Chapter XIV: Parcels Post Raiders

Anyone who attempts to give our parcels post service anything like careful, studious consideration will, at the very outset of such consideration, find himself confronted by a number of bald facts which, when fully rounded out and understood, should make unnecessary any discussion of our claim that we need, should have and are entitled to better and cheaper service than that we now have. Without attempting any immediate discussion of these facts, I desire to present them, or some of them, to the reader’s consideration just here at the opening of our discussion of the subject. The desire to do this is prompted by a hope that their presentation here will induce the reader to think of their significance and their bearing upon the parcels post question in any fair discussion of it.

Now for these facts:

1. There are about 250,000 miles of railroad in this country--more than the aggregate mileage of all the other nations of earth.

2. The capitalization of the railroads of these United States is now, according to Poor’s Manual of Railroads, the universally recognized authority, about $18,800,000,000--_Eighteen billion eight hundred million dollars_!

3. That capitalization is admittedly _twice_ the value of all the tangible values--trackage, rolling stock, terminals, shops and other--owned by the roads. In many instances the capitalization of a road is easily three times the value of its tangible property.

4. Most of these railroads were built with borrowed money, covered by bond issues, and the payment of the bonds met from the _earnings of the roads_, or by new issues of bonds, payment of which has been, or it is intended will be, met from earnings. In view of this method of financing construction and equipment, it is well known in informed circles that the present capitalization of these railroads is _ten or twelve_ times the actual cash ever invested in them--that is, cash other than that collected from the people for freight, passenger, and other service rendered--rendered at rates _unscrupulously_ excessive. Some of the best informed people have gone so far as to say that _all_ of the stock and a considerable part of the bond capitalization of the nation’s railroads _is water_.

5. There are a number of express companies in this country. The express business of the country, however, is controlled by six companies--the “Big Six.”

6. The express transportation (land) is wholly by railroads. The railroad companies, and men owning large or controlling interest in railroads, own a large majority of the “Big Six” stock capitalization.

7. For most of the express company stock owned by railroads, no cash consideration whatsoever was given. For the stock, a railroad company gave to some express company a monopoly of the express business on its line or system of lines of road.

8. The express companies, in addition to any stock bonus they may have given for the monopoly of the express business on a rail line or system of lines, pay to the railroads on which they operate _forty to fifty-eight per cent of the gross receipts_ from the express business handled.

9. The railroads furnish cars free to the express companies. They also furnish depot accommodations and facilities for storing and handling express shipments. In some instances, as much as 90 per cent of the handling of express shipping is done by railroad employes.

10. There are thirty-seven directors in the controlling express companies. Of these, thirty-two are also directors in some one or more railroad companies or are large owners of railroad stocks and bonds.

11. Practically no cash investment whatsoever was ever made in establishing or organizing an express company, nor in equipment to conduct its business. Every dollar of value there is in equipment and other tangible assets of the express companies today--and _hundreds of millions besides_--has come from the people--has been _taken_ from the people for handling their express business at rates ranging from _two to five times the actual cost of handling_.

12. The controlling express companies--“associations” some of them are called--pay 8 to 12 per cent dividends yearly on their stock capitalization, which stock has but a fraction of substantial values back of it, and _all_ those real values have come from earnings. 13. In addition to the regular annual dividends paid, these express companies, every few years, “cut a melon”--pay stockholders a substantial “extra” dividend. One company (Wells, Fargo & Co.), with a stock capital of $5,000,000 in 1872--and no one knowing what tangible assets that five millions represented--increased it to $8,000,000 in 1893. That added $3,000,000 was issued to the Union Pacific Railroad for a contract which gave the express company a monopoly of the express business on the Union Pacific rail system. On that eight millions the express company paid annual dividends ranging from 6 to 9 per cent from 1893 to 1901. From 1902 to 1907 it paid 9 per cent annually, since which date its annual dividend rate has been 10 per cent.

In addition to these substantial yearly dividends on $8,000,000 of stock, _which cost its holders little or nothing_, this company cut a huge “melon” in 1910. This melon was an extra dividend to its stockholders of 100 per cent in cash ($8,000,000) and a stock dividend of 200 per cent--_a total of 300 per cent as an extra dividend_--thus raising its stock capitalization from $8,000,000 to $24,000,000.

On this twenty-four millions of stock the company has continued to pay 10 per cent annually.

_The net earnings of the company for 1910 and 1911 were about 20 per cent on its $24,000,000 of stock._

14. There are no express companies in European countries. The heavier express shipments here are there handled--and satisfactorily handled--by the railroads direct. All the lighter express shipments are there handled by the parcels post.

15. The parcels post service of European countries is entirely satisfactory to the people, is cheaper than the pretense of a parcels post service which has victimized the people of this country for a half-century and _far_ cheaper than the rates we have been forced to pay for express service.

16. As it was originally designed, and _so provided by law_, that our government should have a monopoly in the carriage and delivery of packages and parcels, the express companies in this country--_all of them_--have been and are engaged in an _outlawed traffic. They are criminals._

17. Our government, in all its branches--legislative, executive and judicial--has been party to this outlawry. It not only has protected these express and railway raiders while they robbed us, but _it has permitted itself to be robbed by them_.

The seventeen statements of fact should be sufficient for a starter--a starter for arriving at a safe, sound conclusion as to how and why a comparatively few folks get fabulously rich so quickly and so easily while so many _millions_ of other folks, though lavish in industry and self-denying in expenditure, rise only to modest means or remain poor.

We shall now take up a discussion of the parcels post--as it has served us, and as it has served other peoples and should be made to serve us.

The first thing that is noticed in taking a ladder-top view of this Parcels post question is the _immense_ amount of public bubbling talk and writing and _money_ that is being expended upon, about and around it.

Is it the people? No. That is easily to be seen. The people are being written and talked to. The people are saying little, write less and are not _putting up the money to bubble themselves_ in the _anti_-parcels post campaign.

Is the general government putting up the oil and fuel to run this anti-parcels post bunk-shooting game?

Well, the government for years has made little noticeable effort to give the people better and cheaper parcels accommodation in its mail service. That is, the _executive_ arm of the national government has done so. The legislative arm of the national government has _uniformly_, though never unanimously, _opposed_ any and every measure intended to increase the _service_ value of parcel mail-carriage to the people.

“Why have U. S. congressmen and senators opposed?”

_They have opposed, because the party caucuses of the House and the Senate have been and are dominated and controlled by men who were and are opposed to such legislation._

Still, the government, executive or legislative, has probably spent no money and has certainly made little noise to defeat the establishment of a better and cheaper parcels post service.

