Fourth: That “change of divisor,” covered in the order of June 27, 1907,

and which these railroad men accuse of causing a shrinkage of 12 per cent

in the mail-weight pay the roads were receiving under the order of March

2, 1907, and prior, possibly was based on some valid reasons or grounds,

or upon grounds the then Postmaster General believed to be valid. I have

not before me, at the moment, any written data or information as to the

reasons assigned by the postal authorities for that “change of divisor”,

or whether they assigned any reasons for the order making the change. I

know, however, of one very good reason there was for making such a change

on several railroads or divisions of roads.

The weighing of the mails was formerly made during a period of 90 to

105 days, or fifteen weeks, once every four years. The law now permits

the Postoffice Department to make special weighings, I believe. On the

average daily mail weight for those 105 days the postal department based

its contract with the roads for carrying the mails for four years.

Now notice this: The terms of such contracts not only implied but

specifically required a _daily_ carriage of the mail weight for the

number of days designated, allowing, of course, for wrecks, washouts and

other unavoidable interruptions in the movements of trains.

Keeping that in mind, suppose the Postmaster General discovered that on a

good many mail runs--“lines” or “half-lines”--suppose that the chief of

the department discovered a condition on many mail runs similar to that I

personally know to have existed on a few, in years 1907 and prior. That

was, briefly stated, this:

The contract called for a _daily_ carriage of so much mail weight and the

government _paid_ for that per diem carriage, the days of unavoidable

interferences and interruptions included. Suppose that the postoffice

authorities discovered that, by reason of the diversion of the mails to

other lines, the _daily_ mail service was not rendered; or discovered,

as in at least one instance I discovered, that the contracting road (or

roads) gave little consideration to the _daily_ service clause save

during the _weighing period_, dropping the mail from train--skipping a

day’s service--whenever it was to their interests to do so, and often

assigning the most flimsy reasons for so doing or assigning no reasons at

all?

That order of June 7, 1907, would have a tendency to stop that sort of

disrespect and abuse of contract stipulations, would it not?

Fifth: The writer of the article from which we have quoted appears to

have got himself somewhat twisted in his consideration of that order

of March 2, 1907. It seems that (see first paragraph of quotation) he

would have the reader class it among those several forced reductions

which “various government committees” had called unjust. But, further

along, it is stated that “surely there could be no other fairer basis

of determining the average weight” than that furnished in that order of

March 2.

I wonder why the railroad lobby so strenuously opposed that order of

March, 1907--connived and schemed for its rescinding, until the order

of June 7, 1907, gave the gang of corruptionists something still more

objectionable to the interests they served? Yes, I wonder why they so

hotly opposed that order of March 2? If there could be “no other fairer

basis of determining the average weight” in June, 1911 (the publication

date of the article from which we have quoted), why was it not fair in

March, 1907? And why was it not a fair and just basis for arriving at the

average daily mail weights for many weighing periods prior to 1907? Did

anyone ever hear any railway man advocating the “fair basis” provided in

that order of March? Most certainly The Man on the Ladder never heard of

such advocacy. The railway people did not advocate such a “fair” method

of ascertaining the average daily mail weight their roads carried during

a period of fifteen weeks--or during any other period--_because they were

beneficiaries of some very unfair methods and practices which gave them

pay for mail weights their roads did not carry_.

As I refer later to some of the practices indulged in the weighing

periods, I will here mention only a method used for years prior to the

issuance of that order in March, 1907--a method of arriving at the

“average daily weight” for the carriage of which the railroad was to be

paid for a period of four years. That method was, though I have been

unable to learn that it was ever officially authorized by the Postoffice

Department, to find the daily average for each week covered in the

weighing period and then arrive at the average for the whole period by

dividing the sum of the weekly averages by the number of weeks in which

the mail was weighed.

