Chapter IV: Bureaucratic Powers Sought

I have before me the Postmaster General’s report for 1910. It presents a large amount of information both in statistical tabulation and in “straight matter.” A portion of the former, however, leaves the average lay mind rambling around in circles, wondering what in the name of all that is lofty it was compiled for, what service value it can possibly have and what was the ailment from which the fellow who compiled it suffered; that is, was his a case merely of bad liver or indigestion, or a serious case of ingrown intellect, struggling to help his fellowmen know how real dizzy and foolish tabulated figures can be made to appear?

Mr. Hitchcock in this 1910 report has separated himself from some striking oddities, about as serviceably valuable as a smoking compartment would be to a laundry wagon. Of course, it may be that Mr. Hitchcock did not write the division of this report signed by him. Some talented secretary, clerk or assistant may have cranked it up. However that may be, do not let what I here say deter you from looking through this 1910 report should it come your way. It contains a variety of excellent things, some valuable information, well collated and intelligibly presented. The foolishness and fooleries in it are--well, they are of the kind common to all, or at least most, departmental reports, federal, state, county and city. Much of the tabulated “statistics” in each can have no possible service value either in this world or the next--even assuming that statistics and statisticians will be recognized at all in that division of the “next” to which we all aspire.

As to the “straight matter” in these departmental reports, one often finds in it some most excellent suggestions, as is certainly the case with Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 production. One also finds a lot of other suggestions and space-written stuff that would make a totem laugh--that is, of course, presuming a totem could laugh and had advanced as far as the third grammar school grade in reading.

And the “literary style” of these official reports; so aerial in elevation, so officially dignified in “tone,” so profusely profound or profoundly profuse in elaboration and detail, and often so _trivial_ in significance or import!

If they were still with us, the “literary” standard of most of these departmental reports would make Bertha M. Clay hug the rail and E. P. Roe carry weight. But, of course, one must not look for nor expect literary exaltedness in a departmental report. It should, however, tell us--_we people_--a good many things we wish to know, in fact, _ought_ to know. It should not give us too much talk merely to show us how much--or how little--some chief or assistant knows. If you get the opportunity, read the Postmaster General’s 1910 report, and you will find many things in it that will jar you loose from your expectations, but do not be alarmed at that. Just keep in mind the fact that you can come as near reciting the Rubaiyat backwards as can Postmaster General Hitchcock, and that you at least know Old Mother Hubbard “by heart” as well as he knows it.

The point I am trying to make--to emphasize--is that Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report presents much valuable information for you and me. So you should not allow its follies to scare you off. For instance, the Postmaster General’s fifty notations of “Improvements in Organization and Methods.” Why he should stop at a round fifty I do not know. I believe he could easily have added twenty or thirty more _of kind_. Some of these “improvements” are most excellent; some of them are so assumedly conclusive on matters previously--for years--in doubt and controversy as to touch off the risibles in any man who has made anything like a careful study of conditions governing the Postoffice Department. For instance, his “Improvement” numbered 10 reads:

“The successful completion of an _inquiry_ into the cost of handling and transporting mail of the several classes and of conducting the money order, registry and special delivery services.”

We can _hope_ that the aforesaid “inquiry” was so carefully and comprehensively conducted as to entitle it to be classed as “successful” as Mr. Hitchcock’s statement is assertive. However, just how far we may prudently indulge such hope is a matter for grave consideration. The Postmaster General’s Third Assistant, James J. Britt, attempts to tell us (pp. 328-329, 1910 report), all about it. Mr. Britt will be referred to later.

Again: Mr. Hitchcock in his No. 11 “Improvement,” reports “the successful prosecution of an inquiry into the cost _to the railroad companies_ of carrying the mails, the result of which will form a _reliable basis_ for fixing rates of pay for railroad mail transportation.”

