LATEST OFFICIAL STYLES IN POSTAL CONVERSATION.
The President’s message of February 22, 1912, reached me a few hours
after the closing chapters of this volume had gone to the printers. With
it arrived a copy of the Postmaster General’s report for the year ending
June 30, 1911; also notice from a Congressman friend that he will have
the Hughes Commission’s report on the way shortly. The Man on the Ladder,
like Lucy, when selecting her spring bonnet, desires the “very latest
creation.” It may not be essentially necessary in a discussion of Federal
postal affairs, but even a hurried reading of the President’s message and
the report of Postmaster General Hitchcock will furnish abundant evidence
that _expressed_ official opinion is somewhat ephemeral and transitory,
like the styles in ladies’ headwear. I have never had the pleasure of
retaining a lady’s unanimous friendship for any appreciable length
of time after giving her my honest opinion of the style of her most
recently acquired bonnet, and readers who have followed me thus far in my
consideration of government postal affairs will have discovered that my
respect for “style” in official oratory and literature needs coaching.
All that aside, however, the point is that I have persuaded my printers
to “break galley” just here and permit the insertion of a chapter, having
as subject the “very latest” in official postal affairs.
THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE.
In his Washington Day effort our smiling President is profusely loyal
to the characteristics of his style in composition--plumage and
displacement. Mr. Taft, however, should set up no claims of originality
of design in Executive messages. Several of his predecessors presented
the people of these United States with numerous displays of verbal
plumage and trimmings. So our President had many working-models as guides
in building the message upon which we shall proceed to comment.
This message, both in architectural specification and in contour or
_ensemble_, is largely but a re-trim of the “block” furnished by Mr.
Hitchcock in his report, under date of December 1, 1911. In considering
the President’s message and the report of the Postmaster General, we may,
then, shorten our task somewhat by treating the two public documents as
one. They, of course, differ in phrasing and wording, but the language
of the message is only a sort of Executive “Me-too” approval of what
Mr. Hitchcock says in his report, save on one point--the taking over of
the telegraph companies by the government. That point we will discuss
separately, presenting the argument of the president against the
proposition and the _facts_ presented by Postmaster General Hitchcock:
“It gives me pleasure to call attention to the fact that the revenues for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, amounted to $237,879,823.60 and
that the expenditures amounted to $237,660,705.48, making a surplus of
$219,118.12. For the year ending June 30, 1909, the postal service was in
arrears to the extent of $17,479,770.47.”
Well, yes, certainly. It gives us all pleasure to see a surplus grow
where only deficits grew before--gives us great pleasure. Still,
Mr. President, you will permit us humbly to say that it has been a
distressful winter and that here, the very last of February, the ground
is still frozen hard. You, of course, will recall that our Postmaster
General, at intervals during the last fiscal year, as opportunity for
“interviews” offered, gave us confident assurances that his department
was harvesting a surplus, ranging in amount from one to three million
dollars. These assurances beyond our expectations--our hopes--led us to
an elevation which makes it a far fall to $219,118.12. Of course, it is
our fault. We should not have permitted our hopes and expectations to
become so altitudinous. But Mr. Hitchcock has a very persuasive delivery
and the public press quoted him so numerously and so prolixly that we
climbed on and on up--away above the one and some of us well on towards
the three million level and--well, as before said, the ground being
frozen, a drop to $220,000 jars us some considerable in alighting. Mr.
Hitchcock probably framed up his mid-year interviews to fit observed
conditions, the best he knew how. Most of us will soon be out of the
hospital and in condition to take an inflation for another flight. Some
of the less venturesome among us may be over-careful not to soar too
high, but our tank capacity remains about the same. So the Postmaster
General may meter nearly the same amount of rhetorical gas to us
without fear. The President might, however, if he thinks it would not
occasion any unseemly discord in rendering the grand symphony entitled
“Administrative Policy,” give us folks some information on the following
points--points raised by a reading of the Washington Day message and of
the 1911 report of the Postmaster General, both of which are before me,
as I write. Of course this is the President’s busy season and he may not
be able to devote as much time to our enlightenment as he would like to
and otherwise would. In that event, he may turn the subject over to Mr.
Hitchcock and request him to separate himself from a few interviews to
clear these matters up for us.
In each annual report of the Postoffice Department I have at hand (1907
to 1911 inclusive), there appears an item which reads, “Expenditures on
account of previous years.” For the years indicated, the figures on this
item of expenditures are as follows:
1907 $ 303,045.55
1908 823,664.64
1909 586,404.69
1910 6,786,394.11
1911 7,132,112.23
As figures are always more or less of a serious nature, we will here drop
the personal element in discussing these points on which information
is desired, and much _needed_, if public press notices can be at all
depended upon as informative. Of course “figures do not lie.” Still,
it is generally known that, however truthful they may be in correct
calculations, they sometimes appear very peculiar, if not queer, in
tabulations. Some persons have even gone so far as to assert that
“official figures” have frequently been so arranged and manipulated as
to “conceal the facts.” Now, the figures for that item, “Expenditures on
account of previous years” may conceal no facts which the public has any
right to know. Still, there is something about them which irritates one’s
bump of curiosity; that is, if one’s bump is not abnormally dwarfed or
stunted. At any rate, it appears from press comment that those figures
have sand-papered or otherwise frictioned several bumps of curiosity into
a state of irritation. It is the hope of securing some official light
that will act as a linitive or demulcent to my own and other bumps that
persuaded those figures into evidence here.
What do those figures mean? Are they of any real informative value or
merely convenient things to have around when building the sub and
superstructures of a department annual reports, like the figures of
the postal deficits? A glance at the sums named in the table shows a
variableness that amounts almost to a waywardness in totaling bills or
accounts payable. The federal fiscal year ends June 30th. The annual
reports of the Postoffice Department bear date December 1st--full
four months after the close of the fiscal year. Surely four months is
sufficient time to gather into account the bills payable or carried-over
obligations of a previous year, is it not? Of course the business of the
department is a large business--over $237,000,000 last year and about
$260,000,000 is asked for this year in the appropriation bill recently
passed by the House. But that is no reason whatever for failure to
account for amounts ranging from $300,000 to $6,200,000 of unpaid bills
of the business year in which the obligations were created; especially
not, when publication of the accounting is made four months after the
close of the year.