Nothing wrong with that is there? Should work out fair and square, should

it not? Well, it did not. The method was all right in theory and in

letter, but a crooked practice was worked into its application--worked

into it by collusion between crooked railway and public officials. And

the crookedness of the practice was very plain and bold and bald. It was

what in street parlance would be called “raw.” Here it is in figures:

Take a “heavy” mail line. Say the total mail weight for a week was, using

a round figure, 840,000 pounds or 420 tons. Now dividing that total by

7, the number of days in a week and the number of days also on which the

mail was weighed, would give a daily _average_ of 120,000 pounds, or 60

tons. That is all clear and straight, is it not? Most certainly it is.

But the crooked application of the method divided the week’s total by 6

instead of by 7--divided the total of seven days’ weights by six. The

railway people, you see, were great respecters of the Sabbath. They

would run trains on Sunday to accommodate the public and to meet the

necessities of their business, which was, and is, perfectly proper. They

would also carry the mails for your Uncle Sam, which was also right and

proper. But their lofty respect for the Holy Sabbath, or the high esteem

in which they held our much loved and much abused Uncle, was such as

induced them to hold up said Uncle as a respecter of the Sabbath, or

seventh day, while they “held him up” in averaging his mail weights.

In the illustrative example we have put on the slate, the “hold up” would

amount to--let’s see: 840,000 pounds, or 420 tons, divided by 6 gives us

70 tons as the daily average for the week, instead of 60 tons, as the

actual average was. That is a “hold up” for pay for ten tons a day--for

10 tons not carried.

“What did the hold-up amount to in cash?”

Yes, it might be well to follow our hypothetical or illustrative example

to its _cash_ terminal. Well, that is easily and quickly done.

The rate of pay per ton mile per year on daily weights above 2½ tons is

$21.37.[16] That ten tons added to the daily average would give to the

railroads, then, just $213.70 in _unearned_ cash each day.

If the contract stood for full four years on such false average, the

railroad would pull down just 1,460 times $213.70 of unearned money or a

total of $312,002 in the four years.

I would, of course, not have the reader understand that our hypothetical

example would fit all railroads. Many, in fact most, of the mail-carrying

roads average in mail weight much below sixty tons per day--even below

ten tons per day. Some roads were and are paid for an average above

sixty tons. Nor would I have the reader understand that the crooked

practice just mentioned was common to all mail-carrying roads. There

were possibly--yes, probably, some exceptions--some roads that carried

so little mail as not to make a steal of a sixth of its weight-pay worth

while.

I would, however, have the reader understand that I mean to assert that

_most_ of the mail-carrying roads were parties to the crooked method

here described and that the hypothetical figures here given applied,

proportionally, to any average per diem weight of mail covered in the

carriage contract, whether it was one ton or a hundred tons.

I would also have the reader understand me to assert that, so far as

information has reached me, no railroad man, or man representing the rail

mail-carrying interests, ever questioned the “fairness” of the crooked

practice just described--a practice which looted the government of

millions of dollars.

As a _raider_ into postal revenues, this thieving practice, it must be

admitted, deserves conspicuous mention--more extended notice than I have

given it.

FOOTNOTES

[9] 5,000 to 48,000 pounds, $20.30 per ton. Above 48,000 pounds, $19.24

per ton.

[10] Land grant roads receive but 80 per cent of these rates.

[11] This is the rate received for carrying each ton handled 1 mile, and

is obtained by dividing the yearly compensation by 365 and then dividing

the daily compensation thus obtained by the number of tons carried 1 mile

each day.

[12] This rate was obtained in the same manner as the ton-mile rate.

[13] By full-sized cars is meant cars 40 feet or more in length and

wholly devoted to mail.

[14] Car and mile-run rates corrected for 1908 and since.

[15] Tables corrected for 1908.

[16] The rate 1907 and prior. Now the rate is $20.30 for tonnages between

2½ and 24 tons and $19.24 for each ton above 24 tons.

CHAPTER XIII.

RAIDERS MASKED BY CIVIL SERVICE.

