It was carefully figured in 1900 that ou_Postal Riders and Raiders

communities alone lost $90,000,000 a year in excessive express charges

and delays in delivery by reason of the _criminal_ apathy of their

government in the matter of furnishing even a _reasonably_ adequate

domestic parcels post service, such, for instance, as that furnished by

the German government. The German government carries an 11-pound package

anywhere in the German empire or in Austria-Hungary _for 12 cents_.

To aid the reader, I give, following, a table covering the data essential

to a fair understanding both of the excessive pay for a service which our

government should render for a _tenth_ of the money and, also, of _why_

our express service is inconvenient--is _wasteful and expensive_--by

reason of the _distance_ the express offices are from the people

ordering. This last is clearly shown by comparing their _number_ with the

larger number of postoffices in the several states named.

THE WORM UNCOVERED.

=============+========+========+=======+========+=======+=======+=======

| No. | No. |Average| Amount | | |

|offices.|offices.| |post at |at 48c.|at 58c.|at 66c.

| | | | 12c. | | |

-------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+-------+-------

Alabama | 334 | 2,445 | $1.33 | $1.21 | $0.85 | $0.75 | $0.67

Arizona | 41 | 202 | 3.89 | 3.77 | 3.41 | 3.31 | 3.23

Arkansas | 262 | 1,880 | 1.66 | 1.54 | 1.18 | 1.08 | 1.00

California | 586 | 1,659 | 3.16 | 3.04 | 2.68 | 2.58 | 2.50

Connecticut | 108 | 511 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |

Georgia | 451 | 2,657 | 1.33 | 1.21 | .85 | .75 | .67

Illinois | 1,495 | 2,622 | 1.09 | .97 | .61 | .51 | .43

Kentucky | 471 | 2,892 | 1.22 | 1.10 | .74 | .64 | .56

Maine | 248 | 1,254 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |

Michigan | 737 | 2,161 | 1.22 | 1.10 | .74 | .64 | .56

New York | 1,309 | 3,735 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |

Ohio | 1,362 | 3,398 | 1.09 | .97 | .61 | .51 | .43

Oklahoma | 30 | 576 | 2.10 | 2.07 | 1.62 | 1.52 | 1.53

Pennsylvania | 919 | 5,206 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |

Rhode Island | 90 | 153 | .61 | .49 | .13 | .03 |

South Dakota | 229 | 639 | 2.67 | 2.55 | 2.19 | 2.09 | 2.01

Texas | 662 | 2,968 | 2.19 | 2.07 | 1.61 | 1.61 | 1.53

Virginia | 263 | 3,468 | 1.22 | 1.10 | .74 | .64 | .56

+--------+--------+ | | | |

Whole country| 20,155 | 60,000 | | | | |

-------------+--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+-------+-------

Had I the space at command I would print the figures for the whole United

States. However, it will be seen that the states I have taken are fairly

representative of the whole country--the populous with the sparsely

settled.

The figures as to number of express and postoffices are from the United

States census for 1900.[18] The estimates are made on the parcel weight

of 11 pounds. Eleven pounds is the English _domestic_ parcels weight

that is carried anywhere in the United Kingdom for 24 cents or, by

international postal agreement, to any point in this country for 48

cents. In passing, it might be noted that for the year 1900 the British

postoffice turned into its national treasury over $18,000,000 _profit_.

It might also be well to notice that English merchants _imported_ nearly

five and a half million dollars value by parcels post and _exported

nearly twenty and a half million dollars of value by means of the same

service_.

But to get back to our 11-pound parcel.

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

cents.

Switzerland carries it for _eight cents_, and several other countries

_are now trying to reach the German weight-rate for domestic delivery_.

So we will take as our package of _eleven pounds_ and figure its delivery

at any postoffice in the United States for _twelve cents_.

One more point about this table.

The reader must keep in mind that we now deliver packages up to eleven

pounds from any person--merchant, manufacturer or other--living in

England, Germany or Mexico. It is delivered for the English shipper (_by

our mails_) to any United States postoffice for 48 _cents_; for the

German shipper for 58 cents or for the Mexican shipper for 66 cents.

The _three right-hand_ columns of the table show how much _cheaper_ the

English, German or Mexican merchant, or other shipper, can have his

eleven pounds of merchandise carried to Rabbit Hash, Ky., Springtown,

Mo., Gold Button, Cal.--_to any postoffice in the United States_--than

the New York merchant can send his 11-pound parcel to the _express

office_ “nearest” the customer ordering.

The express charges given are the _carefully figured averages_ for the

states named for carriage from New York City. The third column gives

the _average_ express charge (at rates ruling in 1900) from New York

City to the states named. The fourth column gives the _savings_ to

the purchaser--the merchant or the consumer--if the 11-pound parcel

were carried, as it should be carried, in the mails for 12 cents. The

first two columns give the number of express offices and postoffices in

the several states named and are intended as _conclusive_ proof that

_millions_ of our people are much nearer to a postoffice than to an

express office.

With this preliminary, let us now comment on the table. Don’t side-step

it because it’s figures--unless, of course, you’re some _hired man_ of

the express or railroad companies.

The total of express companies in the footing is that given in the

census report for 1900. There are probably several hundred more now.

The corresponding total given for the number of postoffices is correct

for July 1, 1910. There are fewer postoffices now than in 1900, the

establishment of rural route delivery having reduced the number greatly.

The reader must keep in mind that the figures named in headings of the

three right-hand columns cover a “delivery” charge in addition to the

home-rate mailing rate for the countries named. This delivery charge was

covered in the international agreements.

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

If we have one hundred millions of people in this country, there is

an express office for about each 5,000 of them, while there is a

_postoffice_ for about each 1,666 of them.

There is an _express_ office to about every 175 _square miles of our

territory_, while there is a _postoffice_ for about each 60 square miles

of our territory.

The reader will have no trouble to see by the table that, if he ordered

an 11-pound lot of hose and shirts or phonograph records, photograph

films or other goods from New York City for delivery in Chicago, he would

get the goods by a properly served parcels post for just 97 cents _less

carriage charge_ than he now pays the express companies. If he live in

Los Angeles, Cal., he would get the goods from New York for $3.04 less.

Even if he lived in Buffalo, N. Y., he would get those eleven pounds of

goods from the metropolis of his state for _48 cents less than he now

pays the express companies_.