This item of “expenditures on account of previous years” becomes no
more understandable, if indeed it does not become more suggestive of
purposeful manipulation, when one looks over the itemized or segregated
expenditures of the year. The items of expenditure are all of the
conventional character used in business accounting--operation and
maintenance--such as service salaries, transportation of the mails,
rents, light, fuel, supplies, repairs, etc. And these are all set down as
expenditures of and for the fiscal year’s business covered by the report,
there being not even a suggestion that any part or portion of the total
is an expenditure of the previous year--of any previous year.
So much for the detail of expenditures as published in the reports. From
the summaries of receipts and expenditures one gathers no additional
light. In the reports of the Third Assistant Postmaster General (division
of accounts), one finds only the bald item, “Expenditures on account of
previous years,” down to the report of Third Assistant, James J. Britt,
for the year ended June 30, 1910. For that year Mr. Britt segregates the
item as follows:
Services for the fiscal year, 1909 $6,721,058.52
Services for the fiscal year, 1908 53,814.12
Services for the fiscal year, 1907 108.97
Claims, fiscal year, 1907 and prior years 11,605.44
Claims, fiscal year, 1906 and prior years 25.00
------------
Total for prior years $6,786,394.11
Anyone taking the trouble to add the five amounts given above, will
discover an error of $217.94 in the total. While that error is only a
trifle, its appearance, however, in the addition of but five items is not
highly commendatory of the ability of Mr. Britt’s expert accountants.
The making of such an error in totaling only five entries has a tendency
to arouse doubt or suspicion as to the reliability or dependability, not
only of the footings given for the longer tabulations published in the
report, but also of the footings which must necessarily have been made
to secure the totals which are entered as items in such tabulations. Be
this as it may, very few persons, aside from clerks paid for doing the
work (and, possibly, an official or two whose duty it is or should be to
see that the work is done accurately), will go to the trouble to verify
even the footings of the published tabulations. So the errors, if any
have been made, are not likely to become subject matter for much adverse
criticism.
My purpose in presenting the showing of the 1910 report on that item
of “expenditure on account of previous years” is to make the statement
that, so far as I have been able to look up the matter, it is a first
weak attempt to make public in the annual report the accounts and claims
carried over from a previous year or years and published as expenditures
of the year to which they are carried. I desire the reader to note,
also, that of the total of “expenditures on account of previous years”
($6,786,612.05 as above corrected), all but $65,553.53 is set down as
expenditures for the year _immediately prior_--for 1909.
Now, the business of the Postoffice Department is a cash business--wholly
so in the matter of receipts and nearly so, or should be, in the matter
of expenditures. This being the case, that item entered in the published
annual reports as “expenditures on account of previous years” must
consist largely of payments made on account of the year _immediately
preceding_ the year covered by the report. As just shown by the published
analysis of the item in the 1910 report, the expenditures on account
of prior years other than the one just preceding are so small (only
$65,553.53 in a total of $6,786,612.05), that they may be ignored in
the attempt I am shortly to make, to show that the item we have been
considering--“expenditures on account of previous years”--has such
dominance in the department’s method of accounting, as evidenced in its
annual reports, as to materially affect the deficit or surplus showing.
First, however, I desire to call attention to another point or two
relating to this item of expenditure.
A glance at the tabulation made of this item shows a huge jump in its
amount for the year 1910 of $6,200,000, round figures. Next, it appears
that the necessities of business, _or the emergency needs of those
building the report_, forced this item still upward in the showing for
1911 as made December last--upward by $345,718.12, making its total
$7,132,112.23. In the report before me, no analysis of that large
carried-over payment on account of prior years is given. The Third
Assistant Postmaster General may furnish information as to the year or
years of its origin. His report has not reached me yet, so I cannot say.
The bald statement is there, however, that 1911 _paid over seven million
dollars_ on account of 1910 and prior bills. It is also in evidence that
_no information whatever_ is published which enlightens the public as
to the amount of _unpaid 1911 bills that are carried forward to 1912
account_.
Whether adverse criticism is justifiable or not, such cloaking of
accounts in giving them publicity most certainly warrants it. It is just
this cloaking that has subjected Mr. Hitchcock’s little vest-pocket
surplus for 1911 to much and merited criticism, doubt and question.
Mr. Urban A. Waters, in testifying before the House Committee on Civil
Service Reform _harpooned_ the Postoffice Department with an accusation
that it had permitted a million dollars to waste, evaporate, be
misapplied or stolen, in connection with a deal for sanitary and safety
appliances to railway mail cars.
If Mr. Waters’ charges are grounded in fact, then is provoked and
_invited_ the question: Is it designed or intended to carry that million
into the accounting of 1912--or into that of some future year--as an
“Expenditure on account of previous years?”
Mr. Waters is publisher of the Denver Harpoon. He can say things and is
generally recognized as a man who makes a practice of gathering the facts
to back up what he says before he says it. In his testimony, so far as
I know, Mr. Waters made no statement or suggestion that the evaporated
million he spoke of would be, or could be, very securely _cacheted_
or “fenced” in this “account of previous years.” It is The Man on the
Ladder who points out--who says--that such loose accounting as carries
to account of a subsequent year the expenditures made or incurred in a
previous year can _very readily_ be made to cloak a steal of one or more
millions of dollars.
Then, there are those rural carriers who refused to do as Mr. DeGraw,
Fourth Assistant Postmaster General, told them to do. You read the papers
of course, and--you believe them, of course, though most of you say, “Of
course, I don’t believe ’em.” Well, it was broadly published that the
_Rural Free Delivery News_ had the temerity to publish--not merely to
insinuate, mind you--that Mr. Hitchcock’s showing of a little $220,000
surplus for the year ended June 30, 1911, was made possible only _by the
failure of the Postoffice Department to make a plain, valid charge of
$7,201,149.64 expenditures for that same fiscal year of 1911_!