One other raid into the postal revenues I must notice before passing to

a consideration of the parcels post question, in which consideration of

other raids and raiders will be mentioned.

Here I desire to refer to that band of raiders--thousands in number--who

are carried on the payrolls of the Postoffice Department--carried at

salaries ranging into the thousands in many cases--and who do little or

nothing of service value for the money paid them.

The Postoffice Department is a large institution and does a big

business--a huge business which has much detail and extends over a vast

territory. To handle such a business properly, necessarily requires

the service of a large force of operatives. Most of the work of the

department is of that sort which human brain and muscle alone can do. The

machine can touch but a few of the minor details of the vast amount of

work our Postoffice Department handles. It may cancel stamps, perforate

documents, etc., but it cannot collect, sort, distribute, carry and

deliver mail. It requires human muscle and brains to do such work. Much

of it requires skill--the trained eye and hand as well as academic

knowledge.

Well, the Postoffice Department employs a large force--a vast army of

men, and some women, I believe. Counting the employes in its legal,

purchasing and inspection divisions with the postmasters, assistant

postmasters, railway and office clerks, city and rural carriers,

messengers, etc., there must be somewhere around 330,000 people employed

in our federal postal service.

Whether that is too large or too small a force for the _proper_ handling

of our postal service is beyond my purpose here to discuss. That the

business now handled by the department could be far better handled by

330,000 employes than it now is, and that such a service force could, if

properly directed and disciplined, handle a business much larger than

that now transacted by the department, I do not hesitate to assert. I

base that assertion chiefly on the following observed conditions:

First: There are frills and innovations in handling the business which

take up the time of employes and which have little or no service value.

Second: There is, not too much “politics,” as Mr. Hitchcock and

his immediate predecessors have modestly but wrongfully called it,

but too much political partisanship--_dirty, grafting, thieving,

partisanship_--not only in the appointment of people to the service,

but also in making partisan, often grafting, crooked use of them after

appointment.

Third: There are too many non-producers--non-service producers--among

that army of 330,000.

It is the last, or third, condition named that I shall here briefly

consider, or such observed phases of it as, in my judgment, so trench

into the postal revenues as not only amounts to a raid in itself, but

which also encourages others to graft and loot.

First, I desire to say that there are many thousands in that postal

service, many who are honest, faithful and _competent_ workers. There

are about seventy thousand (69,712 according to the department’s report

for 1910) carriers, city and rural, most of whom work industriously and

efficiently and who are underpaid for the service they render.

There are about 50,000 clerks employed. Of these, the 1909-10 report

says, 16,795 are railway clerks. Quoting the same report, there were

33,047 postoffice clerks in the service. All or nearly all of these are

employed in the “Presidential” postoffice--offices of the first, second

and third classes. Of the total number of clerks, 31,825, are employed

in offices of the first and second classes. There were 424 offices of

the first class and 1,828 of the second. That placed the service of

31,825 clerks in 2,252 offices. The report (1909-10), from which these

figures are taken states 5,373 as the number of third-class offices. The

remainder of the reported number of clerks (1,222) are, it is presumed,

distributed among those 5,373 third-class offices. At any rate, in the

statement of expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1910, the

Second Assistant Postmaster General, Mr. Stewart, presents the following

showing of expenditures as compensation to clerks:

Clerks in first and second-class postoffices (31,825) $31,583,587.37

Clerks in third-class postoffices, lower grade 540,891.31

Clerks in third-class postoffices, upper grade 663,632.20

The lower grade of third-class postoffices comprise those which yield

the postmasters an annual income ranging from $1,000 to $1,500 and the

higher grades are those with a compensation of $1,600 to $1,900 to the

postmasters. In this connection, it should be noted that for the fiscal

year there was paid, in addition to the amounts above named, the sum of

$325,953.44 for what are called “temporary” and “substitute” clerks.

