the government.

Yet it has never been stated, to my knowledge, by any administration, that the postage of newspapers was any help to the department, or even that it paid for itself. Many of the unproductive routes, which add so much to the expense, and so little to the income of the department, are demanded chiefly for the facility of getting the newspapers, rather than for letters. We are a nation, of newspaper readers. It is possible, indeed, that the prodigious increase in the number of newspapers circulated by mail, which has taken place within twenty years, and especially within ten years, may have reduced the average cost of each, so that now the newspapers may be productive, or at least remunerative. The Postmaster-General states the postage on newspapers and pamphlets, for the year ending June 30, 1847, at $643,160, which is an increase of $81,018, or 14-½ per cent. over the preceding year, and an increase over the annual average of the nine preceding years, of $114,181, or 21 per cent.

The newspapers passing through the mails annually, are estimated at 55,000,000. In 1843, they were estimated at 43,500,000, of which 7,000,000 were free. If the calculation is made on the whole number, the increase is 20 per cent. in four years. But if, as is probable, the 55,000,000 in 1847 are chargeable papers, the increase is 33-½ per cent. If anything can make the newspaper postage pay for itself, it will be the multiplication of newspapers, as it is well known that a great reduction of cost of individual articles is produced by the great number required. What fortunes are made by manufacturing cotton cloth, to be sold at six or eight cents per yard; and by making pins and needles, which pass through so many processes, and yet are sold at such a low rate. Each yard of cloth, each needle, each pin, is subjected to all those several steps, and yet the greatness of the demand creates a vast revenue from profits which are so small upon each individual article as to be incapable of being stated in money; the cheapness of production extending the sale, and the extent of sale favoring the cheapness of production. An establishment like the post-office requires a certain amount of expenditure and labor, to keep the machinery in operation, though the work be but little, not half equal to its capacity, and it can often enlarge its labors and its productiveness, without requiring, by any means, a corresponding increase of expense; and enlarged to a considerable extent, perhaps, without any increase at all. Thus the cost of the British post-office, which was £686,768 in 1839, when the number of letters was only 86,000,000, was increased only to £702,310, but little more than 10 per cent. in the following year, when the number of letters was increased to 170,000,000. That is, the quantity of business was doubled, while the expense was only increased one-tenth. And in 1846, when the letters were 322,000,000, or nearly fourfold the former number, the expense was only £1,138,745, an increase of but 65 per cent., and the greater part of this—almost the whole—was for increased facilities given, and not owing to the increased number of letters. Had the cost kept pace with the increase of business, it would have been, in 1847, nearly £3,000,000 sterling.

There is one difficulty, however, in the case of newspapers, arising from their weight. The Postmaster-General says, in his last report: “The weight and bulk of the mails, which add so greatly to the cost of transportation, and impede the progress of the mail, are attributable to the mass of printed matter daily forwarded from the principal cities of the Union to every part of the country.” Some of these newspapers, he says, weigh over two and a half ounces each. For more than twenty years, the weight of newspapers has been a cause of complaint in the department, for which no remedy has yet been devised, neither has any man been bold enough to propose to exclude them from the mails. At one time, rules were made, allowing mail carriers to leave the newspaper bags, to be carried along at another time. But this produced too serious a dissatisfaction to be continued. The newspapers must go, and they must go with the letters, for people are quite as sensitive at the delay of their newspapers as at the delay of their letters. Seven or eight years ago, there was a clamor at the weight of certain mammoth sheets, as the New World and the Brother Jonathan, weighing each from a quarter to half a pound. But this extravagant folly of publishers has in a great measure cured itself, and the grievance has ceased. The law of 1845 undertook to make a discrimination against papers of exorbitant size, by charging extra postage on all that were larger than 1900 square inches. I cannot learn that any papers are taxed at this extra rate, and I venture to predict that, whenever the public convenience shall be found to require newspapers of a larger size than 1900 inches, the postage rule will have to be altered to meet the public demand. The people have so learned the benefits of uniformity and cheapness of postage on newspapers, that they will never relinquish it.

In Great Britain no difference is made among papers on account of their weight, although their paper is almost twice as heavy as ours. And even when a supplementary sheet is issued, the whole goes as one newspaper, covered by one stamp. I have a copy of the London Herald, with three supplements, the whole weighing half a pound, which passed free in the mail, with only the principal sheet stamped. And the whole comes by the steamer’s mail, the postage prepaid by a single 2_d_. stamp. In that country, however, it is not compulsory to send newspapers or supplements by mail, and a very large proportion are not sent in that way, but for convenience by carriers. Their method of circulating newspapers, by sale instead of yearly subscription, has led to a difference in this respect. I believe there is no restriction upon the carriage of newspaper packages out of the mail, by the same contractors, and the same carriages that convey the mails. It is probable that the interests of the department would be promoted, rather than injured, by such a rule, liberally interpreted, in this country.

Twenty years ago, when our mails were all carried in coaches drawn by horses, there were some routes on which the weight of the newspaper mails was a serious incumbrance. But at present, so great has been the extension of steam power, that I question if there is a single route to which the number of newspapers sent would be a burden, unless, perhaps, it may be the route by the National Road, from Cumberland to Columbus.

So great are the advantages of uniformity of rate, in facilitating the administration of the post-office, that there would be a greater loss than gain in attempting to introduce any rule of graduation in the postage of newspapers. It is easily seen that the difference of distance is no ground for such graduation, for the same reasons which are conclusive in regard to letters. And as to the difference of weight, if you deduct from the one cent postage what it costs to receive and mail and deliver each paper, and to keep the accounts and make the returns, the difference in the actual expense is too small to be made of any practical account, between a newspaper weighing two ounces and one weighing half an ounce. The Journal of Commerce and papers of that size weigh less than two ounces. And the number of newspapers printed on a sheet weighing over two ounces, is too small to be of any account.

The only point respecting the postage on newspapers, on which the Cheap Postage Association are inflexibly fixed, is that the postage shall be uniform, irrespective of distance, and not exceed one cent per paper, prepaid. If not prepaid, the postage is to be doubled.

It is supposed that a practical rule will obtain, like that which now prevails, of allowing regular subscribers to pay their postage quarterly in advance, at the office where they receive their papers. Only, the rule of prepayment will be enforced, because double postage is to be exacted in all cases where there is not actual prepayment.

It will follow that all occasional papers will pay two cents postage, that is the same as a letter, unless the postage is prepaid by the sender, at the office where the paper is mailed.