Now, if it is not the people themselves nor the people’s government who are making all the parcels post noise, _buying_ newspaper space and putting up money to _steer country merchants and others into organizing and petitioning against increased parcel facilities in the mails_--if it is not the people trying to bubble themselves nor the government trying to bubble the people, I wonder who it is? Who is putting up for the _fuel and oil_ to run this anti-parcels post _opinion-molding_ sulky-rake, which has been so vigorously, so industriously and so _designedly_ dragged over the mental hay-fields of the American _hoi polloi_ during recent years? What’s the answer?

Unless, of course, one has taken on an over-load of this anti-parcels post tonnage, thereby giving his _feelings_ a chance to hip-lock or strangle-hold his intelligence, he’ll not need to browse around long for an answer.

You have a boy working at Blue Island or Elgin, Illinois. Mother in Chicago wants to send him a Christmas present. If it weighs no more than four pounds she can send it by mail, paying _one cent an ounce_. If she wants to feel sure that her boy gets it, she can “register” the parcel, _paying ten cents more_.

If the parcel weighs _the fraction of an ounce more_ than four pounds, mother _cannot send it to her boy through the mail service at all_. If the parcel weighs exactly four pounds, then our Uncle Samuel will deliver it at Blue Island or at Elgin when mother puts up _sixty-four cents_--seventy-four, if mother wants to feel sure that her boy gets it and for that reason has the parcel “registered.”

That is one case--one _statement of fact_.

Andrew Carnegie at Skibo Castle, Scotland, desires to send a four-pound Christmas present to some son of Norval or “blow-hole” friend in Los Angeles, California, or Mrs. John Bull, at Manchester, England, has a yearning--and the price--to send a present of corresponding weight to her daughter Margaret, who is happily, likewise _richly_, married and who lives in a beautiful suburb of San Francisco. Well, “Andy” and Mrs. John Bull can send their four-pound presents--to be more exact, _they_ can send even if the parcels weight up to _eleven_ pounds each--can have those four-pound parcels carried by rail to some steamship port, carried across the Atlantic ocean, put into _our_ mail cars, carried with _our own_ mail across the entire country and _delivered by American carriers_ to the _remotest_ suburb of Los Angeles or San Francisco for _forty-eight cents--three-fourths_ the price mother has to pay to get _her four-pound_ present to her boy at Blue Island or Elgin!

That is another case--_another statement of fact_.

For _many years_ the United States government has _carried_ parcels of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, weighing up to 220 _pounds_, to any point in the country reached by its mail service, broke the package and delivered each separate piece to individual addresses in postoffice boxes or by carrier for _one cent a pound_.

Yet it persists in charging mother _sixteen cents_ a pound to send her present to her boy at Elgin or Blue Island and _compels_ her to keep its weight down to _four pounds_.

That is another case--_another statement of fact_.

For many years, the government has carried by mail, not hundreds, but _thousands_ of tons of parcels _free_. Every United States Senator, every Congressman, every department head, every division head, every first, second, third or fourth “assistant” department or division head, every political “fence” builder, whatever his position in the government’s official service, _uses his franking privilege_.

Not only that. _Most of them abuse it._

Not only that. Most of those who abuse it do not confine the abuse to franking public documents to “friends at home” and speeches--most of which were never made or were made or written by somebody else--to “my constituents.” Oh, no! That government “frank,” so it has been credibly asserted, has been used to carry easy chairs, side boards, couches and other household goods which have been “bought cheap”--_some of it too cheap to carry a price tag_--and which “can be used at home.” Typewriters, filing cases, office desks, frequently acquired by a process of _benevolent appropriation_, have reached home _without carriage charge_.

That is another case--_another statement of fact_.

But why continue? I could go on for a page or two with _statements of fact_, all evidencing this other _FACT_.

_Mother--your mother, my mother--the great tax-paying body of our people--is wronged, is victimized, by our postal service and regulations._

That is my opinion. That opinion is based upon a “broad, general and _comprehensive_ view”--a ladder-top view--“of the whole question in its various and varying details,” as one _anti_-parcels post spouter has spouted.

I have presented but _four_ statements of fact. A score of others will readily appear to any reader who does his own thinking. But take any one of the four above given and study its significance for just _one minute_.

Have you done so? “Yes?” Well, then you see the joke--or the “joker”--in the _anti_-parcels post talk and literature, do you not? You will also be able to make a close guess as to _who are financially backing_ the public-bubbling _opposition_ to any legislation for the improvement of our parcels post service. If you cannot, I advise you to go to some jokesmith and have the gaskets and packings on your think-tank tightened up.

John Wanamaker was a great merchant. He was a brainy business man and, to a large extent, did his _own thinking_. He was, for a term of years, Postmaster General of the United States. Mr. Wanamaker was likewise a man of broad, comprehensive and _comprehending_ humor. He could crack or take a joke. In either event, the kernel was separated from the shell quickly. Here is one of Mr. Wanamaker’s jokes:

Years ago, when Mr. Wanamaker was Postmaster General, John Brisbane Walker asked him why the American people stood for the existing parcels post outrage. Mr. Walker believed the American people were quick, _judgmental_ thinkers and _swift_ in remedial action when thought reached the conclusion that the _thinker was being victimized_.

Mr. Walker was right--_is_ right. American people do think. The trouble is that too many of us are _coupled into train with the wrong kind of thinkers_. We are switched or shunted onto any side-track or yarding the engineer, the conductor or the _traffic manager_ desires. We simply _think_ we think, while really we are merely following a _steer_. But I digress.

To Mr. Walker’s question, Mr. Wanamaker made this reply:

“It is true that parcels could be carried at about _one-twelfth_
their present cost by the Postoffice Department, but you do not
seem to be aware that there are four _insuperable obstacles_ to
carrying parcels by the United States Postoffice Department. The
first of these is the _Adams Express Company_; the second is the
_American Express Company_; the third is the _Wells-Fargo Express
Company_; and the fourth, the _Southern Express Company_.”

Of course there are several more “insuperable obstacles” to an improvement in our parcels post service. There is the previously mentioned “big six” obstacles with the railroads, now as when Mr. Wanamaker spoke, _owning or controlling them all_.

The reader may _know_--no need of _guessing_--that those insuperable obstacles are _stoking_ the engines which are “yarding” public opinion--and much honest, but superficial or careless, _private opinion_--where it will yield _unearned_ revenues to the stokers. Any man who argues _against_ cheapening our parcels post rates is merely a _hired_ angler for suckers or a sharer in the spoils which railroad and express raiders are looting from the people.

I recently heard one of those patriotic hired “cappers” talk to his job. Among his forceful points were the following:

“The big express companies employ nearly 100,000 men.

“Their payroll (officials included), is nearly $50,000,000 a year.

“Roosevelt added 99,000 names to the federal pay roll during his seven years in office.

“There are about 70,000 postoffices in the United States and an improved parcels post service would require an additional clerk in each. Therefore 70,000 more tax-eaters would be added to the federal payrolls.