Those are _not_ the exact words used in giving publicity to the asserted
fact by the _Rural Free Delivery News_, but that is the meat in the nut
the publication cracked. It appears that the published statement was
closely contiguous to the facts. At any rate, its nestling juxtaposition
to the truth was such that it appears to have neither looked nor listened
well to the department. There is a presidential campaign on the speedway
at this time, with all its usual concomitants of cackle, clack, cluck and
other atmospheric disturbances. Such a published truth--if truth it is,
and it certainly displays a marked resemblance in both form and feature
to that article so extremely rare in campaign clutter--the appearance of
such a truth on the speedway has a tendency to “blanket” some candidate
or jockey him into the fence. With a view no doubt, to guarding against
such possibility, that machine so much used in recent years to smooth
down the rough places in administration roadways was turned onto the
track. A hostile opposition, always somewhat harsh and careless in its
language, calls it “the steam roller.” So the steam roller, with Fourth
Assistant Postmaster General DeGraw at the wheel and manipulating the
levers, rolled out among the rural carriers.
But it appears that it did not roll over them. There are forty-odd
thousand rural carriers and, of course, it would have to be some “steam
roller” to mutilate or seriously dent the ranks of so numerous a body
of men; especially of men who travel about with the fragrance of the
clover blossom and the corn bloom in their nostrils. They just wouldn’t
be rolled and, it is reported they so informed Mr. DeGraw in very polite
and easily understood language. They would not demand of the publisher
of their association organ that he retract and, to date, the _Rural
Free Delivery News_ has, so far as I have seen, shown no sign of either
intention or inclination to back away from or in any way modify its
charge which, in effect, was that the showing of a surplus--of even a
little “runabout” surplus of $220,000 for the fiscal year of 1911--is a
“faked” showing--a showing made possible only by carrying $7,201,149.64
of 1911 expenditures over to 1912 account.
May the _Rural Free Delivery News_ live long in the land and flourish.
In a letter just received from Mr. W. D. Brown, editor of the _R. F.
D. News_, he says: “When the Postoffice Committee submitted its report
on March 6, it contained the statement that instead of a surplus in
the postal revenues there was, up to that time, a deficit of more than
$600,000.00 and I am satisfied that the amount will be greatly increased
before the end of the current fiscal year.”
In the _News_ of January 27, the issue to which Mr. DeGraw took
exception, Editor Brown publishes a letter he wrote under date of January
11, 1912, to Mr. Charles A. Kram, Auditor of the Postoffice Department.
He also publishes Mr. Kram’s reply. In comment on the reply, Mr. Brown
says: “Auditor Kram’s reply throws very little light upon the subject,
except to establish the fact that it is impossible to say at any time,
whether the Postoffice Department is being conducted at a profit or a
loss.”
Next comes Congressman Moon, an admitted authority on postal affairs and
Chairman of the House Committee of Postoffices and Post-Roads.
I see by a press notice that Mr. Moon, in speaking to the question before
his committee recently, stated that there was a “deficit of $627,845
for the fiscal year of 1911” in the Postoffice Department, instead of a
surplus of $219,118.12, as published in its report, and over which Mr.
Hitchcock and President Taft display so much luxuriant jubilation.
We have probably presented sufficient testimony to evidence the fact that
the figures presented by our Postoffice Department are numerously, if not
unanimously, doubted among people who take upon themselves the trouble
and the labor of looking into them. True, the three or four witnesses
we have introduced do not agree as to the amount or magnitude of the
shortages or discrepancies they have found, nor have they said, just
where in the loose, bungled accounting they found the discrepancies.
However, my purpose here is to show only that publicity of such bungled
accounting does not enlighten or inform the public and that the practice
of _charging the expenditures of one year to account of the next_ may
easily be made to cloak and cover up much wasteful if, indeed, not
dishonest expenditure. That being the case, the disagreement of our
witnesses as to the amount of dollars and cents they severally have found
to be mislaid, or not properly accounted for, can make little difference
in the conclusion _forced_ by their testimony on any fair, inquiring mind.
But, it may be argued by apologists for such misleading practice in
accounting or by persons who would plead extenuating conditions for
Mr. Hitchcock and others charged with administering federal postoffice
affairs, that this loose, fraud-inviting practice is of long standing,
that the present administration has not had time to correct and remedy
the faulty practice and that the published showing of current years is
correct, because it is made on the same basis as was the accounting for
many previous years.
All very well said, but it does not answer. Hoary-headed age in loose,
falsifying methods of accounting neither commands respect nor can stand
as reason or excuse for continuing such methods. It most certainly has no
warrant as argument in extenuation for the continuance of such methods by
the present administration.
“Why?” Well, there are several reasons. Mr. Hitchcock, it appears, has
been aware for some two years or more that the practice we are here
discussing was a questionable one, even if he was not fully informed
as to the dangers--the waste, the fraud, the crookedness--which that
practice might easily be made to cloak. Yet he has not only continued the
practice, but, it would appear has further indulged or encouraged its
growth. Let us look at the published evidence on this point.
A _reduced_ deficit in the showing of the Postoffice Department for the
year 1910 was somewhat _evidently_ desired. To that end, the practice
we are criticising charges 1910 with $6,786,394.11 for expenditures “on
account of previous years,” all of which, save $65,553.53, as previously
shown, were expenditures made on account of the year 1909.
Now, in a footnote to page 278 of the 1910 report, Third Assistant
Postmaster General Britt presents a somewhat confusing, if not confused
explanation of his showing of the “Revenues and expenditures” for the
year. One statement in the explanation, however, is resonantly loud in
its clearness.
“On the other hand,” says Mr. Britt, “expenditures made in the first
three months of the fiscal year, 1911 on account of the fiscal year 1910
and prior years are not included in the reported deficit for the year
1910. _The amounts are approximately equal._”
I italicize that last statement. Let’s see: 1910 was made to pay (in
accounting only, of course), $6,786,394.11 of 1909 and prior expenditures
and, in an exchange, as simple as swapping Barlows, $7,132,112.23 of 1910
expenditures are shunted onto the year 1911!
“The amounts are approximately equal,” says Mr. Britt.
Well, the difference is only $345,718.12--a mere trifle, of course, in
a shuffle of millions. But if that trifle had been added to the 1910
expenditures, where it rightly belonged, the 1910 deficit would have
shown up a trifle _over_ instead of a trifle _under_ six million dollars,
as given in the published report--a very important matter along in the
closing days of 1910.
Then, too, when our President and his Postmaster General so warm up to
a surplus of $220,000, it is possible, if not probable, that a trifle
like $345,000 might have been a convenience as a deficit _reducer_ in
December, 1910.