Now, if Mr. Hitchcock has really and truly so conducted an “inquiry” as to ascertain a “_reliable basis_” of pay for the mail haulage service rendered by the railroads--“a reliable basis” that can be built upon, acted upon and _enforced_--if he has done that, then he deserves a niche in the Hall of Fame. But here, again, I am doubtful. Did you take Britt’s word for it, Mr. Hitchcock, or did you steer the “inquiry” yourself? The only point of interest to us of the commonalty involved in your eleventh improvement is: Can you, or any other Postmaster General, compel or persuade the railroads to carry the mail at a reasonable rate? Will such rate be based upon that “reliable basis” you say you have ascertained?

Grant us but that and we shall ask no more nor will you have any “deficits” to worry about. I know you explain quite fully (pp. 18-20), as to how you went about it, how Congress made appropriation for a force of “temporary clerks” to tabulate the information, the data which your “successful” inquiry brought to the surface. Still, knowing something about the _devious_ peculiarities of the railways in the past--say, back to the Wolcott investigation (at this moment I forget the year when this was made and have neither the time nor the opportunity to climb down and look it up)--unless the railways have had a rush of honesty and conscience into their reports, accounts and _practices_, I am gravely _doubtful_ as to the dependability of the data your “inquiry” uncovered. Of course, if you went after them, backed by a court order calling for a showdown, Mr. Hitchcock, you may have arrived somewhere in the vicinity of the facts. Otherwise--well, you got about what other _inquirers_ got--_got what the railways wanted you to know_.

I shall make no further specific reference to the fifty improvements the Postmaster General claims to have covered into operative effectiveness. It is due, however, that I say, in this connection, that the majority of those named in the report are sound, sane and _serviceably_ economic. It is also due from me to say that I personally know that Mr. Hitchcock has already made a number of them effectively operative in his department and to the betterment of its service. My contention with the Postmaster General is chiefly concerning three points, viz.:

_First_--His manifest intent to throw the burden of his departmental deficit upon a few _independent_ periodicals which, by reason of their independence, have indulged the proclivity or practice of _telling the truth about corporate, vested and other favored interests, and about corrupt officials--city, county, state, national, executive, legislative and juridic_.

_Second_--His colossally unjust and unfair way of figuring his “deficit” against such periodicals. Maybe it was Britt, Third Assistant Postmaster General, or some other “pied” subordinate who did the figuring. I do not know. However, in common with other citizens, I hold Mr. Hitchcock responsible for those figures, as we are fully warranted in doing by reason of his official position.

_Third_--Mr. Hitchcock, it appears, in his reports and letters, gives us a lot of talk that is _twisted_, “pretzel talk,” someone has aptly called it. This “night-crawler” talk quite naturally--legitimately, if not naturally--leaves thoughtful people to wonder what he wants, _what he is after_, what interest or interests he is trying to subserve and what “influences” have _influenced_ him to go after certain periodicals in so _bald and crude a way_.

Still, that does not altogether fully express my third objection to Mr. Hitchcock and his methods. His letters and special reports in support of the absurd claim that the transportation and handling of second-class mail matter costs 9.23 cents per pound, a figure above or equal to that which will carry gold or currency bills _by express_ for the average mail haul, furnish valid grounds for doubt as to the good faith of his intent, to suspicion an _ulterior motive_ back of his action and writings. To this I do not hesitate to say that his 1910 report, I mean his own personally signed section of it, is offensively _bureaucratic_. Mr. Hitchcock, it appears from his own recommendations, would have his bureau or department bigger than Congress. He wants powers and authority centered in it which Congress _should not delegate, which Congress has no rightful powers nor authority to delegate_.

Now, do not misapprehend me. Maybe Mr. Hitchcock has not done all this on his own initiative. He may have acted wholly on a long-distance or a central direction from the main stem. I shall, however, proceed to support my accusation that Mr. Hitchcock evidences in his 1910 report a desire--a tendency, if not a desire,--to make the Postmaster General not only a censor of periodical literature (as indicated in the wording of that “rider” amendment printed on a previous page), but to have delegated to him powers over the mail service which not only contravene the basic principles of a democratic form of government, but which, also, tend to establish a bureaucracy that, if carried to its full flower, will, necessarily _abrogate our form of government itself_.