Adding these various sums gives a total of $33,114,064.32 paid for

clerk hire for clerks in first, second and third-class offices--in the

“Presidential postoffice,” or offices to which the President has, by

law or otherwise, been granted or permitted the right to appoint the

postmasters.

As previously stated, there is a total of 7,625 Presidential postoffices

on the payrolls of which are carried the names of 33,047 clerks. In

addition to these are 16,795 railway postal clerks. Beyond saying that

the appointment and advancement of these last-mentioned clerks have been

in the past--_and yet are_--largely influenced by assistant postmaster

generals, superintendents and other chiefs of division in the Washington

or department office and by Senators, Congressmen and _postmasters_

in offices of the first and second-classes, I shall not consider them

further here, nor do I include them in the adverse criticisms I shall

make of the clerical force and service of the department.

It should, however, be noted in this connection that in addition to

the 31,825 clerks employed in the 2,252 offices of the first and

second classes, there are 2,237 assistant postmasters. These were paid

$2,536,997.24 for the year ended June 30th, 1910. There were in offices

of the first and second-classes 2,252 postmasters. To these was paid the

sum of $5,814,300. That makes the service personnel of the first and

second class offices, not counting carriers, messengers, etc., 36,314,

and gives a total of annual expenditures for this service amounting to

$40,465,361.56.

The reader will please keep in mind the fact that the foregoing figures

apply only to postoffices of the first and second-classes. There may be a

few clerks and also assistant postmasters in offices of the third-class.

If so, there are so few of them that the department did not deem it

worth while to account for them in that position in any of its fiscal

statements, so far as I have been able to find. I would ask the reader

also to bear in mind that while the following strictures are intended to

apply to all three classes of Presidential postoffices, their application

is less general and less forceful in offices of the second than in

offices of the first class, and less in offices of the third-class than

in either of the two higher class offices.

There has been much talk by Postmaster Generals in recent years about

efforts made and making to get the employes of the Postoffice Department

into the classified service--getting them under civil service protection.

Not only has this been made subject of urgent advocacy in almost every

annual department report of recent years, but Postmaster Generals have

made prolix and voluble reference to and favorable comment upon the

progress that has been made in “taking the department out of politics.”

Mr. Hitchcock in the 1909-10 report commends highly the progress made in

that direction. See pages 13, 14, 24, 85, 86 and others of the report.

The party stump and banquet oratory of the past twelve or more years

has sparkled--fairly scintillated it might be said--with rhetorical

coruscations about what “the administration has done” to remove the

federal service from the “baleful clutch and influence of politics.”

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this because the Republicans

have been in control of things. Had Democrats been at the helm of the

national craft, they would have done the same. The Democratic politicians

might have done more or less than the Republicans have done to get

the civil service of the government away from corrupt and corrupting

partisan influences. The Republicans have done only what they have been

compelled to do--compelled by general public demand. So the Democrats

would have done, had they been in power. Politicians do not want a civil

service free from party control. The “jobs” have been and _are_ a source

both of spoils and of continued power to the so-called “practical”

politician of either party--of any political party. That is why the

party leaders--“bosses”--fight so persistently and craftily to retain

control of the civil jobs. That is why almost every civil service law or

“executive order” for placing civil employes under a merit or efficiency

classification carries a “joker” somewhere about its clothes. That is

true of most all such laws and orders so far enacted or issued, whatever

be their field of application--city, county, state or nation.

So I desire the reader to understand that there is no political or party

animus in what I may say in adverse criticism of the jokes and jokers

which so conspicuously decorate the Republican display of effort to place

federal postal employes under classified civil service and which, it is

said, “has taken them out of politics and will keep them out.” The Man on

the Ladder believes in civil service, but he does not believe in either

legislative or executive “jokers” which, under the guise and pretense

of establishing a _protected_ merit classification of public servants,

makes stealthy crooks and turns to keep their own partisans on the jobs,

regardless of either their ability, merit or fitness.