On page 19 of Mr. Hitchcock’s report, he presents the following as one
of thirty “Improvements in Organization and Methods” accomplished by the
Postoffice Department during the year ended June 30, 1911:
A change in the financial system whereby the surplus receipts of
postoffices throughout the country are _promptly_ centralized
at convenient points for the purpose _of meeting other postal
expenditures incurred during the period in which the surplus
receipts accrued_, thus paying the expenses of the service from
current receipts and obviating the necessity of applying to the
Treasury for a grant to meet an apparent deficiency in postal
revenues _when, as has happened in many instances, no actual
deficiency exists_.
Now, that is certainly an “improvement” worthy of all commendation. If,
as stated, it provides for “Meeting other postal expenditures incurred
during the period in which the surplus receipts accrued” it certainly
should prevent “an apparent deficiency … when … no actual deficiency
exists.”
But why, then, is it reported that over $7,000,000 of expenditures for
the year ended June 30, 1910, are charged to the fiscal year 1911? The
report bears date December 1st, 1911--_four months after the fiscal year
1911 closed_. If the receipts of postoffices throughout the country are
“promptly centralized” for the purpose of meeting current expenditures,
it would require super, if indeed not supple, expertness in accounting to
figure out a surplus of $220,000 for a year’s business which assumes over
seven millions in unpaid bills of a previous year without, apparently,
knowing what amount of unpaid bills can be shunted onto the next year.
But, it may be argued, there is nothing inconsistent in Mr. Hitchcock’s
claim as just quoted, of an improvement in the department’s system
or methods of accounting which makes, or _should_ make, unnecessary
the carrying over to 1911 so large a sum for expenditures made in or
an account of the year 1910. While the improved methods have been
introduced, it may be argued that insufficient time has elapsed, even
to December 1st, to admit of their application in making up the fiscal
report for the year 1911. In short, that the improved methods were
introduced so late in the fiscal year 1910 that the resulting betterments
in the system of accounting could not be shown in the report for 1910-11.
Yes, that possibly might be of some weight in considering this claimed
improvement in the accounting methods of the department. There is,
however, one serious objection to its acceptance as evidence in this
case--evidence in proof that there was not sufficient time to make the
improved methods operative in the showing for the fiscal year 1911:
(5) The adoption of improved methods of accounting by which the
surplus or deficiency in the postal revenues is approximately
determined _within three weeks from the close of each quarter_,
instead of three months thereafter, on the completion of the
audit of postmasters’ accounts.
(6) The adoption of an accounting plan that insures _the prompt
deposit in the Treasury_ of postal funds not immediately required
for disbursement at postoffices, _thus making available for use
by the department_ several millions of dollars that, under the
old practice, would be tied up in postoffices.
In his 1909-10 report, Mr. Hitchcock sets forth _fifty_ “improvements”
in methods of handling and conducting the business of the Postoffice
Department--improvements made _prior_ to June 30, 1910, mind you.
Well, the foregoing quotation presents numbers 5 and 6 of the
enumerated 50 “improvements” that were set up as having already been
instituted--instituted prior to June 30, 1910. Beyond saying that the
department has certainly had ample _time_ to install and make operative
the improvements in methods of handling its business and of accounting,
which its published reports claim to have been made, comment is
unnecessary. If the improvements, as _twice_ claimed in the two annual
reports from which I have quoted have been made, then, it is pertinent
to ask: Why was _over seven millions_ of 1909-10 expenditures carried to
1910-11 account?
Such a showing excuses another question--excuses it because it _invites_
the question:
What amount--how _many millions of dollars_--of 1910-11 unpaid bills
and claims was carried over to become a charge against the fiscal year
1911-12?
Oh, yes, I am fully aware that this may be all readily explained by
saying that the claimed improvements as set forth have nothing whatever
to do with the practice of carrying forward unpaid bills of one fiscal
year and making them a charge against the receipts of the next or some
subsequent fiscal year.
Such an explanation is easily understood, _because it does not explain_.
That is, it is an explanation which, to be _believably_ understood,
requires more explaining than do the faults and crooks in the method of
accounting it attempts to explain.
That the “fumbling” of this carrying-over practice _needs_
correction--needs _abolishment_--will be seen from a glance at the two
following tabulations. That the practice also makes the departments’
annual showing of the _results_ of the business of the year--any
year--almost valueless is also made evident--that is, valueless so far
as real, dependable information is concerned as to whether the postal
service is conducted at a loss or at a profit.
The first tabulation following shows the published figures for the fiscal
year’s expenses as given in the departmental reports. It also shows what
the expenses of the fiscal years indicated really were, when their unpaid
bills (as shown by the next annual report of the department) are charged
against them.
The whole charge, “On Account of Previous Years” in each report is
treated as a charge against the _immediately preceding year_. It has
been shown that payments on “account of previous years,” as given in the
published reports, include for years other than the first or immediately
preceding, amounts so small that they may be, for purposes of comparison,
ignored.[8]
At any rate, the figures in the following tabulations of expenditures and
deficits--accepting the department’s published statements of receipts
as correct--are far more enlightening to the general public as to the
results of each year’s business, for the five years here covered, than
are the statements made in the annual reports of the department for the
years named.
The second table shows the “deficits,” or balances for each of the five
years as compared with the deficits shown in the annual reports of the
department, the corrected figures being subject, of course, to any
trifling reduction which may have resulted from the payment of bills
carried into the account from some other than the immediately preceding
year:
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF THE POSTOFFICE DEPARTMENT.
Expenditures Expenditures
as published. as corrected.
1907 $190,238,288.34 $190,758,907.43
1908 208,351,886.15 208,114,626.20
1909 221,004,102.89 227,204,092.31
1910 229,977,224.50 230,322,942.62
1911 237,648,926.68 230,516,814.45
From the foregoing it will be seen that the corrected figures show a
range of variance from the published figures, of over $6,400,000. That
is, the corrected figures are some $230,000 below for the year 1908
and more than $6,200,000 above for the year 1910, the showing in the
departments published reports.
A similar correction for the year 1911 cannot be made until the
department chooses to enlighten the public as to the amount of 1910-11
unpaid bills it _has carried forward to become a charge against the
receipts of the year 1911-12_.