“There was a _deficit_ of $6,000,000 piled up in the Postoffice Department last year. To what _appalling_ figures would that deficit mount if a parcels post were established?”

Now, I want to ask a few questions.

First, those 100,000 men employed by the big express companies and who are paid the colossal sum of $50,000,000 in salaries. The express companies neither employ so many men nor pay so much money. But if they did, that is an _average_ of but $500 a year to each employe. Do you think those 100,000 express men would lose any _killing_ amount in annual salary if the government took the whole bunch of them bodily over and put them into a parcels post service?

So much for those alleged 100,000 express company _employes_, concerning whose interests and welfare the _anti_-parcel post bunk-shooter _appears_ to have had a pain in his lap or bunions on his mind.

Now, how about the 90,000,000 or more people who make up the rest of us folks in these United States? How would we come out in the ledger account if a good, efficient and _cheap_ parcels post service was put into operation and the “big express companies” put out of business?

It is quite impossible to figure it out to the cent. The _public_ reports of those big express companies, likewise their system of double cross bookkeeping, prevent us getting nearer than about eight blocks of their “inside information.” But some of the _governing facts_ we know and others must _necessarily_ follow in _any_ process or method of reasoning recognized outside the harmless ward of a crazy house.

The stock of express companies is _owned_ largely by a comparatively few people--a thousand, possibly five hundred, persons own 90 per cent of this stock. No one at all familiar with express company tangibles, unless he is exercising a loose-screwed veracity, will estimate their _aggregate_ tangible values _above_ twenty or twenty-five millions. More than that. The present tangible values in these companies _are_, as previously stated, almost wholly _investments from earnings_. So largely, in fact, is that true that _six million dollars_ is a _liberal_ estimate for the _actual cash capital_ at any time invested in actual operation.

These companies paid their owners two to three and a half, or more, millions a year _in dividends_.

Since 1907, the Adams company has paid $480,000 a year on $12,000,000 of bonds. Those twelve million of 4 per cent bonds were _given to the stockholders. Not one cent of actual cash was given in consideration._

What has that to do with the parcels post question? Simply this:

When the government installs a parcels post service that accepts, carries and _delivers_ packages weighing from twelve to twenty or more pounds these _looting express and railroad raiders will go out of business_.

SUBSIDY RAIDERS.

Everybody who has studied the question at all knows that all alleged deficits in the postal service are the malformed progeny of an illegal union between crooked public officials and criminal violators of the law enacted to establish and govern the carriage and delivery of mail matter in these United States. So noticeable has been the closed eyes and “rear view” of government officials while the railroad and express raiders raided and walked off with their loot that petty thieves began to shin up the posts of the Postoffice Department directly or sneak in by way of Congressional legislation.

“What were they after?” Why, they wanted a “subsidy” for carrying foreign or ocean mails, or they wanted a “pork” contract--one of those contracts which renders little service for much money.

Did you ever hear of Tahiti? No. It is _not_ a breakfast food nor a sure cure for cancers. It is an island. “Where?” Ask the Almighty. I don’t know, and I am doubtful whether the Almighty knows or _cares_. I know it is an island somewhere, because a few years ago the postal department entered into a contract with some “tramp” steamer flying a _rag_, which _close_ inspection might discover had _once_ been the American flag.

The Postoffice Department paid that tramp $45,000 for carrying our mails to Tahiti--_a service that another vessel in the Tahiti trade offered to render for $3,500_.

Can there be any _legitimate_ surprise or wonder at a “deficit” resulting from such business methods?

But that, of course, was “a few years ago.” Yet, stay! On page 264 of the 1910 report of the Postoffice Department, I find that the Oceanic Line--a line of United States register--carried to and from Tahiti and the Marquesas Islands 7,622 pounds of letters and 159,483 pounds of prints. This was carried under a “contract” and the Oceanic people were paid $46,398 for the service--_for carrying about 88 tons of mail matter_.

Looks like a good “deficit” producer, does it not?

But there is another queer thing about this Tahiti mail contract. Note (1) on page 263, to which the report refers readers, says steamers of United States register _not under contract_ are paid 80 cents a pound for carrying letters and 8 cents a pound for carrying prints. Figuring up the Oceanic’s service at those rates gives as result only $18,856.24.

So it can readily be seen there is something in a “contract”--some contracts, anyway.

On the same page (264), I find that another ship, one of the Union Line and under foreign register, touches at Tahiti in making New Zealand. It carried 2,713,850 grams (about 5,970 pounds) of letters and 58,926,887 grams (about 129,639 pounds) of prints--within 16 tons the weight the Oceanic people carried--and received only $7,781.54 for the service. These vessels of foreign register are paid about 35 cents a pound for letter weights and 4½ cents for print weight.

Figuring up the weights hurriedly at the named rates, I find that the Union folks were entitled to $7,923.40, or some $142 _more_ than was paid them. The Oceanic folks, you will remember, were paid $46,398 when at _open_ carriage rates of pay to vessels of United States register they earned only $18,856.24.

Looks a little off color, does it not? But we must remember that Tahiti is an island. Must be an island of vast importance. It requires the shipment of 88 tons of mail matter in a year--a whole year--and our government pays $46,398 haulage on it. Something over 79 of those 88 tons of mail was printed weight, too.

What great printers and publishers those Tahitians and Marquesans must be! Or was that print stuff of United States origin? Catalogues and franked and penalty matter, I wonder?

At any rate there is the “contract” in 1910 as an evidence that some one here is doing, or has done, a little turn toward “burning” postal revenues and helping, in a small way, to keep a postal “deficit” in evidence. A deficit, you know, shows that the revenues of the department are too low, too small, to permit the establishment of an efficient, cheap parcels post, or so the railroad and express raiders would have us think.

The important point, however, is: Are we fools enough to think it? If so, how long shall we continue to be fools enough to think it? If not, is it not about time that we created a disturbance--that we raise some dust--in efforts to let these raiders and their cappers know we are not fools? Why should we continue to act foolish if we are not fools? Please rise, Mr. Sensible Citizen, and answer.

As before said, no one expects nor desires the government to _make money_ out of _their_ mail service. People have, however, _a right_ to expect--_and to demand_--that their regularly chosen representatives and other government officials _prevent_ a lot of raiders, or any one else for that matter, from making more than a _fair, legitimate profit_ on what they do for or contribute to that service.

There has been much talk the last three or four years about the economies effected by the Postoffice Department in the execution of the work it was established to do. How much of this talk is grounded on fact and how much of it is mere political gargle and party and administration “fan”-talk I shall not here attempt to say. Time has not permitted me to look into these averred economies carefully and thoroughly enough to warrant positive statements from me anent them here. I am inclined to believe, however, that the present Postmaster General, Mr. Hitchcock, and his immediate predecessors, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Cortelyou, have really accomplished a little in the right direction--a little, where the Lord knows we _should_ know there was much to accomplish. But, as stated, my favorable opinion is not based on what I have dug up myself about these economies alleged to have been effected in the recently passed years. If they have been effected, their accomplishment only goes to prove that advocates of a cheap parcels post in this country have been _right_ in their facts and arguments, and also that their exposures and severe condemnation of the waste, extravagance, grafting and _stealing_ in the postal service were timely and well deserved.