Now let us return to our subject--to the points which make much if not

most of the alleged “progress” in the postal department toward the

institution of a _merit_ classification of its office employes but

little more than a move on lines to keep administration partisans on

postal service jobs, and which makes this much-talked of progress toward

efficiency conserve party more than service interests.

But some readers may urge that this is mere assertion. Well, let me

present a few facts and conditions which support the assertions, or

which, to me, seem to make the statements assertions of fact.

Mr. Hitchcock rightly asserts (page 13 of 1909-10 report) “that the

highest degree of effectiveness in the conduct of this tremendous

business establishment cannot be attained while the thousands of

postmasters, on whose faithfulness so much depends, continue to be

political appointees. The entire postal service should be taken out of

politics.”

Well and good. Following the foregoing, he mentions the fact that all

assistant postmasters have been placed in the classified service by order

of the President. Mr. Hitchcock, “as a still more important reform,”

recommends that “Presidential postmasters of all grades, from the first

class to the third, should be placed in the classified service.” He also

speaks of efforts made and making to place the fourth-class postmasters

under its laws and regulations. He points out some valid difficulties

to be surmounted if such desired result is attained without impairment

rather than betterment of the service. The First Assistant Postmaster

General, C. P. Granfield, states in his report, that, under an executive

order dated November 30, 1908, all fourth-class postmasters in _fourteen

states_ have been put into the classified service. He also explains

briefly the method of procedure in filling vacancies--_when they occur_.

That is probably sufficient preliminary. Now for a few of the observed

and observable conditions which govern in civil service as thus far

applied in the Postoffice Department. Taking the fourth-class postmasters

first, it may be said the method of appointing such postmasters by civil

service examination scarcely rises to a dignity entitling it to serious

consideration. While the method itself _reads_ well, its application, in

many instances, is but a joke--a tame joke at that. Postmaster General

Hitchcock substantially admits, as previously stated, that conditions

are met with which make its application extremely difficult if not quite

impossible.

Certain it is that, so far as applied, the results have given a vast

majority, if not all, of the certifications to persons of administration

party affiliation.

Then, too, it might be asked by a person addicted to the habit of doing

his own thinking--a habit very obnoxious to party “leaders” and to

politicians of the so-called “practical” breed--it might be asked by any

capable, independent thinker, if it was mere chance that selected twelve

administration and two “doubtful”--chronically doubtful--states in which

first to make application of a civil service method to the selection and

appointment of fourth-class postmasters?

While there are, according to the last published department report,

about 52,000 fourth-class postmasters in the country, a great majority

of them are persons of little or no local political influence. Beyond

their own votes, then, they are of little service to the administration

party, save as distributing or disbursing agents of the party in power

for its campaign literature and other promotion matter. They are used

also to keep the county and state “bosses” of the party advised of local

political conditions as they view them--flurries in the party atmosphere,

as indicated by hitching-post and whittling discussions of party

legislation and proposed legislation or of party policies, as set forth

by the published utterances of state and national “leaders.”

In such and other minor ways, then, the fourth-class postmaster may be a

helpful instrument in the retention of power by the political party in

power--the party from which he has received appointment. So it is good

“practical” politics to keep such a party agent on the job. To that end,

then, the party in power--the administration--places the fourth-class

postmaster in the classified civil service, thus making his removal more

difficult, if not impossible, in case an opposing party should win out at

the polls and take charge of the government.

The foregoing is said, of course, on the presupposition that every reader

knows that a vast majority of the postmasters and other personnel of

the postal service today is of the political party in power. In saying

that the party from which these postmasters and other postal service

employes received their appointments has been and is using a civil

service classification largely, if not wholly, for partisan ends. I

say only--in fact have already said--that the Democratic party or any

other party would, if in national control, make similar use of the

civil classification. And such partisan manipulation of a merit service

classification will continue _so long as we fool people will stand for or

permit it_.