As the account for the year stands above, the surplus for the year
1910-11 is $7,363,009.15--not the comparatively trifling amount of
$219,118.12, as published. Of course, if the report shows that 1912 pays
$7,363,009.15 of 1911 expenditures, then the paltry surplus for the
last-named year may stand as given in the report. But if the 1912 report
should show that so much as _one dollar_ more of 1911’s unpaid bills
were shunted onto 1912 than 1911 paid on account of 1910’s shunted bills
($7,132,112.23), then Mr. Hitchcock’s joy-producing “surplus” will vanish
as an _actuality_ in correct accounting.
Following is the showing of the deficits or balances as published, as
compared with the _actual_ deficits or balances, as corrected according
to previous explanation:
Deficits Deficits
as published. as corrected.
1907 $ 6,653,282.77 $ 7,173,901.84
1908 16,873,222.74 16,635,962.79
1909 17,441,719.82 23,641,709.24
1910 5,848,566.88 6,194,285.00
1911 219,118.12 (Surplus) 7,363,009.15
There, again, is shown a range of more than $6,400,000 between the
published and the _very near_ actual deficits of the several years, not
including 1911, for the showing on which, for reasons stated, I and the
rest of the “dear people,” who are just now being “worked” for votes,
will have to wait until the 1912 report is published.
Why, nothing but a government treasury--the treasury of our easily
“bubbled” people--could survive that sort of bookkeeping for the time
covered in the above tabulated statement of published and _actual_ yearly
shortages and of _one_ alleged surplus.
AN EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT--POSSIBLY.
We will now detach ourselves from these wearisome figures and more
wearisome figuring, using figures only as a sort of garnishment to chief
courses served to us by the President and our Postmaster General.
The receipts of the Postoffice Department, as published in its annual
reports, were $34,317,440.53 greater for the fiscal year 1910-11 than for
the year 1908-9.
Both the President and Mr. Hitchcock are eloquently ebullient because of
the appearance of a tender shoot or bud of a surplus in a place where
nothing but deficits grew before. But neither of them appears to have
boiled over in either message or report to show the people what splendid
things have been accomplished in two years with that thirty-four millions
of increased revenues. I wonder why? Possibly the failure of ebullition
at the point indicated is the result of oversight. Of course, it may have
resulted from lack of thermic encouragement or inducement. Or, it may be,
that some “induced draft” drew the major part of the thirty-four millions
up the smoke-stack without leaving a B. T. U. equivalent under the kettle.
“The Postmaster General recommends, _as I have done in previous
messages_, the adoption of a parcels post, and the beginning of this
in the organization of such service on rural routes and _in the city
delivery service first_,” says President Taft.
If the President really has recommended in “previous messages” the
“beginning” of a parcels post “experiment” in “the City Delivery Service”
such recommendation entirely escaped my notice. A “test” of a parcels
post service on rural routes--yes. That was much talked of a year or more
since. But of an “experimental test” of an improved parcels post in urban
carrier service, little or nothing was said or, if said, it did not make
sufficient noise for The Man on the Ladder to hear. However, I presume
it is as permissible for the conceptions and concepts of a President to
broaden, enlarge and improve as it is for those of a Postmaster General
to broaden, enlarge and improve. For that matter, a proportional, if not
entirely corresponding thought-expansion may be occasionally noticed
in the Department of the Interior as conducted and operated by common,
ordinary mortals.
As the parcels post is the subject of a later chapter which is already in
type, further consideration here is unnecessary. It may be said, however,
that extending the proposed test--any “test”--of a parcels post service
to city free delivery routes, instead of confining it to a few “selected”
rural routes as Mr. Hitchcock proposed it should be confined in his 1910
report, is a step in the right direction--a step in advance. Still, such
a step is but dilatory; is but procrastinating. A cheap, efficient,
_general_ parcels post service must come and, now that the people are
aroused--aroused as to the _criminal_ wrongs inflicted upon them by a
Postoffice Department and a Congress that have acted for thirty or more
years as if indifferent to or not cognizant of those wrongs--it must
_come quickly_, unless, of course, it should develop that the people
are, really and truly, as big fools as railroad, express companies and
certain public officials have treated them as being.
“The commission reports that the evidence submitted for its consideration
is sufficient to warrant a finding of the _approximate_ cost of handling
and transporting the several classes of second-class mail known as
paid-at-the-pound-rate, free-in-county, and transient matter, in so
far as relates to the services of transportation, postoffice cars,
railway distribution, rural delivery, and certain other items of
cost, _but that it is without adequate data to determine the cost of
the general postoffice service and also what portion of the cost of
certain other aggregate services is properly assignable to second-class
mail matter_.… It finds that in the fiscal year 1908 … the cost of
handling and transporting second-class mail matter … was about 6 cents
a pound for paid-at-the-pound-rate matter, and for free-in-county,
and transient matter, each approximately 5 cents a pound, and that
upon this basis, as modified by _subsequent deductions in the cost of
railroad transportation_, the cost of paid-at-the-pound rate matter,
for the services mentioned” (I have not mentioned all the “services”
enumerated by the President, all being covered in the words “handling and
transportation”), “is approximately 5½ cents a pound.” …
That is from the President’s Washington Day message. Can you beat it?
Well, it will take a smooth road and some going to do it.
First, it is cheerfully admitted that the Commission (the Hughes
Commission) had no “adequate data to determine the cost of the general
postoffice service and also what portion of the cost of _certain other
aggregate services_ is properly assignable to second-class mail matter,”
and then our President proceeds--with equal cheerfulness and smiling
confidence (_or is it indifference?_) to assure us that the Commission
proceeded to figure 6 cents a pound as the cost of handling and carriage
of _paid_ pound-rate second-class matter and 5 cents a pound as the cost
of corresponding service for _free-in county_ and so-called “transient”
matter!
Again I ask, can you beat it? If you can, please send me your
picture--full size and two views, front and profile. I would derive
much pleasure from a look at your front and side elevations. Of course,
the President has an official right to a “style” of his own. A “style”
of expression, however, cannot be protected by copyright, otherwise,
as stated at the opening of this interpolated chapter, President Taft
would be guilty of infringement. Other presidents have run into verbose
verbosity in expressing themselves. It is an official _convenience_ at
times to do so, however ludicrously _open of intent_ or “phunny” it may
appear to laymen.