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

You will observe that the Right Honorable John Bovine, an exporting

merchant of London--or a _manufacturer_, if you please, of Manchester or

Leeds, England--can send that 11-pound package to you in Chicago, Hot

Springs, Fargo or elsewhere in the United States--_send it by mail_,

which no American merchant or manufacturer can do--at from 90 cents to

$3.00 _less carriage cost_ than the New York merchant can send it to you

by express--_the only means our present laws and methods permit him to

use_.

Baron Von Stopper, an exporter of Berlin, likewise has a large advantage

over the New York merchant in supplying your _parcel_ demands. Even

Senor Greaser of the City of Mexico, can ship--_by mail_--eleven pounds

of kippered tamales or sombreros to any point in the country, save ten

states within short-haul range of New York City, and have an _edge_ of

30 cents to $3.23 over his New York City competitor in supplying your

_parcel order wants_.

Great, is it not? Fine system, is it not, to “protect _home industries_?”

To build up “foreign trade?”

But, it is not quite so bad as it looks for the very reason that our

“postal agreements” recognize the “tariff wall” that is built around

_certain_ “infants” in this country. Your goods from England, Germany

or Mexico must be of our “_free_ list” kind, otherwise they must pay a

rake-off to the government. As that is pretty stiff, _you_ don’t order

many parcels from abroad. You buy home products--_thus paying the tariff

rake-off to the protected “infant” instead of the Government_.

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

In connection with the tabulation just presented, should be noted

the fact that _millions_ of our people live in non-railroad

communities--live, often, _many miles from any express office_, while

a postoffice may be near. If these people have pressing need for any

article of merchandise weighing over four pounds it cannot reach them,

under existing law, by mail. _They must order it sent by express and make

the long drive to the nearest express office to get it._

The article may be one needed for the health of the family or it may be

a rod, a gear wheel or other part of some machine that has broken in a

critical hour of need--_any one of a hundred needs_, delay in supplying

which _costs money_.

It was carefully figured in 1900 that our rural, non-railroad communities

alone lost $90,000,000 _a year_ in excessive express charges and delays

in delivery by reason of the peculiar if not studied apathy of their

government in the matter of furnishing even a _reasonably_ adequate

domestic parcels post service.

The hypothetical rate (1 cent a pound or $20.00 per ton), for parcels

carriage and delivery by post is low--maybe a little too low. If so, it

is only a very little, _if it is figured to have the rate cover only

the actual cost of the service_. A nation-wide parcels post service, if

properly organized and directed, would, it must be remembered, handle

all the short as well as the long haul business. It would not, as

now, permit a collusive raiding arrangement between the railroads and

the express companies by which the latter get most of the short-haul

shipments and leave most of the long-haul parcels to be handled by the

mail service.

I see by a local press item, that the Senate Committee on Postoffices and

Postroads is going to propose in the bill it is drafting that parcels of

eleven pounds in weight be carried by the mail service for 50 cents--10

cents for the first pound and 4 cents for each additional pound or

fraction thereof, up to the maximum of 11 pounds. Of course, a rate of 50

cents for the carriage of 11-pound parcels would be a great betterment

over the present rate and weight regulations. But a rate of 50 cents for

an 11-pound package is away too high, figuring on short and long haul

parcels, unless it is intended to make the service a revenue producer,

which it should not be. The committee, I gather from the news item, has

recognized the fact that a 50-cent rate is too high on short-haul matter

and are considering the recommendation of a lower rate for it--a distance

scale or schedule of rates. It is to be hoped that, if the proposed bill

becomes law, it will carry such a provision.

It is said the committee decided upon the weight and rate limits after

an “exhaustive investigation of all the parcels post systems of the

world,” and it was pointed out that this investigation disclosed the

fact that only “five powers” reported deficits in their postal services

in 1909--Luxemburg, Chili, Greece, Mexico and Austria--the deficits

ranging from $7,437 in Luxemburg to $1,693,157 in Austria. Of these, it

will be noted, all save Austria are small or only partially developed

countries. None of them have rail or other transportation facilities

at all comparable to those of this country. Yet our government, with

its excessive parcels rate and ridiculously low maximum weight limit on

parcels reported a deficit of $17,441,719.82 in its postal revenues for

1908-9, and $6,000,000 in 1910.

Whatever the action that may be taken by the present or a future Congress

looking to the betterment and to a cheapening of the nation’s parcels

post service, one thing must be done if such action be made effective--if

it yield the results it is alleged are expected of it. Such action must

carry provisions that will effectively break up the present collusive

understandings and arrangements between the railroads and the express

company interests, which arrangement has for years been raiding the

postal revenues on the one hand and, by greatly excessive rail and

express rates for carrying parcel freight, has been looting the people on

the other.

This can be--and should be--done. There are two actions which may be

taken by the government, either of which I believe would accomplish that

most desirable and necessary result.

On previous pages (pages 227 and 228), will be found quoted a section

of the law of 1845--a law for the establishing and regulation of the

government mail service. On the pages 256-257 will be found a most

instructive discussion of the law by Mr. Allan L. Benson. Turn back and

read those pages. Mr. Benson is always worth a second reading.

That it was the intention of the legislators of that time to make the

carriage, handling and delivery of letters and “packets” (small parcels

or packages of any sort of mailable matter), a government monopoly, there

can be no valid reason to doubt. That the express companies have operated

and are operating in violation of Section 181 of that law, there can be

no valid reason to doubt. That Section 181 of the enactment of 1845 is

good, sound law today, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That the

express companies have operated, and continue to operate, in violation

of that law--in open defiance of it--and are therefore engaged in a

_criminal_ traffic, there can be no valid reason to doubt.

True, they have a very peculiar court decision to protect them in their

violation of that law. I call it a “peculiar” decision. A more fitting

term might be used in describing that court decision, and the use of such

a term would be fully justified.

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

Section 181 of its Revised Statutes so that even a yokel, as well as

a Federal Judge, may clearly see that the carriage of _packages and

parcels_, as well as of “packets,” which do not exceed the maximum

regulation weight and are of mailable class and kind, is “intended” to be

the _exclusive privilege of the government_.

Such an amendment to the law would force the express companies out of

business.

The other action which could be effectively taken would be to make the

parcels post rate so low and the maximum weight of parcels so liberally

high that the railroads and express raiders would quit of their own

accord, which they would do as soon as their present tonnage of loot is

seriously cut down. Nothing would cut into that lootage deeper or quicker

than would a service rated and weighted parcels post.