The chief “jokers” woven into most all civil service laws and executive

orders are these:

First: The law or “order” directing the application of a classification

of a service into certain grades, places those holding positions at the

time of the enforcement of such law or order, into the various grades

_without any examination as to their merit or efficiency_.

Second: Such laws and orders almost universally provide a promotion or

advancement credit for “experience,” and the only factor or element

recognized in the make-up of experience is _time_. The number of years an

employe has been on his job or in the service is his “experience.”

Third: Such civil service laws or orders always provide for

examinations--usually an “entrance” and “promotional”--and for

“examiners.” Seldom is anything said as to the qualifications of the

persons selected as examiners. Their selection is invariably left to a

“Civil Service Commission,” and the membership of such commission is as

invariably left to _partisan appointment_. There is usually a pretense

of making such commissions “non-partisan,” that is, one of three or two

of five of the appointed commissioners are to be of the minority party.

Nevertheless, they are _all_ appointed by the majority party--the party

in power.

All three of these “jokers” are in the government civil service laws

and the extension of those laws to the various divisions of the federal

civil service is left largely or wholly subject to the orders of the

President. I object to a classified merit service under such statutory

“jokers.” They provide a service more partisan than efficient. They

permit a payroll raid upon the revenues from which employes are paid.

They retain incompetent, inefficient persons in graded positions for

partisan purposes--often “grafting” purposes--rather than for service

reasons. They leave the promotion or advancement of honest, industrious

and competent employes largely, if not wholly, subject to the will,

wish and whim of a partisan appointed or elected superior or to a

partisan civil service commission. They provide for advancement on an

“experience”--a time service--which may not, and which in many cases does

not, constitute an experience of any value whatsoever to the service.

I have said that the office personnel of the government’s postal service

embraces a large number--_thousands_--of raiders on the postal revenues.

I repeat that assertion here.

Most of these raiders occupy the higher salaried positions--postmasters

of the “Presidential” classes, assistant postmasters, chief clerks and

others who secured their positions through partisan “pull” or “drag.”

These do little work of service value for the salaries paid them. Many of

them are so occupied with affairs of their party that they have little

time for service work even if they were inclined to do it. Most of them

are not so inclined. Many of these raiders know of--some of them have

been parties to--railway mail-weight, contract and other raids upon the

department they are supposed to serve.

But this is only generalization, some one may say. In answer I say kick

off your blanket of apathy. Go do a little investigating and then do a

little--just a little--hard thinking. See what you shall see in even

such a modest effort to put two and two together. Visit a “Presidential”

postoffice in your county, preferably the one at the county seat or the

one at the capital or at the metropolis of your state. These cities

are the storm centers of partisan activity, likewise of partisan

manipulations, bubble and crookedness. If you know the postmaster,

so much the better. If you are of the same party affiliation as the

postmaster, still better. If you are not, do not let that deter you. You

visit him to see things for yourself, and an investigator is not only

warranted but fully justified in appearing to be what he is not. Fix

upon some subject of inquiry before you reach the “presence” on that

particular “Presidential” P. O. throne. Then, with ears spread and eyes

shrewdly as well as interestedly open, go to it.

The postmaster will be glad to see you if he knows you. If he does not

know you, he will be assumedly glad to see you anyway, after he learns

where you are from and that you have an ingrown habit of voting the

ticket of his party. He may even warm up to the extent of tendering a

box of his favorite brand with an invitation to smoke up. Then he will

probably want to know “how things look up your way.” It does not make

much difference how or what you answer, so long as it is favorable

to “the party.” He is handing you a case-hardened jolly. You must be

gentleman enough to return the courtesy. “I know you are a very busy man,

Mr. Jones, and I must not take up your time. I want a little information

and decided I would come to the right place to get it,” etc., or

something along such lines will do.

Then ask your question or questions. Preferably let them be about some

detail or details in the handling of “the large business” of his office.

Now you will begin to see things.

The postmaster will press a buzzer button. In response a well groomed

gentleman appears whom, by introduction, you learn is his assistant.