The President, in the paragraph of his message above quoted, recalls
two of his “arguments” before the Swedish American Republican League,
of Chicago, which arguments I had the honor to hear. In one instance he
was flourishing about our ideal of popular government and said: “What we
are all struggling for, what we all recognize as the highest ideal in
society, is _equality of opportunity_.… Of course perfect equality of
opportunity is _impossible_,” then _why_ it is impossible followed for a
paragraph.
It was so nicely and redundantly redundant, so resilient in phrasing, so
honestly _earnest_, that one just _had_ to go along with our President,
whether or not one could see how “the highest ideal in society” could
possibly be found in a chase after the “impossible.”
At another point in his kindly persuasive Come-unto-me discourse, he
pointed out to us how liable a “majority of the people” is to “make
mistakes by hasty action and lack of deliberation.” Then, after a
paragraph of beautiful foliage, the President cited the anti-trust law
of 1890 as an evidence of the advantages and beneficent results of
ample “deliberation” before taking action in matters of “grave import”.
He explained that the decision of the Supreme Court was at first
“misunderstood, or if not misunderstood, was improperly expressed, so
as to _discourage_ those who were interested in the federal power to
restrain and break up these industrial monopolies. _After twenty years’
litigation_ the meaning of the act has been made clear by a decision of
the Supreme Court, prosecutions have been brought and many of the most
_dangerous_ trusts have been _subjected to dissolution_.”
It was all so fine, so lulling if not luring! It made one feel as if
he were lost or had gone to sleep looking for himself. But when in a
comfortable seat, in the owl car, where the jostle of the wicked world
was so toned down and gentled as to permit a little analytic thought,
that beautiful illustration of the value of making haste slowly and
of long, careful “deliberation” when acting on matters of vast import
recurred to us--that Anti-trust Act.
“After twenty years” careful deliberation, the Supreme Court was able to
decide what the act meant! Was able, also, to decide what its _own prior
decisions meant_ and prosecutions were then brought and “many of the most
dangerous trusts have been subjected to dissolution!”
All of it listened very well, but it don’t stand the wash very well. It
is matter of common knowledge that during the twenty years the Supreme
Court was industriously trying to find out what the Anti-Trust Act
and its own decisions meant, the trust organizers and promoters got
away with _more than eight billions of unearned values_--some set the
figure above fifteen billions. The Supreme Court made haste slowly in
its “deliberation,” while the respectable get-rich-quick Wallingfords
were going after the people’s money and going in high-powered cars with
the speed levers pulled clear down. No making haste slowly or duly
_prolonged_ deliberation with Wallingfords’.
Then, if one will take the trouble to glance at market quotations
of the stocks of _any_ of “those dangerous trusts” which “have been
subjected to dissolution,” he will find that they have passed through the
trying ordeal of “dissolution” without the turn of a feather. All are
smiling. Why should they not? Stock quotations show that Standard Oil
is over $250,000,000 better off than before its _deliberated_ judicial
dissolution. The Tobacco Wallingfords are also many millions ahead of
the game since “dissolution” set in. And “Sugar”--well since the Sugar
Trust was “busted” and subjected to the “dissolution” process nearly
all its controlled saccharine matter appears to be trickling into its
bank account. Similar “most dangerous trusts” show similar evidences of
“dissolution” since the Supreme Court processed them.
What has this to do with our immediate subject? Nothing whatever. It is
a mere interpolation--with a purpose. Its purpose is to evidence what
appears to be a practiced habit with our President--a florescence or
foliation similar to that displayed in the quotation I have made from his
Washington Day Message. In the quoted paragraph, the reader will observe
that he first says the Hughes Commission was “without data to determine
the cost” of certain very important factors in the aggregate expense of
handling and transporting the mails, and then he immediately proceeds
to inform us that the Commission finds that the “cost of handling and
carriage of paid-at-the-pound rate matter was about 6 cents a pound,”
etc.--a virtual impeachment of the Commission’s finding before the
finding is stated.
THE HUGHES COMMISSION.
What little space permits me to say of the report of the Hughes
Commission may as well be said here.
In their report the commissioners very frankly admit the meagerness, or,
on numerous important points, total lack of informative data. But, as the
President states, they proceed to put on record a finding of 6 cents a
pound as the cost of handling and transporting paid second-class matter
and 5 cents a pound as the cost of similar service on free-in-county
matter, for the year 1908. They finally recommend, however, that the
present “transient” rate (for copies of periodicals mailed by other than
publishers) be continued--1 cent for each 4 ounces; also that the present
free-in-county privilege be retained, _but not extended_.
What does that “not extended” mean?
I do not know. Do you? Does it mean that the country newspapers now
issued--_now_ entered in Postoffice Department for free haulage and
handling--shall continue free and that no new newspapers established,
founded and distributed in counties, shall be transported and handled
_free_?
If it does not mean that, what does it mean? If it means
that, then why does this Commission recommend a thing that is
primarily--_elementary_--wrong under the organic law of this government?
The Constitution of these United States _specifically_ prohibits
“special” legislation. Then why, I ask, should the recommendation of this
Commission be complied with? I have been publishing _The Hustler_, a
_controlled_ Republican or Democrat 4 to 8 pager, as the case may be, for
four years. Paul Jones comes along and flings in his money to publish and
print the _Democratic Booster_ in the same county. Does this Commission
mean to recommend that _The Hustler_ be carried and distributed free in
the county and that _The Booster_ be required to pay the regular pound
rate for the same service?
A flat rate of 2 cents per pound is recommended for all other periodical
matter, newspapers and magazines alike.
Well, that recommended rate is of course, better than Mr. Hitchcock’s
“rider” recommendation, discussed in a previous page. The Commission’s
“finding” that the cost of carriage, handling and delivery of
second-class mail “was approximately 6 cents a pound” is also an
appreciable step-down (toward the facts), as compared with Mr.
Hitchcock’s _assured_--milled, screened and sifted--finding that said
cost was 9.23 cents a pound--a finding as late as March 1, 1911. So if
this commendable “merger” of views, opinions and _guesses_ keeps growing,
as industrial, rail and other mergers are wont to grow, the postal _rate
payers_ of the country may hope yet to find that even their great men may
agree.