I have been severe in my strictures and condemnation of the express and

railway raiders. In evidence that my condemnation is deserved I desire to

quote two or three people--people who have made a careful, painstaking

study of the game these raiders have played, and yet play, and of the

practices and tricks which make it a “sure thing” for the high-finance

gentlemen who play it.

Mr. Albert W. Atwood wrote a series of three most informative articles

for the American Magazine under the caption, “The Great Express

Monopoly.” They appeared in the American in its issues for February,

March and April, 1911. I trust the publishers will not take unkindly my

quoting Mr. Atwood. He presents some facts which so conclusively evidence

several points that I cannot resist the appeal they make for quotation.

In evidencing the fact that the railroads own and control the express

companies and also showing how that ownership and control was obtained

and is maintained, Mr. Atwood writes as follows:

It has frequently been asserted by merchants and shippers that

the stock issues of the express companies are merely a device

to make possible the exaction of unreasonable charges. Perhaps

the most direct case in point is that of the Pacific Express

Company, organized in 1879 to do business on the Union Pacific

and Gould Railroads. Before the Indiana Railroad Commission John

A. Brewster, auditor of the company, recently testified that

there were twelve stockholders and $6,000,000 of stock. On pages

784-785 of the record there appears this colloquy:

Q. What did you do with that stock, Mr. Witness?

A. The capital stock was given to the Wabash, Union Pacific, and

Missouri Pacific for the rights, franchises.

Q. For what rights?

A. Franchises and rights to do business.

Q. We begin to understand it; it wasn’t understood before that;

nothing was received by the Pacific Express Company for the issue

of this $6,000,000 of stock? Do these railroad companies own the

stock?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. These twelve stockholders are the railroads. The railroads get

these 6 per cent dividends on the stock?

A. Yes, sir.

Before another State Railroad Commission an officer of the

company stated that so far as he knew and so far as the records

show no cash was received for the $6,000,000 stock. The Illinois

Railroad and Warehouse Commission has decided this stock was

issued in fact and in law without consideration. Ostensibly the

stock was issued by the express company in exchange for the right

to do business over the lines of the railroads, but all the

express companies pay a fixed percentage of their gross receipts,

ranging from 40 to 57½ per cent, to the railroads over which they

operate.

On the question as to whether express companies operate at a profit or

not, Mr. Atwood writes as follows of this same Pacific organization:

Whatever legal view we may take of this curious stock issue,

there is no room for doubting that it has served as a device for

the extortion of money from the shipping public, for express

charges are made high enough to more than pay dividends on the

stock. Starting in business with no capital except such as may

have been temporarily loaned to it by the railroads in control,

the Pacific Express Company has paid dividends of $8,334,000 in

twenty years and in addition has been paying to the railroads,

which owned all its stock, about 50 per cent of its gross

receipts of more than $7,000,000 a year. A large block of the

stock recently changed hands at $200 a share, and yet we have

seen how it was issued without consideration in cash or property.

Indeed it is said the company operated for eight years before the

stock was issued at all.

In speaking to the same point as applied to the United States Express

Company, Mr. Atwood calls attention to the fact that 55 per cent of its

“stockholders” have entered suit to wind up the company’s affairs on

charges of mismanagement by its dominating officers. Mr. Atwood further

writes:

Although the gravest of charges of mismanagement and waste of

assets have repeatedly been made against the directors of the

United States Express Company, a profit of almost 15 per cent

was earned by the company on the capital invested in the express

business in the year 1909. This profit would have been still

greater had general trade been normal, and had there not been a

hiatus between the loss of one large contract and the securing of

another. That the stockholders have not received all the profits

proves nothing. Millions have gone into unnecessary real estate

investment and large salaries have been paid, but earnings on the

capital actually invested have clearly shown that even under a

management whose good faith and ability is being challenged in

the courts there is an ample return.

As long ago as 1875 a writer in Harper’s Magazine said the

express business had already created fifty millionaires, a

statement which does not tax the credulity of anyone who casts

a glance at the dividend record of these companies. To use the

calmly judicial words of the Census Bureau: “In no other business

is it probable that so little money, comparatively, is invested

where the gross receipts are so large.” We have seen that new

capital is not a necessity of the express business. Unlike the

railroads, new security issues to raise capital are never sold to

the investing public.

The cappers for railroad and express interests, keep the atmosphere

agitated with talk about the “uncertainty and irregularity” of the

quantity of express matter to be carried, “the excessive taxes paid,”

etc. In answer to such bubble, Mr. Atwood has this to say:

While this may be theoretically true, the experience of years

has shown that the patronage of these companies has been fairly

regular, remunerative and growing. Not only will a study of the

gross receipts prove this contention, but further confirmation

will be found in the remarkable series of excessive dividends.

“We do not feel that any extravagant return should be permitted

upon the business of these companies,” said the Interstate

Commerce Commission in Kinde _v._ Adams _et al._, “for it

involves none of the elements which entitle an investment to a

high return.”

When the Adams Express Company enriched its shareholders with a

200 per cent extra dividend in 1907, stress was laid upon the

increase in taxation throughout the country. How ridiculous

this is can be seen from the fact that the Adams Company paid

only $145,184 in taxes in the entire fiscal year of 1909, and

$202,234 in 1910, although its extra dividend alone amounted to

$24,000,000. Profits on stock and bond speculation amounted to

$418,979 in the year 1909, and $1,943,889 in 1910. The American

Express Company, with its huge resources, paid but $283,951

in taxes in 1909. In the same year the volume of its banking

business alone amounted to more than $250,000,000. In at least

one important state, the express companies paid no taxes until a

few years ago and in Indiana the companies had the audacity to

tell the Tax Commissioner that they had little or no tangible

property in that state. When Congress voted to put a tax of two

cents on every express transaction to raise revenue for the

Spanish War the companies made the shipper pay, and when the

shippers objected fought the case to the highest courts.

At this point the question naturally arises as to how the express

companies have been able to carry on for so many years such

a perfect system of extracting money from the public without

being seriously molested. The answer involves a knowledge of

the relations existing between the railroads and the express

companies, and a knowledge of the complete monopoly which exists

in the express business--a monopoly made possible only because of

these very relations.

In Pearson’s Magazine appeared two forcefully written articles by Mr.

Allen L. Benson on the parcels post. The articles appeared in Pearson’s

in February and March, 1911. In his February opening and closing Mr.