Here let us note Mr. Hitchcock’s recommended legislation. In the report before me he makes thirty-six recommendations. In each of these which grants added powers or authority touching any matter, the wording of the suggested legislation gives such added powers and authority to the _Postmaster General_. In certain minor matters, especially such as relate only to departmental methods of handling its service accounts, etc., such grant of power is entirely proper. Among Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendations are several of such character, and, so far as I have studied them, they appear sound, and consequently their passage by Congress and their application to the department would, in my judgment, effect material savings or betterments in the service.

In a number of other instances, however, Mr. Hitchcock asks legislation that will grant him (or any succeeding head of the federal Postoffice Department), powers and authority which _should be granted to no bureau or departmental division of our government service_. I mean that the acquirement of such legislative powers and authority by bureaus (cabinet service divisions), is inimical to the basic principles of our government; in fact, it is a _stealthy_ move to establish in this country the bureaucratic form of government which has proved a curse in every existing monarchical government, causing their peoples to rebel against them, or constantly a condition of unrest under the system--a condition which indicates either _enforced_ submission to governmental wrongs and impositions or a dwarfed and submerged manhood, “begging for leave to live” and devoting most of its thought to a few questions, such as: “Why did I arrive? What am I here for? I work, why does the government take most of my earnings? Why does the government and its bureau heads live, live in luxury, while I and my wife and children merely exist,--barely subsist? _Why are hundreds of millions taken every year from people who need it to secure the common comforts of life, and given, unearned, to those who need it not at all?_”

It would require pages even to print the inquiries which the victims of bureaucratic governments ask themselves daily, ask themselves daily so long as they _exist above the level of the clod_, above the level which Edward Markham so forcefully and eloquently depicts in his “Man with the Hoe.”

The point I desire to emphasize is that when the great body of people in any country--its “citizens”--begin to ask themselves such questions, _their patriotism begins to dry-rot and die_, and when the patriotism of a nation’s people begins to die, that nation is on the farther slope of its existence; it has started on the decline, more or less sharp, _which ends in rebellion_, dissolution, extinction. This is the uniform lesson of history. He who reads it not so reads either not carefully or not comprehendingly.

To a few of my readers the foregoing may appear to be a digression from my subject. It is not intended as such. It is intended to call the reader’s attention to some powers and authority Mr. Hitchcock seeks in his recommended legislation, _legislation which should not be enacted_. Let us look at a few of those recommendations. If space permitted, I would take pleasure in commenting on several more of them.

On page 10 of his report, Mr. Hitchcock repeats a recommendation of his 1909 report. He repeats it “earnestly.” He also expresses the opinion that “_as soon as the postal savings system is thoroughly organized_, the Postoffice Department should be prepared to establish throughout the country a general parcels post.” As a “preliminary step” to such establishment of a parcels post Mr. Hitchcock seeks authority from Congress to initiate a “limited parcels post service on rural routes.” On page 26 of his report, Mr. Hitchcock suggests the _substantials_ of the legislation he believes necessary to enable him to establish his contemplated “limited parcels post service on rural routes,” _as an experimental test_.

As evidence that he wants the power and authority to make this “experiment” on his own lines and judgment and pursuant of his _own purposes_ I shall here quote the form of his advised legislation. To anyone who has made study of parcels post service it is needless to say that among the civilized nations of the earth the United States is so far in arrears in such service as to be generally recognized as an international joke. It is quite needless to say to such that Mr. Hitchcock’s prattle of a “limited” parcels post and of trying it on certain _selected_ rural routes (with no privileges of service beyond the geographical limits of such routes), as an “experiment,” is more than a mere joke.