I have discussed this second-class mail rate--the cent-a-pound rate for
periodicals--elsewhere. With private companies (the express companies)
carrying and delivering second-class mail matter for the average mail
haul, at _one-half cent a pound_ (and standing for a “split” with the
railroads for one-half of that), the question as to whether or not the
government _can_ carry mail matter without loss at _one cent a pound_,
is not worth debating among men whose brains are not worn in their
sub-cellars.
I mean the last statement to apply to third and fourth class matter as
well as to second. What it has cost the government, or what it now costs
the government, to transport, handle and distribute the mails is another
and quite different matter from what such service can be and _should_
be rendered for. Was it not that the people’s money is lavishly wasted
by such foolishness and foolery, a dignified commission of three or six
men sagely deliberating upon, critically “investigating” and laboredly
discussing what it costs the government--what the government in 1908 or
any other year paid--to carry and distribute the mails, might be staged
as the working model of a joke. If a Commission’s time and the people’s
money were spent in making a careful, thorough investigation as to what
it _should_ cost to collect, transport, handle and distribute the mails,
and as to just where and how the millions of dollars, now annually wasted
in an over-unmanned, incompetently managed, raided and raiding service,
could be saved, results fully warranting the expenditures made on account
of these postal-investigating commissions would readily be obtained.
A summary of the proceedings of the Hughes Commission is presented
elsewhere. Here I shall take space for only two or three observations.
First, as is evidenced by the Commission’s report, the Postoffice
Department was before it in conspicuous volubility and the frequency of
a stock ticker during a raid, with call money at 84. Postmaster General
Hitchcock and his Second and Third Assistants appear to have been the
chief “floor representatives” of the department during the flurry. Of
201 “Exhibits” listed by the Commission, about 100 of them--reports,
documents, memoranda and letters--found origin if not paternity in the
Postoffice Department, and a considerable portion of them was already
on file in government archives. Of the sixteen papers submitted after
close of “Hearings,” fourteen or fifteen are letters and memoranda of the
department, besides which seven memoranda are mentioned as having been
received from “the Postoffice Department and not marked as exhibits.”
That should make up a pretty fair collection of departmental argument,
views, opinions and “estimates,” should it not? It is very doubtful,
though--debatable, if not doubtful--if the collection is worth $50,000.
Especially does such a valuation appear questionably excessive, when it
is observed that much of the collection is made up of public documents,
the findings of former postal commissions and committees, and of reports
and showings made up by the Postoffice Department at departmental
expenditure of time and money, and not at an expense chargeable to the
Commission’s appropriation. Of course the Hughes Commission may not
have followed the precedent set by most prior postal Commissions, and
by commissions in general. The Hughes Commissioners may not have spent
all of their $50,000 appropriation. Let us hope they did not. However, a
statement of expenditures actually made would be, by some of us at least,
an appreciated “exhibit.”
Another feature of the Commission’s 108-page report that deserves special
attention is the close adherence of its findings to _the findings of
present postal officials_. Even in cases where the opinions of past
officials are quoted commendingly, the opinions usually support and
bolster the opinions of Mr. Hitchcock and his assistants. The report
presents a number of tabulations, among which are several that are
most excellent and informative. However, the tabulations, and the more
important conclusions of the text as well, are based upon “estimates,”
rather than upon ascertained facts. Then, too, these estimates, as is
somewhat annoyingly evident, are all, or nearly all, the departmental
estimates of the present Administration. Of course, that should in no
way impair their value or dependability and it probably would not, but
for two facts: The present Postmaster General has, for two years or
more, displayed great activity--at times, a fevered if not frenzied
activity--to secure the enactment of laws and issuance of executive
orders to accomplish results which, while they may appear most desirable
to him, were considered by many _thousands_ of our people as being very
objectionable, indeed, inimical to the fundamental right of free speech
in this country and a menace to a free press and to popular education.
The “estimates” which the Hughes Commission has published as basis for
its findings quite uniformly, if not entirely, support the contentions
which the Postmaster General has been making--at times, making with
little or no warrant of fact to support.
Again, it will be observed by careful readers of the Commission’s report
that the “estimates” upon which several of its more important findings
are based, are conspicuously lacking in elements essentially necessary
in the structure of reliable estimates from which fact or facts may be
deduced. To warrant the drawing of conclusions of fact from it, the
structural material of an estimate must consist largely, if not wholly,
of fact, not of conclusions drawn from other conclusions which, in turn
were deduced from estimates based on other estimates that may or may not
have been accurate and dependable.
As just stated, the estimates which the Commission appears largely to
have accepted, are nearly all productions of the Postoffice Department.
Few of them are built directly upon ascertained facts. Most of them
are estimates of estimates based on other estimates. It appears that
the Postmaster General’s estimates are Assistant Postmaster Generals’
estimates of the estimates made by weighing clerks of the several classes
of mail-weights carried by certain railroads during six months in the
year 1908. The nearest approach such a method or procedure makes to a
fact is an estimate of the fact, you see.
A POSTAL TELEGRAPH.
One more quotation from the President’s message and this chapter may
end. This quotation is anent the proposition of having the telegraph
service of the country operated by the government--in connection with the
postal service. Mr. Hitchcock’s recommendation in the matter of a postal
telegraph “is the only one,” says the President, “in which I cannot
concur.” I shall first quote President Taft and then quote Mr. Hitchcock
as he expressed himself in his 1911 report:
This presents a question of government ownership of public
utilities which are now being conducted by private enterprise
under franchises from the government I believe that the true
principle is that private enterprise should be permitted to carry
on such public utilities under _due regulation as to rates by
proper authority_ rather than that the government should itself
conduct them. This principle I favor because I do not think it in
accordance with the best public policy thus greatly to increase
the body of public servants. _Of course, if it could be shown
that telegraph service could be furnished to the public at a
less price than it is now furnished to the public by telegraph
companies_, and with equal efficiency, the argument might be
a strong one in favor of the adoption of the proposition. But
I am not satisfied from any evidence that if these properties
were taken over by the government they could be managed any more
economically or any more efficiently or that this would enable
the government to furnish service at any smaller rate than the
public are now required to pay by private companies.