Benson says some things to us and says them with a kindly bluntness which

we should appreciate:

Is it a pleasure to you to be treated as if you were a fool? Do

you never tire of acting like an organ-grinder’s begging monkey?

These questions are put to you in good faith. I have no desire

to insult you. I know you are not a fool. I know you don’t like

to beg. Yet here you are again, with your little red cap on and

your little tin cup out, begging for a parcels post. Begging from

those whom you should order. And the gentlemen from whom you beg

treat you as if you were a fool.

Perhaps you believe these statements are not so. I shall soon

show you that they are so. But before we go down this interesting

parcels-post road, let us hang a lantern to the wagon-tongue. You

will understand the scenery better if you see it by the light of

this particular lantern. Here it is:

Bad government is largely made possible by the mistaken opinions

held toward each other by the governing classes and the governed.

By “governing classes” I don’t mean Presidents and Congresses.

I mean the great capitalist interests that make Presidents and

Congresses. The governing classes underestimate the intelligence

of the people. That is why the governing classes are always in

process of yielding something to the people. Depending upon the

stupidity of the people, gross wrongs are inflicted that are

righted only under force, inch by inch.

The people, on the other hand, have too exalted an opinion of

both the intelligence and the patriotism of those who control the

government. They have no good opinion of the patriotic impulses

of the great capitalists, but they fail to note that the great

capitalists are the National government. Mr. Morgan in Wall

street they recognize. But Mr. Morgan in Washington, disguised as

Uncle Sam, they do not recognize. Therefore they behold him with

a certain veneration. They have been taught, since childhood,

to look up to Uncle Sam as to a father. He is the government in

breeches. The people do not always agree with the men who govern

them, but they always agree with the government. The grand old

government of the United States looks good to them. It looks good

to them because it seems to embody the power, the will and the

virtue of the people.

All of which is not true. No government is much better than

the men who control it. If the men who control it are bad, the

government is bad. If a few control it, the rest do not control

it. If a few use it to get more than belongs to them, the rest

cannot use it to get what belongs to them. If a few control the

government to rob the rest of the people, the government is not

the friend, but the enemy, of the rest of the people.

The United States government is and long has been controlled by a

few rich men. These men have used and are using the government to

enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the people. I do

not mean so say that the government never performs an act that is

of service to all of the people, but I do mean to say that when

there is a conflict between the interests of the few who control

the government and the interests of the rest of the people, the

government is almost certain to take the side of the few as

against the many.…

The little guiding group of rich who tell you that a high tariff

helps you is the same little guiding group that tells you a

parcels post would hurt you.

…

Is it a pleasure to you always to be treated as if you were a

fool? Do you never tire of paying 16 cents a pound on mail

packages limited to four pounds, when there is hardly a little

South American republic or fourth-class European state that will

not carry at least eleven-pound packages for a cent a pound or

less?

Think of it--we have entered into agreements with forty-three

nations that have the parcels post to receive and deliver their

parcels when directed to any person in this country; we are

permitting the Philippine Government to establish a parcels post;

we have agreed to receive in this country big packages at low

rates for delivery abroad; but we ourselves have no such rights

among ourselves. We must not only pay tribute to the express

companies, but we must believe that it is good for us to do so.

_If the American people only knew their power; if they only knew

their power! If they would tear off their party labels and vote

as they talk at home among their neighbors, they could push this

country half a century ahead at the next election. Everybody

knows something is wrong, but almost everybody votes the thoughts

of those who make the wrong._

_Shall we never vote for ourselves?_

The italics in the last paragraph quoted are mine. So, too, are the

sentiments of that paragraph--both the expressed and the implied. That is

I believe in them--I believe in them hard and stubbornly. If my readers

will think hard about them for a few minutes, I feel confident they

will conclude that it is about time for them, for all of us, to act on

Mr. Benson’s advice--tear off our party labels and begin “to vote for

ourselves.”

In support of his charges of bad faith on the part of the government in

giving the people a serviceable parcels post, Mr. Benson’s remarks are

most illuminating. He makes reference to a public or semi-public document

of the government, written by one Mr. Turner and proceeds as follows:

“‘This will open a great business for American retail merchants,’

wrote Mr. Turner. ‘Brazil can be flooded with catalogues. This

information, in advance, will enable those desiring to go after

business to prepare for it.’

“Mind you, these are only occasional sentences from his

enthusiastic article. He dwelt at length upon the eagerness

of the Brazilians to buy such articles as we make. He even

became specific and enumerated some of the articles that

could be advantageously sent by parcels post. ‘This opens up

great possibilities for the retail shoe houses,’ he said, for

instance, ‘as elegant shoes are worn.’ Also, there was a great

market for gloves, embroideries, ribbons, silks, stockings, and

underclothing.

“Here, then, we have the spectacle of the United States

Government making statements to business men through a

publication that the common people never read, that are directly

opposed to the statements that are made to the people of the

United States in congressional debates and other publications.

“Now, ask yourself these questions:

“Would the establishment of a parcels post by Brazil, which we

have permitted to extend to this country, open any markets for

Americans in Brazil if parcels-post rates did not permit American

merchants to deliver their goods in Brazil at reduced cost?

“Again: If a parcels-post in Brazil will enable American

merchants to lay down their goods in Brazil at reduced cost, why

wouldn’t a parcels post in the United States enable American

merchants to lay down their goods in the United States at reduced

cost?

“Furthermore: If reduced carrying charges would enable American

merchants to capture Brazilian trade by reducing selling prices,

why wouldn’t reduced carrying charges tend toward lower selling

prices in the United States?

“Finally: Is there any reason on earth why the United States

Government, which is opposed to a parcels post in this country,

through an official publication, welcomes a parcels post in

Brazil--is there any reason except the one fact that there are no

American express companies in Brazil?

“Figure it out for yourself. I have figured it out for myself. As

I figure it out, the United States Government is treating us as

if we were a little weak in the head; as if we are just foolish

enough so that it was safe to print, in a semi-public official

publication, an acknowledgment that all of its excuses for not

giving us a parcels post are really impudent lies.…

“‘Should the mail trade have a government subsidy?’ asked one

gentleman who represented an association of jobbing firms. Let us

see how much honesty there is in this question. A subsidy implies

the payment of money, either for nothing, or for something that

is not immediately received in return. That is what these same

rich gentlemen mean by subsidy when they ask you to subsidize

American ships. What element of subsidy would there be in a

parcels post that enabled the government to derive a great profit

from the mail-order business? We have all the machinery for

handling ‘packets’--costly postoffice buildings, cars, letter

carriers, rural mail carriers. Why not use them? Why not let the

rural mail carrier, whose average load is now 25 pounds, carry

500 pounds at a cent a pound? The postoffice department would

earn $40,000,000 more a year if the rural wagons were loaded to

the 500-pound limit.

