Chapter XII: Philadelphia—1793 (4)

“I have just seen a letter of three pages, and not a word in it,—the work of a poor crazed soldier; not a character of any tongue in Babel, but only a little child’s meaningless imitation of writing; and in that letter were ninety dollars. It came here; the department discovered the writer, his regiment, and death. The money waits. Letters sometimes have most interesting histories. Thus, an officer here in Washington writing a letter to his wife, who is in New York, simply signed it with his given name, and carelessly subscribed it ‘Washington.’ The letter came hither; and now who and where was the writer? In the body of the letter was a chance allusion to some brigade: ‘upon this hint’ the department played Othello and ’spake.’ The brigade was inquired after and of, was found, and it answered: the writer was a major, and was dead. His wife had removed from her old desolate home, but she was discovered, and the money placed in her hand as if by the hand of the dead.

“_Every_ letter, no matter what trifles are in it, should begin with the post-office, State, and poor terrestrial date, day, month, and year. It is all very fine to write from ‘Clover Lawn,’ or ‘Willow-Tree,’ or ‘Sweet Home,’ and date it ‘Sunday Eve,’ ‘Birthday,’ or ‘Moonshine;’ but suppose the post-mark is dim, and the letter gets into this marble cemetery, what then? And then as to the superscription. By the present fashion we have first the name, life-size, and, if the sex will possibly allow it, Esquired; then the post-office; last and least, and tucked in a corner like a naughty boy, the State.

“Now, is not this reversing the order of things,—cribbing the greater and magnifying the less? People, I presume, will not be persuaded to change their mode of address, letters dead or alive; but how would it do to direct a letter thus?—

‘MASSACHUSETTS, _Boston_,
‘DR. O. W. HOLMES.’

“The little traveller would be sure to get into the right State at the first dash, make straight for the post-office, and finding the funny doctor would be an easy business.”

The large number of letters written by persons in the military service of the United States, whose locality could not be ascertained, contributed very considerably to the increase of “dead-letters.” But the great proportion of ordinary dead-letters which were returned was decidedly those of the careless order. Many were not even signed, and others so imperfectly directed that it was totally impossible to decipher even the name or residence of the writer. Time after time have postmasters called public attention to this state of things, and, strange as the fact may appear, this very timely (as it was supposed) suggestion had the contrary effect: _the number of ill-spelt and ill-directed letters increased!_

_PANDORA’S MAIL-BOX OPENED._

Among the “mail-matters” which had accumulated at the dead-letter-office in Washington since 1848, and which were sold to the highest bidder on the 6th of December, 1859, were the following articles:—coats, hats, socks, drawers, gloves, scarfs, suspenders, patent inhaling-tubes, gold pens, pencils, ladies’ slippers _half worn_, all kinds of jewelry, undersleeves, fans, handkerchiefs, box of dissecting-instruments, pocket-Bibles, religious books, others not quite so acceptable to the moral portion of the community, shirts, bed-quilts, boots, spurs, gaffs for game-fowls, shawls, gaiters, tobacco, razors, &c. &c.

_ADVERTISED LETTERS._

Advertised letters, uncalled for and sent to the dead-letter-office, cost the government annually over $60,000! This is a _dead_ loss, as, from the very nature of the superscription and imperfect direction, such letters have no more chance of reaching their places of destination than a sinner has of going to heaven.

_DECOY-LETTERS._

Devices employed for the public good, if predicated on the principles that maintain _all men dishonest_ and are themselves deceptive, both in theory and practice, cannot be considered either honorable or complimentary to our public men. The system, more particularly in its connection with the postal department, originated, we are inclined to think, from some suspicious postmaster or his chief clerk, and thus was established a plan to test the employees, alike unjust and questionable in equity. It is said that these decoy-letters can never injure honest men. Are we to understand from this that men of questionable character and thieving proclivities are employed by the government? Is it customary to appoint rogues to office, and, after appointing them, lay traps for their detection? If this is the fact, then may we well exclaim, with Cowley,—

“Man is to man all kinds of beasts,—a fawning dog, a roaring lion, a thieving fox, a robbing wolf, a dissembling crocodile, a treacherous _decoy_, a rapacious vulture.”

Once establish the decoy system as a general one, extending it to all branches of the government, trade, and commerce, introduce it into stores and factories, and we shall soon have the flag of suspicion waving over that of the Stars and Stripes: we will constitute ourselves a nation of rogues, and become in the eyes of the world a huge “DECOY DUCK,” instead of the proud heretofore emblem of our country, the glorious Eagle!