Something, however, has, I think, been done. The exposure of criminal crookedness, grafting, waste and thievery which existed in the department--with administrative employes, officers, Congressmen and Senators, either directly or collusively connected with it--was bound to wipe some leaking joints in the service. The exposures uncovered so much porch-climbing and so much nastiness that most decent citizens were holding their noses and thinking of buying a gun. Something _had_ to be done. The noise and injured-innocence “holler,” which railroad and express company raiders are vocalizing and printing, is pretty good evidence not only that some little has been done to them, but also that they fear more is going to be done to jam the gear or otherwise interfere with the smooth running of some one or more of their high-speed, noiseless-action cream separators. And more will be done if the people keep on the mat and keep swinging for the jaw and plexus. But it is not all done yet. The raiders may be squealing and squirming a little. They always do when a little hurt. But they are still busy--still actively after the cream. They may spar a little for time, but they will use the time actively in figuring out a new entrance into the people’s milk house.

And these raiders will find a way to get in, too, if the people pull up the blankets and let themselves be talked and foozled to sleep.

TOUTING FOR “FAST MAIL.”

There appears to be much talk about “fast mail” service. Of course if the railways are already running at a destructive loss on mail weight and space-rental pay--which they are not--why they will want more pay if they furnish a fast mail service. The postal authorities (official) seem to think that a “fast mail” is a thing altogether lovely and much to be desired. The railroad carriers are of like mind, but--well, such service costs more money. They want more money. A fast mail is just the thing the people want and need! It will push the corn crop ahead and keep the frost off the peaches!

For these and other equally _easy_ reasons it is sought to steer the people into making a scream for a “fast mail” service. They want and need their mail in a hurry. The quicker the better. In fact, from the way some people are already talking, it would appear they want their mail delivered about twenty-four hours before it starts in their direction.

If the cream-skimming raiders and their “public servant” assistants can only get the people to talking for a “fast mail” service, why a fast mail we will have, and we will _pay the raiders for furnishing it_.

How will we pay them?

Oh, that is easy. Bonuses and subsidies are popular fashions in federal legislative society. Likewise they appear to be popular in postoffice circles. They are seasonable the year around and are cut to fit any figure. They don’t stand the wash very well, but--well, don’t wash them. The raiders and their official valets always keep them brushed up and vacuum cleaned. Just pay for them is all the people have to do.

I recall a serviceable subsidized fast mail gown which was handed to a railroad between Kansas City, Mo., and Newton, Kan., some years since. It was neatly boxed and delivered by the handlers of postoffice appropriations. It was worth $25,000 a year to the road that got it.

“Of what use was it to the people?”

None whatever. The fast train it was made to drape was put on the line named for the sole service and benefit of two Kansas City newspapers. It swished those papers (their midnight editions), into Western Kansas, Oklahoma and Northern Texas ahead of the appearance of local morning issues.

I recall another “fast mail” bonus. It was $190,000 and went to the Southern Railway for a fast train out of New York for New Orleans. It left New York about 4 a. m. and _carried little or no mail for delivery north of Charlotte, N. C._

It arrived in New Orleans, if I remember rightly, along about 2 a. m. the next day--_too late for delivery of any mail before the opening of the day’s business_--9 or 10 o’clock in the morning.

But the regular mail train, as was shown in the debate in the Senate, left New York at about 2. a. m. and arrived in New Orleans about 4:30 a. m.--two hours after the so-called “fast mail”--in ample time for deliveries when the business of the city opened.

Fine business that, is it not? Well, yes, for the _Southern Railway_.

The reader, however, should be able to recognize it as a regular 60 H. P., six-cylinder, rubber-tired “_deficit_” producer. Especially will he so recognize it if he thinks of it in connection with this other fact:

That same year, the Southern Railway was paid, in addition to the $190,000 “fast mail” subsidy mentioned, _over one million dollars at the regular weight rates for hauling the mails_!

There are numerous others of equal beauty and effectiveness in design. As previously stated, however, subsidies and bonuses are all carefully designed and cut to fit any figure. All we wise, “easy” people need do is to make a little noise for a “fast mail” service and Congress will hand it out.

The railroad raiders can easily justify their demands for subsidies for a fast mail service with people who have given little or no study to this mail-carrying question. Our Postoffice Department furnishes the raiders about all the argument that is needed. One of the raiders has been quoted as saying: “We could carry the mails at one-half cent per ton mile, if the Postoffice Department would allow us to handle it in our own way.”

There you are. The department will not let these raiders help the people _save their own money_. Very generous. Much like a burglar calling on you the day before in order to tell you how to prevent him from cracking your safe.

But the beauty of that railroader’s statement lies in the fact that it states a fact; not one of these glittering, rhetorical facts, but a real _de facto fact_.

The rules and regulations of the Postoffice Department for the carriage of mails in postoffice cars are such as furnish ample grounds and warrant for the railway official’s statement.

Postoffice cars are from 40 to 50 or more feet in length and weigh, empty, from 50,000 to 110,000 pounds. The department then has fixtures and handling equipment put in. This equipment occupies about two-thirds of the floor space of the car, and, with the four to twelve railway mail clerks also put into it, weighs from 10 to 15 or more tons. The railroad is paid for carrying all this bulky, space-occupying equipment at the regular mail-weight pay rates.

And how much real mail does the department get into these postoffice cars?

Well, some years since Professor Adams, after a most careful and extended investigation, placed the average weight of mail actually carried at two tons. He pointed out, however, that the mail load could easily go to three and a half tons and referred to the Pennsylvania road which, in its special mail trains, loaded as high as six tons. He also stated that if the load were increased to five tons, the cost of carriage would be _reduced more than one-half_, and he made it very clear that his figures were easily inside the service possibilities.

In view of such evidence and testimony from Professor Adams, and of other men to much the same effect, the department may possibly have increased the mail load since 1907 to three or maybe to three and a half tons.

Even so, it is still evident that the railroad must haul from 70,000 to 140,000 pounds of car and equipment to carry 6,000 to 7,000 pounds of mail; thirty-five to seventy tons of dead load to carry three to three and a half tons of live--of service--load. Do not forget that, so far as the railroads pay is concerned, the equipment is live weight--_paid weight_. So, the railroads get paid for a load of fifteen to eighteen and a half tons, while they carry only three to three and a half tons of mail--for carrying, according to Professor Adams’s figures in 1907, only two tons of mail.