“‘The fact is,’ said the same jobber gentleman, ‘that the

United States Government cannot carry merchandise by parcels

post without having to meet an enormous annual deficit for

conducting the service.’ The fact is that the fact isn’t. What

brazen effrontery to declare that the government would lose

money carrying packages at a cent a pound, when the German

government makes money by carrying packages at a little more

than half a cent a pound! It is true that German rates are based

upon distance, but it is also true that Germany, without any

mail monopoly, competes with all comers and beats them out with

low tariffs. The German government can compete with the German

express companies because the German parcels post will accept

packages up to a weight limit of 110³⁄₁₀ pounds, while our

Government turns over to the express companies everything that

weighs more than four pounds.

“Furthermore, if the carrying of packages is such a hazardous

business that our Government should not dare to attempt it,

how comes it that the express companies have become rich at

it? The combined capital of the express companies is a little

in excess of $48,000,000. For years, the big stockholders in

express companies have been apoplectic with wealth. All of this

money came from somewhere. All of this money came from those

who consumed products sent by express. Only a few weeks ago the

Interstate Commerce Commission brought out the fact that the

Adams Express Company’s business in New England yielded a profit,

in 1909, of 45 per cent, upon the investment. Yet, there was

nothing brought out in the proceedings to show, that the Adams

Express Company was gouging New England any harder than it was

the rest of the country, or that the other express companies were

not doing to the rest of the country approximately what the Adams

was doing to New England. If you had the Government’s equipment

for handling express matter, would you feel particularly

frightened at a proposition to give you a monopoly of the

‘packet’ business at an average rate almost twice that of the

German Government’s average rate?”

Knowing that my readers have not wearied of Mr. Benson, I shall presume

to take further liberties with his articles on our subject. His handling

of the point I have raised--railroad control of the express companies--is

so informative and so able that I would do neither my readers nor my

subject justice were I not to quote him and do it right here:

The railroads have become the express companies, not in legal

fiction, but in transportational fact. The railroads largely own

the express companies, entirely control the express companies,

and, to all intents and purposes, are the express companies. We,

the highly intelligent American people, simply don’t know these

facts. Never has it seemed to occur to us that, since Benjamin

Harrison was President and John Wanamaker was in his cabinet, the

express grafters may have devised improved ways of working the

express graft. Therefore, in this parcels post matter, we don’t

know who is pushing the knife that we feel between our ribs. We

accuse the express companies. A man who was being murdered might

as well accuse the shadow of his murderer.

Perhaps the facts that follow will show you who are behind the

shadows of the express companies. I quote from Senate Document

No. 278, Sixtieth Congress:

Stock held by railways in express companies $20,668,000

Railway securities owned by express companies 34,542,950

Holdings of express companies in the stock of other

express companies 11,618,125

Since this article was written (Mr. Benson adds in a footnote)

the Interstate Commerce Commission has issued a report in which

railroad holdings in express stock are given at $14,124,000. The

same report says the “total book value of property and equipment

of 13 express companies is $22,313,575.53.” The figures furnished

by the express companies are evidently somewhat bewildering

to the commission, which, having found the total value of the

express companies’ assets to be $186,221,380.54, remarks: “It

is evident that the capital stock of these companies bears no

relation to the amount invested in the express business.” On

the face of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s report, the

railroads have disposed of more than $6,000,000 worth of express

stock since the United States Senate investigated the matter

during the life of the Sixtieth Congress. Yet there is no mention

of such a transaction, and it seems exceedingly unlikely that

the railroads have suddenly reversed their policies and become

sellers instead of buyers of express stock. What seems more

likely is that both the railroads and the express companies are

continuing the policy to use figures to conceal facts. Gentlemen

who can give $186,000,000 worth of assets a “book value” of

$22,000,000 might have no difficulty in compelling figures to

turn flip-flaps upon almost any occasion.

Please notice that railroad companies--not railroad men,

railroad companies--own more than $20,000,000 of stock in

express companies. The express companies are capitalized at only

$48,000,000. Railroad companies therefore own almost half of the

stock of the express companies. Railroad men like Mr. Gould, the

Vanderbilts and Mr. Morgan also own stock in express companies.

Railroad men presumably do not vote their private holdings of

express stock in opposition to the manner in which they vote the

express stock owned by the railways they control. But, even if

railway men owned no express stock, the ownership by railways of

a solid block of more than $20,000,000 of express stock would

enable the railways to control the express companies. Mr. Morgan

controls many corporations in which he holds only a minority

interest. It is the way of big men to control more than they own.

…

Let us assume that you attach no significance to the ownership

by the railways of almost half of the stock of the express

companies. You don’t believe the railroads would take the trouble

to get control of $3,500,000 more stock and thus control the

companies. You want to be shown.

All right. You don’t mind using your common sense? Good.

Wouldn’t railroad companies be incorporated fools if they didn’t

control the express companies? Couldn’t the railroad companies,

if they cared to, control the express companies, even though

the railroad companies owned not a share of stock in any of the

express companies? What is an express company?

An express company is a corporation that is engaged in

transportation. Not a single express company owns a foot of

railway track, a locomotive, a roundhouse or a water tank. Not a

single express company employs an engineer, a fireman, a train

dispatcher, or a section hand. Not a single express company could

carry a bar of soap from New York to Albany without using all

of the mentioned instruments of transportation, besides many

others. In other words, an express company is an institution

engaged in transportation without owning any of the means of

transportation. It exists only by sufferance. So long as railroad

companies are willing to haul the cars of an express company,

the express company may do business--but no longer. An express

company, if ill-treated, has no other place to go. It cannot hire

a department store company to haul its cars, nor a dry-goods

firm, nor a manufacturer of hats. An express company must go to

railroads for its transportation facilities, accept the best

terms it can get, or go out of business.