Informed people know that any such restricted test of a parcels post service _is no test at all_. Informed men also know that our Federal Postoffice Department needs make no “experiments” on the parcels post service, “limited” or other. Every other civilized nation, and even provinces such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others, have made the “experiments,” likewise the successful demonstrations. The experiments of these other nations and provinces, as well as the results of them, are ours for the asking. Not alone that, but informed men _know, and know positively_, that our Federal Postoffice Department is in possession of--_or was in possession of_--all this information gathered from the experiences and trials and tests of a parcels post service in these other countries.

So, I repeat that Mr. Hitchcock’s talk about making an experimental test of the general value of a parcels post service by putting it in operation on a few _selected_ rural routes is a joke, _or else it is an evasion in order to delay the installation of a service which every citizen wants_, save, of course, the few individuals who now own and control our railroads, _which individuals also own_, to a controlling extent at least, _our express companies_.

But I must quote Mr. Hitchcock’s advised legislation in order to show the reader that Mr. Hitchcock desires that the resulting powers and authority center in him, or in his successors:

In order that the recommendation on page 10 of this report for
the introduction of a limited parcels post service on rural
routes may be promptly carried into effect, it is suggested that
legislation substantially as follows be enacted:

For one year, beginning April 1, 1911, the _Postmaster General
may, under such regulations as he shall prescribe_, authorize
postmasters and carriers on such rural routes _as he shall
select_ to accept for delivery by carrier on the route on
which mailed or on any other route starting at the postoffice,
branch postoffice or station which is the distributing point
for that route, or for delivery through any postoffice, branch
postoffice, or station on any of the said routes, _at such rates
of postage as he shall determine_, packages not exceeding 11
pounds in weight containing no mail matter of the first class
and no matter that is declared by law to be unmailable, and he
shall report to Congress at its next session the results of this
experiment (Page 26, 1910 Report.)

The italics are mine. They make all the comment that is necessary in proof of my charge that Mr. Hitchcock seeks powers and authority which should not be delegated to any bureau head.

As a companion piece to the foregoing Mr. Hitchcock asks the following legislation--legislation which, if granted or enacted, must look to any man who has given even a cursory study to the subject of parcels post service, as merely a “stall,” a bit of dilatory play to delay effective and efficient action to install a serviceable parcels post _until the express company interests pull down two or three hundred millions more of unearned profits_.

Following is the companion piece of the last preceding quotation. The italics are mine and make the only comment that is necessary:

As suggested on page 10 of this report, an investigation should
be authorized as to the conditions under which the transportation
of merchandise by mail may be wisely extended. For this purpose
it is recommended that legislation substantially as follows be
enacted:

_The Postmaster General is hereby directed to ascertain by such
investigation or experiment as is found necessary_, and to report
to Congress at its next regular session, the lowest rates of
postage at which the Postoffice Department can carry by mail,
without loss, parcels not exceeding 11 pounds in weight; and he
is hereby authorized to place in effect for one year, beginning
April 1, 1911, _at such postoffices as he shall select for
experimental purposes_, such rates of postage on fourth-class
matter _as he deems expedient_; and the sum of $100,000 is hereby
appropriated to cover any expenses incurred hereunder, including
compensation of temporary employees and rental of quarters in
Washington, D. C. (Page 26, 1910 Report.)

We will here drop the subject of parcels post for the time. In a later section of this volume I shall discuss the subject--largely aside from Mr. Hitchcock’s attempts, as has been authoritatively reported to me, to delay if not to block its successful installation.

I will make a few more quotations in evidence of Mr. Hitchcock’s desire to acquire bureaucratic powers:

To provide for a postal note in accordance with the plan
outlined on pages 10 and 11 it is recommended that legislation
substantially as follows be enacted:

_The Postmaster General may authorize_ postmasters at such
offices _as he shall designate_, under such regulations as
_he shall prescribe_, to issue and pay money orders of fixed
denominations not exceeding ten dollars, to be known as postal
notes.

SEC. 2. Postal notes shall be valid for six calendar months from
the last day of the month of their issue, but thereafter may
be paid under such regulations _as the Postmaster General may
prescribe_.