As a deficit-producer that should rank high. As an evidence that our Postoffice Department is run on economic lines, that mail car tonnage load is nearly conclusive enough to convince the residents of almost any harmless ward.

Speaking seriously, the department’s methods of mail-loading the postoffice car--methods which put from two to three and a half tons into cars that should carry six to ten tons--furnishes the carriage-raiders an excellent basis for their talks to the people to the effect that the roads are not getting sufficient pay for carrying the mails now, and if they (the people) want better or faster service the roads must be paid more money, either as bonuses or subsidies. In fact, the railroad people have been holding up this nonsensical--or collusive--practice of the department for years as basis for their demands for more pay for hauling the government mails. As proof of this statement, take the testimony of Mr. Julius Kruttschnitt before the Wolcott Commission, I think it was. Mr. Kruttschnitt was then (1901) Fourth Vice-President of the Southern Pacific. In reply to the Commission’s inquiry as to whether or not the mails could be profitably carried over the New Orleans-San Francisco routes at a half cent a pound ($10.00 per ton or for $100 to $200 per car if reasonably loaded), Mr. Kruttschnitt is reported to have answered in part that “at half a cent a pound the mileage rate for 442 miles is 2.3 cents. Statement G,” he continued, “shows that to carry one ton of mail we carry nineteen tons of _dead weight_, so that for hauling twenty tons we get 2 cents or a little over one-tenth of a cent a gross ton mile.”

All very forceful and conclusive, if it were true, which it is not. It is true, however, that Mr. Kruttschnitt was making good argumentative use of the ridiculously low loading of cars under the regulations of the department. That is all. If the postoffice car used on Mr. Kruttschnitt’s road was a 50-foot car and weighed, say, 100,000 pounds, that and the railway mail clerks constituted the only “dead” weight hauled.

His road got paid for hauling the tons of ridiculously heavy mail-handling equipment and fixtures in that car--got paid for hauling them _both ways_, at the regular mail-weight rates. His road also received over $8,000 a year rental, or “space pay,” whichever the rail-raiders desire to call it, for the use of that car for mail haulage.

So, it is really not so bad as Mr. Kruttschnitt apparently would have it appear. In fact, one does not have to look into the matter very closely to see that the Southern Pacific had what might be called a “good thing” in its mail carrying contract.

But what are the railroads really paid for hauling mail tonnage as compared with the rates they receive for hauling other tonnage?

In writing to this phase of the question at the time of the pendency of the Fitzgerald and another bill,--the former requiring that periodical publishers pay $160 and the latter that they pay $80 per ton for mail carriage of their publication--Mr. Atkinson said:

Let it not be forgotten, that publishers pay the government
$20 per ton for their papers; doesn’t it seem enough, when the
government is so generous toward the railroads that it pays for
transporting 1,000 pounds of leather, locks, etc., for every 100
pounds of letters?

…

It is no unusual thing for the railroads to haul live hogs
from Chicago to Philadelphia, a very inconvenient as well as
unpleasant kind of freight. The hogs have to be fed and watered
on the way, they cannot be stacked one upon another, so require
much space. What do the railroads charge for this service? Is it
$160 per ton? No. Is it $80 per ton? No. Is it $20 per ton? No.
They do it for $6 per ton, and are glad of the job.

Professor Parsons wrote a volume a few years ago entitled “The Railways, The Trusts and The People.” Professor Parsons looked into this ton-mile rate of pay for rail haulage most carefully and gave the results of his investigations in his book, from which I take the tabulated rates following.

In passing, I may say that the professor is recognized by everybody as a most dependable authority--that is, everybody save the railroad and express raiders and their hired men. They have written and talked at great length to “refute” him, which thoughtful and disinterested people take as mighty strong evidence that Professor Parsons presented the truth and the facts, or so nearly the truth and facts that his statements made the “authorized,” rake-off patriots turn loose on him their high-powered, chain-tired public bubblers.

Following are the figures which the Professor published as showing the average _ton mile_ rates the railroads then received for carrying different kinds of shipments:

Rate per ton
mile, cents.
For carrying express generally 3 to 6
For carrying excess baggage 5 to 6
For carrying commutation passengers 6
For carrying dairy freight, as low as 1
For carrying ordinary freight in 1. c. 1 2
For carrying imported goods, N. O. to S. F. 8
For carrying average of all freight 78
For carrying the mails (Adams estimate) 12.5
For carrying the mails (Postoffice Department estimate) 27

THE PARCELS POST.

The Postmaster General in his reports for 1908-9 and 1909-10 recommends a trial or “test” of a parcels post service on several rural routes “to be selected by the Postmaster General.”

The Congress now in session is giving, or will give, this recommendation serious consideration, it is presumed. Especially will it be given such serious consideration when the 1911-12 bill, making appropriations for the postal service, is under fire and is being “savagely attached by its friends.”

It may be depended upon that the express and railroad gentlemen now shearing a rich fleece from your Uncle’s postal fold will not have any _fair_ tests made of a parcels post service so long as they can prevent it, and they appear to have numerous representatives in both houses of Congress who can be influenced to prevent it, if their past talk and _votes_ may be taken as indicating _what they are there for_.

Of course, the chief clack of the enemy’s hired men is “lack of funds.” Yet they go on appropriating _millions to people who do not earn it_--to pay for services _not rendered_.

The same kippered tongue lashed the “rural delivery” service the _same_ way. In the end, the people won. But they won, in the bill as originally passed, a rural delivery of the “test” variety. “Why?” Well, a properly equipped and serviceable rural delivery would be a step towards a serviceable parcels post and the raiders do not want the people to have such a parcels post.

As samples of the _sort_ of “friendly feeling” manifest in Congress toward a parcels post and of the _profound_ wisdom carried by some of its alleged friends, I desire to make a quotation or two.

When the measure was first up (1908), Representative Lever of South Carolina introduced the four counties “experimental test” amendment in the House. Following is his opening:

Every _farmer here present_ knows of his _own experience_ how
much time is taken in _extra_ trips to town and city.

Now, that is _real_ fetching. Especially before so vast a gathering _of farmers_ as heard it!

But a Missouri “farmer” present wanted to be shown. So he fired a question at Mr. Lever. The farmer from Missouri wears the name of Caulfield. He likewise wears an abiding _distrust_ of the parcels post. Following is his question:

Is it not a _fact_ that the _great mail order houses_ of the
country are the ones who are _really_ in favor of the parcels
post?

There is real intellectual magneto and lamp equipment for you. Note, too, the _shrewdness_ of this Missouri “farmer” in wording his question--the mail order houses may not be the _only_ ones who favor the parcels post, but they are about the only ones who “_really favor_” it!

