Similar findings on the comparative value of the Government service and
the private companies' service in the express fields may be obtained
from another source. Up to January 1, 1913, outside of parcels weighing
less than four pounds, the private express companies had unchallenged
exploitation of the express service of the United States. How did the
extent of our service in 1912 compare with the extent of the service in
other lands in which our private express companies found no
counterparts?
Obviously, there is no absolute basis for fruitful comparison. Greater
distances, more sparsely settled territory, greater wealth, greater
geographical specialization of function and hence greater need for
integration between different sections, higher standards of living, more
diversified demands--these are some of the features of the problem here
as compared with the problem abroad which make an absolute comparison of
express services valueless. But practically every feature of the express
situation would affect also the freight traffic of the United States as
compared with the freight traffic abroad. In other words, the express
traffic of the United States before 1913 should have had the same ratio
to the freight traffic of the United States as the express traffic of
other lands to the freight traffic of other lands, in case the United
States express companies were as efficient in comparison with foreign
express agencies as the railroads of the United States in comparison
with railroads.
In a hearing before a committee of Congress in 1912, Mr. David J. Lewis,
then a congressman from Maryland, presented the evidence, which he had
obtained from the original reports of the railways of the countries
concerned:
_Pounds_ _Pounds_ _Ratio_
_Freight_ _Express_ _Express_
_Shipped_ _Shipped_ _Shipped to_
_Country_ _Date_ _Per Capita_ _Per Capita_ _Freight_
Argentina 1909 10,680 165.4 1 to 64
Austria 1908 11,260 116.6 1 to 97
Belgium 1909 16,320 199 1 to 82
Germany 1909 15,980 140.4 1 to 113
France 1908 7,480 140.6 1 to 53
Hungary 1908 5,540 67.8 1 to 84
United States 1909 16,300 99 1 to 165
In other words, the express facilities of the United States were used
50% less than in the country above showing the lowest development of
express service and about 200% less than in the country showing the
highest development of express service. When it is remembered that
express is much quicker and more convenient than freight, although more
expensive, and that the industrial processes of the United States have
long been and still are characterized by a keener demand for speed and
convenience, irrespective of cost, than the industrial processes of
other countries, the above table becomes eloquent with significance.
With respect to the costs of the express service, the same basis for
comparison may be used.
_Ratio_
_Average_ _Average_ _Freight_
_Freight_ _Express_ _Charges_
_Charge_ _Charge_ _to Express_
_Country_ _Date_ _Per Ton_ _Per Ton_ _Charges_
Argentina 1909 $1.95 $6.51 1 to 3.2
Austria 1908 .74 3.77 1 to 5
Belgium 1909 .53 4.92 1 to 9.3
France 1908 .95 6.88 1 to 7.2
Germany 1908 .76 3.80 1 to 5
Hungary 1908 .93 3.68 1 to 3.9
United States 1909 1.90 31.20 1 to 16.4
And yet the statesmen at Washington have disposed and doubtless will
still endeavor to dispose of the proposal to have the Government own and
manage the express service of the land by speeches on texts to the
effect that the spirit of America demands individual freedom; that that
is the best Government which governs the least; that incentive to
productive endeavor is possible only in private establishments and
completely disappears in the public service; to which will now doubtless
be added the charge that such a proposal smacks of Socialism and that
every red-blooded American understands that anything and everything
Socialistic is undeniably un-American!
The implication of the above figures, however, is undeniable for the man
who trusts thought as well as emotions. The Postal System has gone into
the express field and, in competition with the express companies, by
their respective showings, has in five years rendered to the American
public far more valuable service than that rendered by the express
companies. The opponents of Government ownership and management have
been ruthlessly confuted. They predicted graft--there has been none.
They prophesized inefficiency--the figures give them the lie. They
foretold unwholesome political intrusions--whatever may be the
unwholesome features of the present operations of our postal system,
those operations are less unwholesomely attached to political influences
than ever before. There is accordingly every reason _a priori_ to assume
that the Government would render more valuable service than that
rendered by the express companies in the remaining section of the
express field unoccupied by it and still occupied only by the express
companies.
But there is no necessity for relying upon _a priori_ reasoning. The
results to be achieved by the consolidation of the express service of
the land into the postal system of the land are definite and
demonstrable.