Is it not so? How comes it, then, that you never hear of rows

between express companies and railroad companies? How comes it

that the same railroads that are always trying to squeeze you

on freight rates apparently never try to squeeze the express

companies on rates for hauling cars? The express companies are

exceedingly fat birds. They are absolutely in the power of the

railroad companies. If you owned the only vacant house in the

world and a wanderer must rent from you or die in the street,

you would not have him more completely in your power than the

railroad companies have the express companies.

Yet the railroad companies are frying the express companies to a

frazzle. The New York Central Railroad Company takes 40 per cent

of the gross receipts of the express company that operates over

its lines. But the frying is entirely friendly, and therefore

the express companies do not cry out against it. A station agent

does not complain because the railroad company for which he works

takes from him the money for the tickets he has sold. He expects

to give up the money. The officers of express companies expect

to give up the money they take in. That is what they are there

for. If they were otherwise disposed they would not be there. The

$20,000,000 block of express stock held by railroads would keep

them out. Can you imagine an express company giving 40 per cent

of its gross receipts to a railway company if the directors of

the express company were not controlled by the railway company?

Please get the full meaning of that New York Central arrangement.

It is not a mere matter of 40 per cent. It is a matter of 40

per cent of the gross receipts and then perhaps 50 per cent of

what is left. In other words, the railroad company first takes,

as a carrier, four-tenths of the express company’s receipts. As

a stockholder in the express company, the railroad next takes

almost half of the net profits.

…

In both surveying the Canadian express situation and giving the

order to reduce rates, Judge Mabee, chairman of the commission,

said:

“Cut short of all the trimmings, the situation is that the

shipper by express makes a contract with the railway company

through the express company. The whole business could go just as

it now does without the existence of any express company at all

by simply substituting railway employees and letting the railways

take the whole of the toll in the first instance.”

As showing how freight tariffs are manipulated by the railroads to force

the people to make light shipments by express and pay the looting rates

the express companies charge, the following by Mr. Benson should be read:

In what essential particular does the conduct of the American

express business differ from the conduct of the Canadian express

business? The Canadian express companies collect money from the

public and hand it over to the railroads. What do our express

companies do?

At this point, some gentlemen may be moved to ask. Why is an

express company? At first glance, it does seem rather strange

that the railroads should bother to do business through express

companies if the railroads not only haul the express cars, but

get the money the public pays. Yet there is nothing strange about

it, as we shall see when we consider what the express business is.

Part of the express business is an effort to commit a crime for

pay. The rest of the express business is an effort to perform a

service at an exorbitant rate of compensation. In other words,

part of the express business is the carrying of “packets” that

should be sent only by mail, and the carrying of which by a

private person or corporation is a crime, and the rest of the

business is the carrying of light freight that should go by fast

freight at a rate much below the express rate.

The express business, like every other business that has thriven,

was based upon a public need. The public need was for a fast

freight service for light freight. The railroad managers of forty

years ago were not disposed to give the service, but they were

willing to haul cars for an express company that wanted to carry

fast freight at a high rate.

In this small, timid way the express business began. The crime

of carrying mail in competition with the government had never

been considered. When shippers offered mailable packages for

transmission, they were accepted, but postage stamps were affixed

to comply with the law. Even the volume of light freight was

relatively small. The railroads themselves kept all of the light

freight traffic they could. It was not until the railroads

invested heavily in and obtained control of the express companies

that deliberate efforts were made to compel the public to send

light freight by express.

Let me explain precisely what I mean by this. The minimum freight

rate from Chicago to North Platte, Neb., is $1.10. Whether a

package weighs five pounds or 100 pounds, the charge is the same.

Suppose you want to send a ten-pound package. A dollar and ten

cents seems an exorbitant charge, especially when the fact is

considered that a ten-pound package, sent by freight, probably

would not reach its destination in less than ten days. You look

up express rates and find that you can send the package for 55

cents, with a certainty of delivery within forty-eight hours. Of

course you send the package by express.

What has happened? Apparently, the express company has saved you

55 cents. Actually, the railroad company has clubbed you into

the clutches of the express company. The railroad company never

expected you to pay $1.10 for the transmission of a ten-pound

package. In the good old days when the express companies were

not owned by the railroad companies, and the railroad companies

were not controlled by a little group of men in Wall Street, the

freight rates for ten-pound and hundred-pound packages were not

the same. The railroads wanted to carry small packages and made

rates that brought them in. But the express companies showed

the possibility of collecting a higher rate for quick delivery.

For this reason, a certain amount of business naturally came to

the express companies. But after the railroads obtained control

of the express companies, resort was had to artificial means

to drive business over to the high-priced express companies.

The freight rate for 100 pounds was established _as the minimum

rate_ for all lighter packages. No one is expected to pay this

exorbitant rate, but it is there for everyone to look at.

Slow freight delivery is also apparently employed by the

railroads to compel the public to ship by express. If one have

a full hundred pounds to send a short distance, he will find

the minimum freight rate lower than the express rate. But he

will also have reason to believe that freight trains are drawn

by snails. The Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central

recently struggled ten days to bring a hundred-pound package

forty miles to me. An express company would have performed

the same service over-night. If the railroads had wanted the

business, they would have required no more than two days.

Now, I have quoted extendedly from both Mr. Atwood and Mr. Benson. I have

done so, because they wrote not only what I have quoted but much more

that I would like to quote, and each of them has handled his subjects

pointedly and forcefully conclusive. The call for “copy” by my publisher,

will, I trust, argue my excuse with the publishers of Pearson’s and The

American magazines for having drawn so largely upon their columns without

first asking and securing their permission to do so.

But it seems to me I can hear some barker for the interests barking

“Yellow writers! Yellow magazines!”

A few years since, the fling of that appellation “yellow” may have had

some influence--probably did have some influence among the thoughtless.

But millions of the then indifferent and thoughtless people have become

serious and thoughtful recently. To such there is no opprobrium in the

word “yellow” as the barkers fling it at newspapers and magazines which

attack and tell the truth about the interests for which the barkers bark.

In fact, the word has become an appellation of honor rather than of

discredit--of repute rather than of disrepute.

Here is another quotation--two of them. They are from an article in

Pearson’s Magazine, February, 1912, issue. Get the magazine and read the

whole article. The article is captioned “The Railroad Game.” It will

richly compensate you:

I chanced to meet a man who is now president of one of the great

Western railroad systems. He chided me good-naturedly about my

antagonism to the railroads. Finally he said: … “You are too big

a man to be fighting the railroads. Come get into the game with

us. It isn’t how much money we make, but how much we can conceal

that counts in the railroad business.”