Well, there are over 40,000,000 residents of the country--villages and towns in this country--among them, too, are twenty millions of _real_ farmers. These are pretty firmly of opinion that _they_ “are really in favor of the parcels post.” There are, also, not _less_ than 30,000,000 _more_ residents of incorporated cities, small and large, who at least _think_ they favor a parcels post service which will permit “mother” to send a pair of pants to her boy ten miles away as _cheaply_ as the laird of Skibo Castle, Scotland, can send two pairs of kilts to a son of his friend’s Aunt Billy who lives in Los Angeles, California.

Of course, the people may only _think_ they think and are sitting up nights with the windows open and their ears spread to hear _their_ representatives tell ’em they are wrong. If so, Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Lever will probably hear from them. It takes the people some time to recognize or properly to appreciate how wise some of their representatives are--what a _vast_ amount of charges-prepaid wisdom they have. But the people finally catch on and then--well, then there will not be so many “farmers” of the Mr. Lever variety in Congress.

But I want to give Mr. Lever another show. He’s entitled to it “under the rules.” He should have several of them--not to show his profound knowledge of the value and _dangers_ of an efficient, _cheap_ parcels post, but to show that a man need not spend a cent in Congress to advertise the fact that he is a “practical politician.” All he needs do is make a few _hired_ or _ignorant_ remarks on some subject _about which the people of the country have been thinking_.

Here is Mr. Lever’s answer to Mr. Caulfield’s question, as previously quoted:

The wisdom of _discriminating in favor of the local merchant_
must be apparent to _any one_ who regards, for a moment, the
_danger_ involved in a system (parcels post) which would
_inevitably centralize_ the _commerce of the country_.

Now, candidly, how _could_ a “friend” of a parcels post service show his friendship more _nicely_ than that? Especially if he is a “farmer?” Or even if he is not, and merely _desires_ the farmers to _think_ he is their friend?

Why, Mr. Lever has Mr. Caulfield shoved clear over the ropes in that answer. Mr. Caulfield, of Missouri, may have full magneto and lamp equipment, but Mr. Lever, when it comes to a _friendly_, high-speed spurt for a parcels post service, shows _all_ the latest improvements. No, sirs, Mr. Lever is not merely a last year’s model. He’s _bang_ up-to-date--axles, drawn steel; forged crank shaft with eight cams integral; continuous bearings and bearings all ground; two water-cooled, four-cylinder motors with _sliding_ gear; “built-in” steel frame, and running on a “wheel-base” of 106 inches. Mr. Lever shows all the other “latest,” _necessarily_ belonging to the “best seller” class among late models.

However, I have probably mentioned enough to make it clear to my readers, if _not to his constituents_, that Mr. Lever is fully equipped to _act_ the part of the farmer’s “friend,” a friend of the parcels post, or of any other old thing. Some may think he carries a little too much weight for a good hill-climber. It should be remembered, however, that some sorts of “friends” do not climb hills. They skip around the hills and get what _they_ are after while we are climbing. When farmers and others of our producing classes wise-up to the brand of vocal friendship I am “insinuatin’ about,” such representatives as Mr. Lever will _last_ about as long as it would take a one-armed, wooden-legged man to fall off the top of the Flat Iron Building flag pole.

PARCELS POST “TESTS.”

It may as well be said here as elsewhere that such “tests” of the feasibility and desirability of a good parcels post service as Mr. Hitchcock proposes to make are but procrastinating foolery. Great Britain and every continental country of Europe has an efficient parcels post service in operation.

Postmaster Generals and railroad and express company raiders know that. The countries indicated have made all the “tests” we need have of people-serving parcels post, and every one of them derive more or less revenue from that service, there being no deficits.

Postmaster Generals and our railroad and express company raiders know all that. So, also, do our Senators and Congressmen know that. Even alleged “farmer” Congressmen know it.

Our public servants know even more than that. They know that under the International Postal Union agreements our government has entered into, our postal service today handles these foreign countries’ parcels, of either United States or of foreign origin, weighing up to eleven pounds. They also know our own postal service now won’t permit our own people to send by mail, packages weighing more than four pounds. They also know that for carrying a four-pound parcel by his own mail service the American must pay 64 cents if the parcel is for delivery in any of the foreign countries covered by Postal Union agreement,[17] but if sent by some one in any of those countries for delivery in this, the sender may make up a parcel weighing as much as eleven pounds and for its delivery will have to pay only 48 cents.

I say that our mail carriers and public officials know these things. The facts as stated must be known of the Postal Union agreements. On request, the Postoffice Department does not hesitate to give this information to anyone. The following is a paragraph taken from a department communication. It was sent in response to a request made by Mr. Alfred L. Sewell, who wrote a most informative communication that appeared in the Chicago Daily News of date November 6, 1911. I take the quotation from Mr. Sewell’s article.

Mailable merchandise may be sent by parcels post to Bahamas,
Barbadoes, Brazil, Bermuda, Bolivia, Danish West Indies (St.
Croix, St. John, St. Thomas), Colombia, Ecuador, British Guiana,
Costa Rica, Guatemala, British Honduras, Republic of Honduras,
Haiti, Jamaica (including Turk islands and Caracas), Leeward
Islands, Windward Islands, Mexico, Newfoundland, Nicaragua, Peru,
Salvador, Trinidad, Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, in the western
hemisphere, and to Australia, Japan and Hongkong in the east, and
to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden in Europe.
The postage rate is uniform at 12 cents a pound, or fraction of
a pound. A parcel must not weigh more than eleven pounds, nor
measure more than three feet and six inches in length, or six
feet in length and girth combined.

Then why prattle about a “test” as to the desirability and practicability of a good, cheap parcels post service in this country; one that will serve our own people?

Especially why prattle about such a parcels post service on a few selected rural routes? It is not only foolishly silly, but it looks suggestively wrong--as if there was some ulterior motive back of any suggestion of such a test. “Why?”

Well, if such test is made under regulations suggested by the Postmaster General, the only parcels that service, or “test” service, is designed to carry, are such as originate on a selected rural route and are for delivery on the same route or on a route immediately connected with it. That is, as I understand Mr. Hitchcock’s recommended regulations, any farmer or villager along the selected “test” rural route may send a package (weight and rate of carriage yet to be decided upon) to any other farmer or villager on the same route or connected route, or to a resident of the town or city at which such route originates or starts.

If such a farce can be seriously thought of as a “test” of what use and economic value a nation-wide parcels post service would be to our people, even to the people residing on the test routes, it will take some graduate of a foolery school or foreman in a joke foundry to so think of it.

Let’s see. A farmer may send a jar of butter, box of eggs, crate of fruit or vegetables, etc., to the village storekeeper and get his pay for the consignment, “in trade” usually. By writing the storekeeper an order, postal card or letter, the farmer may get on the next round of the carrier what he desires. That is, he will get what he has asked for if the storekeeper has it in stock. The farmer, or the farmer’s wife, may do the same thing in the event that the consignment of their products, presuming that the “regulations” will permit the carrier to handle perishable goods, goes no farther away than the county seat or other town or city from which the rural route starts. They can also send such parcels to any railroad station on the route for shipment to any more distant point. In such case, however, the farmer must pay an express carriage charge from the local railroad station to the destination of his shipment.