More than this, it seems to me that the consideration of the
question ought to be _postponed until after the postal savings
banks have come into complete and smooth operation and after a
parcels post has been established not only upon the rural routes
and the city deliveries, but also throughout the department. It
will take some time to perfect these additions to the activities
of the Postoffice Department_ and we may well await their
complete and successful adoption before we take on a new burden
in this very extended department.
As an exhibition of rhetorical aviation, that is both going and soaring
some. How beautifully it “banks” on the curves! How smooth its motor
runs! And its transmission! Words fail me.
Some paragraphing wit has said, “Foolishness is as plentiful as wisdom
isn’t.” Our President appears to know that we fools can take in a lot of
foolishness without our tanks sloshing over as we stumble along the old,
well-worn way--the way that leadeth the earned dollar into somebody’s
unearned bank account. But I do not intend to comment. The italics I have
taken the liberty to mix into the President’s verbal flight is all the
comment needed. Mr. Taft makes it quite clear that all we fools need to
do is wait--make haste slowly, take time for due deliberation. Of course,
some of us fools think we know, or presume to think we know, that the
telegraph companies are charging us two or three prices for the service
they render--frequently, do not render for twenty-four or more hours
after it ceases to be a service. But think of the good other folks derive
from the pocket change they extract from us! The Western Union is, or
was, a “Gould property.” It paid interest or dividends on eighty or more
millions of _quasi_ and _aqua pura_ in stocks and bonds. But think of
the fun sons George and Howard had! Think of the former maintaining the
beautiful Lakewood place, leasing English hunting preserves, playing polo
and “busting” into, through and around Knickerbocker society circles!
How could Howard have built a replica of Kilkenny Castle on Long Island
Sound, where he and “Wild West Katie,” it is said, spent millions and
had a realistic Kilkenny-Cat time of it? Or how could Frank, the fourth
and last son of Jay Gould, have given to the world such a lurid, if
not illuminating, picture of the “Married Rue” as was exhibited at his
divorce hearings? And there is “Sister Anna”--Well, it is sufficient to
say that Anna Gould could not have blown away ten millions in settling
“Powder-Puff” Boni’s debts and turning him loose in the straight and
broad way which leadeth unto the life that is somewhat too “fast” for
even unearned money.
Well, none of the before-mentioned “life lessons” could have been set
for the world’s enlightenment--likewise, disgust--had the people of this
country not waited, not made haste slowly, in “due deliberation,” while
the Western Union and other “Gould properties,” were used to separate
them from many millions of dollars which no Gould or Gould property ever
earned.
But this is digressing. The President advises us to wait, to delay action
a little longer--until the “postal savings banks have come into complete
and smooth operation,” until “after a parcels post has been established
… throughout the department.” Just wait and keep on paying twenty-five
cents for a ten-word wire to your mother or friend ten miles out, even
though the veriest fool knows that a postal telegraph service would carry
a twenty-five word message to any postoffice in the United States for
ten cents. Just keep on waiting--_until the big telegraph interests have
sheared a few millions more fleece_.
But, says President Taft, “If it could be shown that telegraph service
could be furnished to the public at a less price,” etc., etc.
Well, maybe there is a sort of visual aphasia which makes a quarter look
like ten cents to some men. If not, I am at a loss to understand how it
yet remains for anyone to be “shown” that telegraph service could be
furnished to “the public at a less price than it is now furnished by the
telegraph companies.” Postmaster General Hitchcock furnished sufficient
information, it seems to me, to show the President, or anyone else for
that matter, that telegraph service “could be furnished the public” at
rates much below those the telegraph companies collect. Mr. Hitchcock
speaks in part, as follows--page 14, 1911 report:
The telegraph lines in the United States should be made a part
of the postal system and operated in conjunction with the mail
service. Such a consolidation would unquestionably result in
important economies and permit the adoption of lower telegraph
rates. Postoffices are maintained in numerous places not reached
by the telegraph systems and the proposed consolidation would
therefore afford a favorable opportunity for the wide extension
of telegraph facilities. In many small towns where the telegraph
companies have offices, the telegraph and mail business could be
readily handled by the same employees. The separate maintenance
of the two services under present conditions results in a
needless expense. In practically all the European countries,
including Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Austria, and
Italy, the telegraph is being operated under government control
as a part of the postal system. As a matter of fact, the first
telegraph in the United States was also operated for several
years, from 1844 to 1847, by the government under authority from
Congress, and there seems to be good ground why the government
control should be resumed.
While much more could be said in support of Mr. Hitchcock’s position, he
has said sufficient in the above, I think, to “show” even a President.
As evidence that the “estimates,” upon which the Hughes Commission so
largely base their findings are not entirely dependable, I desire to make
two brief quotations from other pages of Mr. Hitchcock’s 1911 report.
On page 17, as the first of thirty “Improvements in Organization and
Methods,” the Postmasters General sets forth as having been accomplished
in the service during the fiscal year 1911, will be found this:
The successful completion of an inquiry into the cost to railway
companies of carrying the mails and the submission of a report to
Congress making recommendations for revising the manner of fixing
rates of pay for railway mail transportation.
On pages 9 and 10 of the report, in discussing a readjustment of railway
mail pay, Mr. Hitchcock uses the following language:
The statistics obtained during the course of the investigation,
disclosed for the first time _the cost of carrying the mails_ in
comparison with the revenues derived by the railways from this
service.… The new plan (paying railways on the basis of car space
occupied by the mails), if authorized by Congress, will require
the railway companies each year to report what it costs them to
carry the mails and such other information as _will enable the
department to determine the cost of mail transportation_.
From the above it would seem that Congress was to be asked to adopt at
its present session a “new plan” which “will enable the department to
determine the cost of mail transportation;” to determine an important
service fact which, according to the preceding quotation and also to the
first sentence of the one just made, was determined sometime _prior to
June 30, 1911_.
Has the Postoffice Department already determined the facts as the report
twice claims, or has it merely collected some data upon which to base an
“estimate?” Which enables it to make a more or less reasonable _guess_ at
the cost of mail transportation?
FOOTNOTES
[8] I find from reports of the department auditor that the fiscal year
of 1909 was made to meet a charge of $128,307.32 which rightly stood
against the year 1907; also that the fiscal year 1911 is charged with an
expenditure of $148,490.01 belonging to 1909 and another expenditure of
$85,195.34, belonging to “1908 and prior years.”