…

These figures do not take into consideration at all the

operations of the numerous express companies which impose upon

the people a burden approximating $125,000,000 a year while their

actual investment for all purposes does not exceed $6,000,000

a year. These companies all earn prodigiously. All pay big

dividends. All have big surplus funds, and frequently have big

melon cuttings. In one of these a few years ago $24,000,000 were

distributed among the stockholders of a single company. And after

all, these companies amount in actual service to the people to

no more than a parcels post which the government should have

established long ago. With government control of the railroads

this pernicious form of extortion would end. In European

countries express companies do not exist. There the parcels post

is supreme, satisfactory to the people and remunerative to the

governments.

Of course, the writer of the above when he mentions $6,000,000 as the

“actual investment for all purposes” means all the actual investment for

all express service purposes. In that statement he is entirely correct.

But who is the writer? Well, the man who made the statements just quoted

is Mr. O. C. Barber, the American “Match King.” Certainly no one--not

even the most courageous and venturesome hired liar of the raiding

combinations--will call Mr. Barber “yellow.”

“Why?” Well, Mr. Barber has a lot of real long-headed and hard-headed

sense. He also has _money_. He has a _whole lot_ of money. That makes

Mr. Barber a “strong” man, as Mr. Benson puts it, in the calculating

eyes and minds of public bubblers. Not only has Mr. Barber money, but,

as Pearson’s editor points out, “he is a man of affairs.” He has been a

man of affairs for fifty years. He is an officer or director in companies

which have a capital of fifty million dollars. Their combined freight

shipments are from 150,000 to 200,000 cars per year, and go to all parts

of the world.

No, there is nothing of the yapped “yellow” about Mr. Barber. When

the barkers bark of him, the trajectory of their language will carry

it scarcely beyond the walls or to the banqueters. In most cases the

barker’s voice, when adversely criticising Mr. Barber, will take that

humble, pendant expression so universally characteristic of the tail of a

scared dog.

Mr. Barber is “strong.” If you don’t know it get the February, 1912,

Pearson’s and read his article on “The Railroad Game.” You will know it

then.

The clackers who clack for those who profit by the outrageous parcels

post service in this country now, will tell you, of course, that Germany,

France and some other countries can “afford” to give their citizens lower

postal carriage rates, “because the governments own the railroads and

have their mails carried free.”

It is sufficient to say in answer to such clack that if we can have a

cheap, efficient parcels post service _only by owning the railroads_,

then let us own them.

Why not? A good, cheap parcels post service is worth it--worth it to you,

to me, to every man, woman and child of the country, both to those living

and to the generations yet unborn.

Yes, sirs, such a parcels post service is worth _more to our people than

our railroads cost to build_, or would cost to rebuild or to buy. Why do

I say that? I say it _because_ it is a _fact_--a fact that needs but a

line or two to evidence.

1. Such a parcels post service would save our people _more_ than

$300,000,000 every year.

2. At 2 per cent (a rate at which the government can borrow all the

money it wants), three hundred million dollars would pay the interest on

$15,000,000,000.

3. Fifteen billions of dollars is _more_ than either the “book” or the

“market” value of _all_ the railroads in this country--“water” included.

It is more than _twice_ their tangible, or construction, value.

So, if we can have cheap, reliable parcels post service only when the

“government own the railroads,” then let’s get busy.

One of the much _worn_ objections to a cheap parcels post service is that

it cannot be established and _profitably_ operated, as it has been in

those countries which _own_ the mail-carrying roads and pay much _lower

salaries_ to the operators of the service.

In reply, I will say that in neither Great Britain, nor in _any country

of continental Europe_ are _all_ the rail-mail roads _owned_ by the

government. But those countries do _control_ all their railroads--and

that is exactly what this government must soon do _or the railroads will

control it_.

To tell _how_ these governments got control _and keep control_ of their

railroads is another story. In fact, it is a story for each of the

countries. Suffice it to say here that they _do_ control them. One

element of that control _compels_ the railroads to carry a _large portion

of the mails free of charge_.

In Great Britain, all regular trains carry at least one mail car free,

or at a mere nominal charge, and the trunk line roads are required to

turn out extra mail trains of ten cars each on demand of the postoffice

authorities. For such a train the road can charge _no more_ for the run

than the _average cost of an average passenger train_.

France guarantees and, I believe, _pays_ the interest on a 70,000,000

franc railway bond issues. That is equivalent to $14,000,000. At 3

per cent the interest amounts to $420,000 a year. For that sum the

railroads carry all the _regular_ mails free--carry them _under

government direction and stipulation_. Last year we paid our railroads

$49,330,638.24 for carrying our mails. The French roads also carry the

officials, the soldiery, and all military supplies _free_.

That, in brief, is about what the French government _compels_ the

railroads of France to do.

_And those roads are all paying fair returns on the money invested in

them!_

It was only a few brief years since the railroads of the German Empire

were _all_ in the hands of private owners--of “frenzied financiers” who

robbed both the government and the people in outrageous mail, freight and

passenger rates. Germans will not stand for such conditions long. The

people shouted aloud their grievances and demanded redress--demanded a

remedy.

_The German government heard and heeded the demands of its people._ It

usually does. When it started to give its people relief it was met on

every hand with just the same sort of talk as has been heard in this

country for a quarter of a century.

“You can’t cut down the rates, for the roads are now earning barely

enough to pay fair interest on the investment.”

“You can’t trespass upon the ‘sacred rights’ of property.”

“You can’t think of taking such action! Why, it would create a financial

upheaval--a panic--causing widespread disaster and bankrupting the

railway companies.”

“You cannot possibly be so inconsiderate as to endanger the savings of

the hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans who have invested in our

stocks and bonds”--and a lot more of like junk.

But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a clear-headed, _clean_-minded

old German, with the _rugged honesty_ for which his race is justly noted.

Well, this Chancellor listened with courteous dignity to all their “you

can’t do this,” “You can’t do that,” etc., until it was made quite clear

to his mind that frenzied financiers and railroad grafters in his country

were _dictating as to the powers and policies of his government_.