But enough of this local application of the proposed “test” regulations. It will readily be seen that if the farmer or villager on a selected test route desires to send a parcel, not above the regulation weight--whatever that may be--to any point not on the same route, he will have an express charge to pay--whatever that charge may be. And if he orders something, inside the regulation weight, from some factory or city not on his carrier’s route, he must also pay an express charge for its carriage to his local railroad station. If he wants the article or goods delivered at his home by the rural carrier, he must pay an additional charge--the postal carriage charge, whatever that may be.

As a “test” of the service value of a parcels post, could anything be more absurd? If so, it would be difficult to frame it up. Such a “test,” however, will still leave the raiding express companies in position to hold up the selected “home circle,” rural-route residents on all shipments, which go to or come from any city or point outside the home circle--and that is about what, if not just what, the proposed “test” is designed or intended to do, or so it appears from the ladder top.

In this connection it should be noted that the rural-route delivery enactment, or the department regulations under which it was to be applied, carried an express protecting “joker.” If not, why was the rural route carrier required to furnish a cart or other carrying vehicle of only twenty-five pounds capacity? Was it valid for ulterior reasons which named so small a weight? Would it have cost the government any more money for rural carrier service if a maximum weight of 500, or even of 1,000 pounds, had been named for the carrying vehicle?

The reader may answer. To The Man on the Ladder, though, that 25-pound requirement looks to be of doubtful mail-service value, if, indeed, not suspiciously queer.

It was carefully figured in 1900 that our rural, or non-railroad, communities alone lost $90,000,000 a year in excessive express charges and delays in delivery by reason of the _criminal_ apathy of their government in the matter of furnishing even a _reasonably_ adequate domestic parcels post service, such, for instance, as that furnished by the German government. The German government carries an 11-pound package anywhere in the German empire or in Austria-Hungary _for 12 cents_.

To aid the reader, I give, following, a table covering the data essential to a fair understanding both of the excessive pay for a service which our government should render for a _tenth_ of the money and, also, of _why_ our express service is inconvenient--is _wasteful and expensive_--by reason of the _distance_ the express offices are from the people ordering. This last is clearly shown by comparing their _number_ with the larger number of postoffices in the several states named.

THE WORM UNCOVERED.

=============+========+========+=======+========+=======+=======+=======
| No. | No. |Average| Amount | | |
| of | of |express|saved by|English|German |Mexican
STATE. |express | post- |charge.| parcel | merchants’ advantage
|offices.|offices.| |post at |at 48c.|at 58c.|at 66c.
| | | | 12c. | | |
-------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+-------+-------
Alabama | 334 | 2,445 | $1.33 | $1.21 | $0.85 | $0.75 | $0.67
Arizona | 41 | 202 | 3.89 | 3.77 | 3.41 | 3.31 | 3.23
Arkansas | 262 | 1,880 | 1.66 | 1.54 | 1.18 | 1.08 | 1.00
California | 586 | 1,659 | 3.16 | 3.04 | 2.68 | 2.58 | 2.50
Connecticut | 108 | 511 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |
Georgia | 451 | 2,657 | 1.33 | 1.21 | .85 | .75 | .67
Illinois | 1,495 | 2,622 | 1.09 | .97 | .61 | .51 | .43
Kentucky | 471 | 2,892 | 1.22 | 1.10 | .74 | .64 | .56
Maine | 248 | 1,254 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |
Michigan | 737 | 2,161 | 1.22 | 1.10 | .74 | .64 | .56
New York | 1,309 | 3,735 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |
Ohio | 1,362 | 3,398 | 1.09 | .97 | .61 | .51 | .43
Oklahoma | 30 | 576 | 2.10 | 2.07 | 1.62 | 1.52 | 1.53
Pennsylvania | 919 | 5,206 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |
Rhode Island | 90 | 153 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |
South Dakota | 229 | 639 | 2.67 | 2.55 | 2.19 | 2.09 | 2.01
Texas | 662 | 2,968 | 2.19 | 2.07 | 1.61 | 1.61 | 1.53
Virginia | 263 | 3,468 | 1.22 | 1.10 | .74 | .64 | .56
+--------+--------+ | | | |
Whole country| 20,155 | 60,000 | | | | |
-------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+-------+-------

Had I the space at command I would print the figures for the whole United States. However, it will be seen that the states I have taken are fairly representative of the whole country--the populous with the sparsely settled.

The figures as to number of express and postoffices are from the United States census for 1900.[18] The estimates are made on the parcel weight of 11 pounds. Eleven pounds is the English _domestic_ parcels weight that is carried anywhere in the United Kingdom for 24 cents or, by international postal agreement, to any point in this country for 48 cents. In passing, it might be noted that for the year 1900 the British postoffice turned into its national treasury over $18,000,000 _profit_. It might also be well to notice that English merchants _imported_ nearly five and a half million dollars value by parcels post and _exported nearly twenty and a half million dollars of value by means of the same service_.

But to get back to our 11-pound parcel.

Germany carries it anywhere in her empire or in Austria-Hungary for 12 cents.

Switzerland carries it for _eight cents_, and several other countries _are now trying to reach the German weight-rate for domestic delivery_.

So we will take as our package of _eleven pounds_ and figure its delivery at any postoffice in the United States for _twelve cents_.

One more point about this table.

The reader must keep in mind that we now deliver packages up to eleven pounds from any person--merchant, manufacturer or other--living in England, Germany or Mexico. It is delivered for the English shipper (_by our mails_) to any United States postoffice for 48 _cents_; for the German shipper for 58 cents or for the Mexican shipper for 66 cents.

The _three right-hand_ columns of the table show how much _cheaper_ the English, German or Mexican merchant, or other shipper, can have his eleven pounds of merchandise carried to Rabbit Hash, Ky., Springtown, Mo., Gold Button, Cal.--_to any postoffice in the United States_--than the New York merchant can send his 11-pound parcel to the _express office_ “nearest” the customer ordering.

The express charges given are the _carefully figured averages_ for the states named for carriage from New York City. The third column gives the _average_ express charge (at rates ruling in 1900) from New York City to the states named. The fourth column gives the _savings_ to the purchaser--the merchant or the consumer--if the 11-pound parcel were carried, as it should be carried, in the mails for 12 cents. The first two columns give the number of express offices and postoffices in the several states named and are intended as _conclusive_ proof that _millions_ of our people are much nearer to a postoffice than to an express office.

With this preliminary, let us now comment on the table. Don’t side-step it because it’s figures--unless, of course, you’re some _hired man_ of the express or railroad companies.