We care very little about the opinion of Judge Betts, who on one occasion maintained the principle in a very _learned speech_, which when summed up amounted simply to this, that all men are rogues and require watching,—in fact, in morals as well as honesty they are _lame ducks_, and a _decoy_ is necessary to watch their actions. The learned judge said,—

“I am persuaded that letters would rarely be intercepted in their transmission by post if every person concerned in mailing or carrying them could be impressed with the idea that each package enclosing valuables may be but a bait seeking to detect whoever may be dishonest enough to molest, and to become a swift witness for his conviction and punishment.”

If this is logic, it lacks one important principle in theory to establish its practical application, and that is, _common sense_. We consider the decoy system, at least as a national means to detect rogues, beneath the dignity and character of the nation. Reason and philosophy teach us that God never puts evil into our hearts, or stirs it up there by any positive influence. A man is tempted by his own lust, and enticed into sin by the influence, acts, and example of wicked men. “Lead us not into temptation,” is one of those wise and holy lessons which the Saviour of the world instructed his disciples to pray for, so as they might carry it out in their holy mission, strengthened by the Divine blessing resting upon it. Men, however, are not unfrequently placed in situations “as have a tendency,” says Scott, “to give our inward corruptions and the temptations of Satan and his agents peculiar advantage against us.”

Is it, therefore, to be wondered at that a government like ours should assume a Satanic form, and employ agents for the express purpose of leading men into temptation? We consider the “decoy-letter” system exactly a case in point. It may not be uninteresting to some of our readers to give the origin of this ridiculous and equally _sinful_ manner of testing men’s honesty.

As might be supposed, it never could have originated in an enlightened nation, and yet enlightened nations indorse its antiquity of folly. We trace it to China and as far back as the dimness of its history can carry us. It may surprise some to hear the term unenlightened applied to China, the land of classic works, and the richest and most important in all Asia. Philosophers have made the works called “Kings” the basis of their labors in morality and politics. History has always received the attention of the Chinese, and their annals form the most complete series extant in any language. Poetry, the drama, and romantic prose fictions are among the productions of the Chinese _literati_,—“_Literæ inhumaniores_” meaning learning rather of an inhuman or barbarous tendency.

The Chinese were in possession of three of the most important inventions or discoveries of modern times long before they were known to the nations of the world, besides which they were the inventors of two remarkable manufactures,—silk and porcelain. The art of printing was practised at least as early as the tenth century; but the use of movable types instead of blocks seems never to have occurred to this ingenious people. The knowledge of gunpowder among them dates at a very early period; but the application of its use to fire-arms they learned from the Europeans. Finally, the peculiar directive properties of the loadstone were applied to purposes of navigation by the Chinese several centuries before they were employed in Europe.

We have given a sketch of the arts and sciences of China, but it would be totally impossible to give the reader any thing like an idea of the character and morals of its inhabitants. When China was first explored by European travellers it was believed to be a nation that had alone found out the true secret of government, where the virtues were developed by the operation of the laws: indeed, judging from what they had read, an almost perfect people was expected to greet their sight. Alas! how is history falsified! Few nations, it is now agreed, have so little honor or feeling, or so much duplicity, cunning, and mendacity. Their affected gravity is as far from wisdom as their ceremonies are from politeness.

The government of China is one of fear; and it has produced the usual effects,—duplicity and meanness. Suspicion is one of their leading features, and thus every man is not only suspected of being a rogue, but in reality every one is a rogue. Expert thieving is considered an art, yet if discovered is punished. The merchants cheat each other by rule: hence it is not strange that the DECOY SYSTEM should have originated in that country.

Laws were enacted to punish those who laid the decoy, as well as those who fell into the trap. These punishments consisted of the bastinado, the pillory, banishment, hard labor, death. These two first are almost constantly in use: indeed, the merchant who is bastinadoed for leading his clerk into crime by the “decoy means,” as well as the clerk himself, looks upon it as a “paternal correction,” and thanks the judge for the care bestowed upon his morals. And yet although this system was practised some three thousand years ago, it is still followed and, of course, still punished.

Even in Jewish history we have instances of this system being pursued. See 1 Kings xiii.

It was also extensively practised in France during the rebellion. Mechanics and others who followed labor for maintenance were subjected to these “decoys,” which presented themselves in various shapes. An old lady residing in this city told the author that her husband found a doubloon on his work-table, placed there by a nobleman in whose house he was fitting up tapestry. Indignant at the insult offered a Frenchman and a citizen, he nailed the coin to the table, from which not without great difficulty the tempter could remove it.

Is it, we ask, consistent with our form of government and the national character of the people that this relic of barbarism, like that of slavery, should be permitted to exist or be practised by its chief officers?

Detectives only should adopt the system to aid them in their search _for a criminal_, but an agent detective has no right to set a decoy to test the honesty of men upon whom, even before and after his appointment, no suspicion rested. We again pronounce it mean and contemptible.