“Fred,” says the postmaster, “Mr. Smith here desires some information. He

is from Brainville and--well, he is a friend of ours. Now, Mr. Smith,”

with a real “glad-hand” shake, “you go with Fred. He’ll dig up any

information you want, and, now, don’t forget to call on me the next time

you are in town.”

Then you go off with Fred. He sluices a lot of kiln-dried small talk at

you and rounds out with “How are things up at Brainville, Mr. Smith?”

Of course you assure him that things “look good” to you, or that, in

your opinion “there will be nothing to it but counting our majority.”

By this time Fred has steered you to the chief clerk. To the latter he

says, “Here, Baker, shake hands with Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith lives up at

Brainville and is one of our friends. He wants some information. You see

that he gets it will you?”

Fred, then, with another ingratiating hand shake, leaves you in

Mr. Baker’s care. To him you state the points on which you wish

enlightenment. “Oh, I see,” says Mr. Baker. “You just come with me and

I’ll have you fixed out.” Then, if it be a postoffice of fairly large

business, he will take you over to some chief or foreman of division,

tells him what you desire to know and instructs him to inform you. The

division boss next takes you in tow and with much pleased and pleasing

talk steers you down the line to some $900 or $1,200 a year clerk to whom

he turns you over. This shirt-sleeved clerk knows the answer or answers

and gives you the desired information in about three minutes.

Incidentally in your round of the postoffice, you have asked some

conventional questions and have learned, among other things, that the

assistant postmaster, chief clerk, division chief and other top-notchers

in the service are all men of “experience”--have each been in the service

five to ten years and “know the business from garret to basement.”

Once outside or on your way home, some questions will begin swimming a

marathon in your think-tank. Such as these for instance:

“Did those top-notchers really know the business of their office?”

“If they did know, why did they troll you around for an hour to get

information which a shirt-sleeved _worker_ gave you in three minutes?”

“If they did not know, then what have they been doing during their five

or ten years of service?”

“If they know so much, how many years would it take “Boob” Sikes of

Boobtown to learn as little as they appeared to know?”

By the time the questions begin to take on this sort of “How old is Ann”

character, you will have reached the conclusion that you have discovered

something and have seen things to prove it.

Just here it may be pertinently asked, why those top-notchers in that

postoffice should be blanketed by the stipulations of a civil service law

which gives them merit credits and grades for the years they have been

in the service? If you and I have been loafing on a job for five, ten or

more years--been foozling with the duties of that job while heeling and

fanning for a political party--why should the law credit those years to

us as service “experience?”

In placing any service or a division of any service under a merit

classification, the law should require that every position in such

service be filled by examination, and such examination should be open

alike to the shirt-sleeved employe already holding a position in such

service and to outsiders. Such a requirement would show what of service

value there really was as a result of the years an employe had been in

the service.

Do you ever go to Washington, D. C.? If so, the next time you go, take

in one or more of the main divisions of the Postoffice Department. Some

guide or clerk will probably be detailed to steer you through. Your pilot

will talk considerable and his talk will listen well. You need not,

however, hear all nor even much of what he says. As advised in your visit

to the Presidential postoffice, keep both your ears and your eyes open to

hear and see what the service employes say and do.

You will observe that a considerable number of the clerical force are

doing something--are really trying to work. You will also discover before

going far that a number of employes are industriously engaged in talking.

The smiles and quiet laughter which embellish their conversation may lead

you to believe that they are talking about some of the humorous incidents

and features of the postal service. Do not, however, be hasty in arriving

at such conclusion. If you get near enough to hear an occasional word,

you may discover that their conversation is evidently about something

which a humoresque writer has described as “the recently distant

elsewhere,” and not about the department service at all. It may be about

some feature or phase of Washington’s social flux or about some social

function which is to stake a temporary claim in the circle in which the

talkers circulate. In short, you will discover that the conversation is

but commercially pasteurized small-talk and not business.

Moving on, you will observe other little groups in animated conversation.