The total of express companies in the footing is that given in the census report for 1900. There are probably several hundred more now. The corresponding total given for the number of postoffices is correct for July 1, 1910. There are fewer postoffices now than in 1900, the establishment of rural route delivery having reduced the number greatly. The reader must keep in mind that the figures named in headings of the three right-hand columns cover a “delivery” charge in addition to the home-rate mailing rate for the countries named. This delivery charge was covered in the international agreements.

If the reader will study that table a little he will learn several things.

If we have one hundred millions of people in this country, there is an express office for about each 5,000 of them, while there is a _postoffice_ for about each 1,666 of them.

There is an _express_ office to about every 175 _square miles of our territory_, while there is a _postoffice_ for about each 60 square miles of our territory.

The reader will have no trouble to see by the table that, if he ordered an 11-pound lot of hose and shirts or phonograph records, photograph films or other goods from New York City for delivery in Chicago, he would get the goods by a properly served parcels post for just 97 cents _less carriage charge_ than he now pays the express companies. If he live in Los Angeles, Cal., he would get the goods from New York for $3.04 less. Even if he lived in Buffalo, N. Y., he would get those eleven pounds of goods from the metropolis of his state for _48 cents less than he now pays the express companies_.

Be sure, however, to notice those three right-hand columns.

You will observe that the Right Honorable John Bovine, an exporting merchant of London--or a _manufacturer_, if you please, of Manchester or Leeds, England--can send that 11-pound package to you in Chicago, Hot Springs, Fargo or elsewhere in the United States--_send it by mail_, which no American merchant or manufacturer can do--at from 90 cents to $3.00 _less carriage cost_ than the New York merchant can send it to you by express--_the only means our present laws and methods permit him to use_.

Baron Von Stopper, an exporter of Berlin, likewise has a large advantage over the New York merchant in supplying your _parcel_ demands. Even Senor Greaser of the City of Mexico, can ship--_by mail_--eleven pounds of kippered tamales or sombreros to any point in the country, save ten states within short-haul range of New York City, and have an _edge_ of 30 cents to $3.23 over his New York City competitor in supplying your _parcel order wants_.

Great, is it not? Fine system, is it not, to “protect _home industries_?” To build up “foreign trade?”

But, it is not quite so bad as it looks for the very reason that our “postal agreements” recognize the “tariff wall” that is built around _certain_ “infants” in this country. Your goods from England, Germany or Mexico must be of our “_free_ list” kind, otherwise they must pay a rake-off to the government. As that is pretty stiff, _you_ don’t order many parcels from abroad. You buy home products--_thus paying the tariff rake-off to the protected “infant” instead of the Government_.

Does it not appear that we American citizens are an easily “worked” bunch?

In connection with the tabulation just presented, should be noted the fact that _millions_ of our people live in non-railroad communities--live, often, _many miles from any express office_, while a postoffice may be near. If these people have pressing need for any article of merchandise weighing over four pounds it cannot reach them, under existing law, by mail. _They must order it sent by express and make the long drive to the nearest express office to get it._

The article may be one needed for the health of the family or it may be a rod, a gear wheel or other part of some machine that has broken in a critical hour of need--_any one of a hundred needs_, delay in supplying which _costs money_.

It was carefully figured in 1900 that our rural, non-railroad communities alone lost $90,000,000 _a year_ in excessive express charges and delays in delivery by reason of the peculiar if not studied apathy of their government in the matter of furnishing even a _reasonably_ adequate domestic parcels post service.

The hypothetical rate (1 cent a pound or $20.00 per ton), for parcels carriage and delivery by post is low--maybe a little too low. If so, it is only a very little, _if it is figured to have the rate cover only the actual cost of the service_. A nation-wide parcels post service, if properly organized and directed, would, it must be remembered, handle all the short as well as the long haul business. It would not, as now, permit a collusive raiding arrangement between the railroads and the express companies by which the latter get most of the short-haul shipments and leave most of the long-haul parcels to be handled by the mail service.

I see by a local press item, that the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads is going to propose in the bill it is drafting that parcels of eleven pounds in weight be carried by the mail service for 50 cents--10 cents for the first pound and 4 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof, up to the maximum of 11 pounds. Of course, a rate of 50 cents for the carriage of 11-pound parcels would be a great betterment over the present rate and weight regulations. But a rate of 50 cents for an 11-pound package is away too high, figuring on short and long haul parcels, unless it is intended to make the service a revenue producer, which it should not be. The committee, I gather from the news item, has recognized the fact that a 50-cent rate is too high on short-haul matter and are considering the recommendation of a lower rate for it--a distance scale or schedule of rates. It is to be hoped that, if the proposed bill becomes law, it will carry such a provision.

It is said the committee decided upon the weight and rate limits after an “exhaustive investigation of all the parcels post systems of the world,” and it was pointed out that this investigation disclosed the fact that only “five powers” reported deficits in their postal services in 1909--Luxemburg, Chili, Greece, Mexico and Austria--the deficits ranging from $7,437 in Luxemburg to $1,693,157 in Austria. Of these, it will be noted, all save Austria are small or only partially developed countries. None of them have rail or other transportation facilities at all comparable to those of this country. Yet our government, with its excessive parcels rate and ridiculously low maximum weight limit on parcels reported a deficit of $17,441,719.82 in its postal revenues for 1908-9, and $6,000,000 in 1910.

Whatever the action that may be taken by the present or a future Congress looking to the betterment and to a cheapening of the nation’s parcels post service, one thing must be done if such action be made effective--if it yield the results it is alleged are expected of it. Such action must carry provisions that will effectively break up the present collusive understandings and arrangements between the railroads and the express company interests, which arrangement has for years been raiding the postal revenues on the one hand and, by greatly excessive rail and express rates for carrying parcel freight, has been looting the people on the other.

This can be--and should be--done. There are two actions which may be taken by the government, either of which I believe would accomplish that most desirable and necessary result.

On previous pages (pages 227 and 228), will be found quoted a section of the law of 1845--a law for the establishing and regulation of the government mail service. On the pages 256-257 will be found a most instructive discussion of the law by Mr. Allan L. Benson. Turn back and read those pages. Mr. Benson is always worth a second reading.

That it was the intention of the legislators of that time to make the carriage, handling and delivery of letters and “packets” (small parcels or packages of any sort of mailable matter), a government monopoly, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That the express companies have operated and are operating in violation of Section 181 of that law, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That Section 181 of the enactment of 1845 is good, sound law today, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That the express companies have operated, and continue to operate, in violation of that law--in open defiance of it--and are therefore engaged in a _criminal_ traffic, there can be no valid reason to doubt.

True, they have a very peculiar court decision to protect them in their violation of that law. I call it a “peculiar” decision. A more fitting term might be used in describing that court decision, and the use of such a term would be fully justified.

One of the two actions which Congress might take would be to amend