SEC. 3. Postal notes shall not be negotiable or transferable
through indorsement.

SEC. 4. If a postal note has been once paid, to whomsoever paid,
the United States shall not be liable for any further claim for
the amount thereof. (Page 29, 1910 Report.)

Let us next look at a peculiar, “an unusual,” request for legislation granting authority to the Postmaster General to do a most “unusual” thing, the granting of salaries higher than $1,200 a year to clerks and carriers, who are paid under the present law $600 a year, whenever the postmaster “certifies to the department” that “unusual” conditions in his community prevent him from securing efficient help. The italics are my own and make comment unnecessary:

In last year’s report, attention was directed to the desirability
of authorizing the appointment of clerks and carriers at higher
salaries than $600 at offices where unusual conditions prevail.
Congress added to the appropriation for unusual conditions a
proviso that may have been intended to meet the recommendation
of the department, but subsequent experience has shown that it
fails to do so. The proviso referred to has effected so great
a reduction in the amount available for salaries of employees
at offices where conditions are unusual that the service at a
number of such offices cannot be maintained after the close of
the present calendar year, unless additional funds are provided
by Congress. The same law placed a restriction on the maximum
salary allowable, making it impossible for the department to meet
satisfactorily the unusual conditions existing in certain parts
of the country. In order that the needed relief may be afforded
legislation substantially as follows should be enacted:

Whenever a postmaster certifies to the department that, owing to
unusual conditions in his community, he is unable to secure the
services of efficient employees at the initial salary provided
for postoffice clerks and letter carriers, _the Postmaster
General may authorize, in his discretion_, the appointment of
clerks and letter carriers for that office at such higher rates
of compensation within the grades prescribed by law as may be
necessary in order to insure a proper conduct of the postal
business, and their salaries shall be paid out of the regular
appropriation for compensation of clerks and letter carriers:
_Provided_, That whenever such action is necessary in order to
maintain adequate service at any postoffice where conditions are
unusual _the Postmaster General may authorize the appointment
of clerks and letter carriers at salaries higher than $1,200_,
their salaries to be paid out of the appropriation for unusual
conditions at postoffices. (Page 30, 1910 Report.)

I wonder what our Postmaster General is after in asking _re-enactment_ of legislation of this sort, legislation granting him _censorial powers_ without so much as _intimating_ that fact. Maybe some of you organized labor men, or mercantile tradesmen can tell me. I am listening. _So are others._

By the act approved May 27, 1908, making appropriations for the
service of the Postoffice Department, it was provided:

That Section 3893 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be
amended by adding thereto the following: And the term “indecent”
within the intendment of this section shall include _matter of a
character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination_.

The enactment of this statute accomplished beneficial results,
and it does not appear that injustice or undue hardship resulted
therefrom to any person or interest. However, the provision
quoted was not retained in the penal code adopted March 4, 1909,
and became void when the code went into effect on January 1,
1910. On the assumption that the omission was inadvertent, it
is recommended that the provision be re-enacted. (Page 37, 1910
Report.)

Following is one more reach by Mr. Hitchcock for bureaucratic power which should _not_ be granted:

By virtue of his office the Postmaster General has the power
to conclude money-order conventions with foreign countries
and to prescribe the fees to be charged for the issue of
international money orders. In like manner he should be empowered
to determine, from time to time, as conditions may warrant, the
fees to be charged for the issue of domestic money orders. It is
recommended, therefore, that Section 2 of the act of January 27,
1894, be repealed, and that as a substitute therefor legislation
substantially as follows be enacted:

Section 2 of the act of January 27, 1894, entitled “An act to
improve the method of accounting in the Postoffice Department
and for other purposes,” is hereby repealed. A domestic money
order shall not be issued for more than one hundred dollars,
and the fees to be charged for the issue of such orders _shall
be determined, from time to time, by the Postmaster General:
Provided, however_, that the scale of fees prescribed in said