A glance at the anæmic appearance of some of the talkers will lead you

to the immediate and sound conclusion that the subject of conversation

cannot be weighty. Politics, even party politics, either practical or

progressive, you will readily see would be some sizes too large for them.

Getting within hearing range, you will learn that these industrious

servants of the people are discussing the telling points in some prize

fight “pulled off” the night before or of the ball game which some one or

more of the coterie had seen the day before. Maybe some one of the group

is turning loose his stem-winding, automatic bloviate ejector in telling

his interested auditors about what a “ripping time” he had with Rose at

some dance or other party last night. What you hear will be sufficient to

convince you that these “classified civil service employes” must put in

considerable time in mental and physical exertion to work out of their

systems the lessons they were taught at mother’s knee, and much more of

their time trying to keep several laps behind their jobs. You will also

see that some of the service men are workers--real _workers_--who earn

more than the salaries paid them. So, too, are there many of them whose

industry should make a more or less conspicuous service trench into four

or five dollars a day. But when you get outside or get home, you will

remember having seen numerous supervising and directing heads and many

clerks who appeared to be actually tiring themselves out in exertions to

keep away from work.

Yes, I repeat, the Postoffice Department carries upon its payrolls too

many non-producers of service values--too many mere payroll-raiders on

the postal revenues. Putting all these into graded classified service and

under the protection of a “joker”-ridden law will not improve the actual

service--will not stop the raid of which I have been writing.

The civil service of the government and subordinate division of it--city,

county and state--should be controlled by law, not by political

partisanship. Mr. Hitchcock is forcefully right in what he says on this

very important subject. But laws providing rules and regulations for

the betterment of a public service should not provide blind alleys and

trenches through which dominating party officials and “bosses” may so

easily obstruct or balk accomplishment of the purpose, or the alleged

purpose, of the law. I have mentioned three objectionable features common

to nearly all civil service laws--to all that I have read. There are

other objectionable provisions in some of the laws. I am not, however,

intending to discuss here the desirability or the objections to civil

service, either as it is or as it should be, save in so far as the

present federal law has applied, is applied and may be applied, to the

postal service.

I have tried to show how three of its joker provisions--only _three_ of

them, mind you--have worked, have been and may be “worked,” to keep party

henchmen on the jobs rather than to secure to the people industrious,

capable and efficient servants. Of the three wire-tapping provisions

of the law mentioned, I have suggested how two of them might, in my

opinion at least, be remedied. The third is that of leaving it an easy

possibility to victimize employes through the agencies of partisan

commissions selected to enforce or administer the law and of incompetent,

biased and prejudiced persons such commissions may select to conduct

examinations for entrance or promotions in the service. How remedy that?

Having civil service commissioners _elected_, instead of being selected

by a temporary official over-lord would, in my judgment, go far toward

correcting the abuses which now flourish so luxuriously under that third

“joker” provision of the law.

Any service embracing a considerable number of persons in its execution,

must be closely supervised if anything approaching efficiency is attained

and maintained. An old German saying reads thus: “The eye of a master

will do more work than both his hands.” If value is secured either in

public or in private service, the people paid for delivering it must be

kept under close supervision--must be kept under “the eye of the master.”

A consciousness of having earned his pay should enable any service man,

whatever his position, to shake hands with himself without blushing at

the close of his day’s work. But if his superiors set him an example in

loafing, of hitting the nail slack while on duty, most men will soon

learn not only how to loaf but how to accept any amount of pay for

services not rendered, and accept it, too, without a flicker of blush or

jar of conscientious scruple.

So in closing our consideration of this phase of our subject, permit me

to say that efficient civil service will never be attained--can never be

attained--if department, division and other supervising and directing

heads sit at their desks most of the time, approving documents and

requisitions, reading reports and talking politics. If they expect men

under them to work, they must get out on the job where they expect the

work to be done, and that, too, whether the job be in the office or in

the field.

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.