What happened then? Why, as Creelman put in writing of the incident,

when this grand old Von heard enough of those “you can’ts” to make their

object and purpose clear to him, he jumped to his feet and turned loose a

few yards of forceful German language which, translated, summarized and

anglicized, would sound something like this:

“_I can’t! Well, you just watch me!_”

“Did he give ’em anything worth looking at?” Oh, but didn’t he? The

honest old Von sat quietly into their _own_ game, played with their own

_marked cards_ and “beat ’em to a frazzle,” as our strenuous ex-President

would put it. Did he buy up the roads, paying for all the _aqua pura_

they had tanked up?

Well, hardly! It was _control_ Von wanted, and _ownership_ was neither

immediately nor particularly sought, _beyond the point necessary to that

control_.

As I remember the story, he quietly put some agents on the floor of

the Berlin stock bourse and before the gentlemen who had handed him

that miscellaneous assortment of “can’ts” knew what had happened, _Von

had control of one or two of the German trunk lines_. Then the way he

made those friends of the “poor widows and orphans” _see_ things was

profoundly and, for a few weeks, almost _exclusively_ awful. He did not

buy the road for his government. He merely bought _control_.

His government having control, he next slashed all the silk and frills

_out of rail rates on the road or roads controlled_.

“What was the result?” Why, the “can’t” venders were on their knees to

him in six months. In a year the German government _controlled_ its

railroads and there was not a railway patriot in the Empire who was not

busy telling the Chancellor how many _more things_ he could do, if he

wanted to and, in fact, _urging_ him to do some of them.

And the “widows and orphans,” or other _legitimate_ investors in the

securities of the German roads, _lost not one cent of earned income_ in

the passing of _control_ from private to government hands. As a result,

the German government is making money from its _owned_ railroads.

The net revenues of the German Government from its railroads is now

annually about $250,000,000. From 1887 to 1906, the roads paid into the

government’s exchequer about $1,400,000,000. It has saved money from

its _controlled_ roads and is furnishing its people _a cheap and most

serviceable_ parcels post. So much for the cheap foreign mail-carriage

and _the way the “cheap foreigners” got it_.

Now, as to salaries paid. Mail carriers and clerks in this country

are paid something under $1,000 a year. Railway mail clerks are paid

an average of $1,165--_and the latter work only one-half the time for

full pay_. I have no information at hand as to the pay of mail carriers

and clerks in foreign countries, but I have the figures for the pay of

railway mail clerks in Great Britain, Germany and France. So, we will

make comparison of the pay in that class of service. They stand as

follows:

Per Year.

In the United States $1,165

In Great Britain 780

In Germany 515

In France 610

There, now, you see the shocking disparity in the very _worst_ and _all_

of its enormity--the way it is usually presented by “farmers” in Congress

who are _cultivating_ express company crops. But let us look into those

figures a little further.

Information carefully collected and collated, both by official and

private agents, among the former being the Department of Commerce and

Labor of our own government, has _conclusively_ shown that _living_ in

England and in the countries of Continental Europe is _from thirty to

forty per cent cheaper than in this country_.

Let us take 30 per cent--the lowest reported estimate of the difference

in the cost of living--subsistence, clothing, housing, schooling,

amusements, etc.--and see how the figures look in comparison as to pay of

railway mail clerks:

Per Year.

In the United States $1,165.00

In Great Britain 1,114.30

In Germany 734.30

In France 871.43

The _enormity_ of the difference, you will observe, is not so shockingly

enormous as it appears in _heeler’s_ figures first shown. But even the

last set of figures does not afford a just comparison. Here is why:

The English railway clerk is allowed $160 a year as “travel pay.” The

German rail man is provided _free_ a house that is worth an annual rental

of $135 _in Germany_. Here, it would rent for from $240 to $360. In

addition to his “salary” the French railway mail clerk is allowed $180

“travel pay” and is also provided _free_ with a house of a rental value

of $80 per year--a house that would rent here at from $160 to $300 per

year. Making these little additions to the actual service _pay_ of those

“cheap foreigners,” let’s see how they compare with our “high salaried”

railway mail clerks. We will figure the “travel pay” allowances at its

purchasing power _in buying a living_ and for the rent allowances we will

add the lowest equivalent given above of corresponding housing in this

country.

On that basis the stack-up is as follows:

Per Year.

In the United States $1,165.00

In Great Britain 1,344.30

In Germany 974.30

In France 1,288.57

Those “cheap foreigners,” _who are efficiently operating a cheap parcels

post_, you see, come out of the wash in pretty fair shape after all, when

compared with our “high salaried” postal service men.

But even the last table does not present the whole truth as to the _lie_

so often yapped about by the _tools_ of the private interests in this

country that are opposing the betterment and _cheapening_ of our parcels

post service.

The railway mail clerks of England, Germany and France not only get full

pay while laid up from temporary injury, the same as do our rail postal

men, but their governments pay those “cheap foreigners” _a pension_ when

they get old or are permanently injured--_pay it for the remaining years

those “cheap” mail handlers live_!

Among the most _brazen_, yet most frequently used, objections to a cheap

and serviceable parcels post is that it would “benefit but very few

people in the country’s vast population,” or other vocalized breath of

similar purport and _purpose_.

Objectors who use this argument belong to one of two classes: They are

either fools or think _you_ are, or they are men whose sense of the right

and wrong of things, commonly designated as conscience, got lost in their

transit from diapers to dress suits.

The “argument” is not worth a line of consideration were it not so

frequently used by objectors of the two classes just indicated. A man--_a

full-sized man_--who can give it more than a smile ought to hire a

janitor and a couple of scrub women to clean up his garret and dust off

its furnishings.

But, seriously speaking, let’s think a moment about “the few” people who

would be benefited by a cheap parcels post service.

There are 95,000,000 or more folks in this country.

There are about 36,000,000 of that number engaged in farming, farm labor,

stock-raising and other agricultural occupations, counting the dependent

families.

Counting the dependent families. Those “few” would be benefited, would

they not?

Counting wives and babies, there are somewhere around 22,000,000 of our

folks engaged in the mechanical trades and manufacturing.

Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?

Among our folks are, counting families as before, not less than

16,000,000 domestic servants, saloon, hotel and restaurant people,

policemen, firemen, soldiers, sailors and laborers “not elsewhere

specified.”

Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?

Next, we have around 12,000,000 of bookkeepers, clerks, agents,

operators, teamsters, etc., “engaged in trade and transportation,”

again counting “the little ones at home” but _not_ counting the “retail

merchants” nor the _railway manipulators_.

Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?

Next, we may enumerate among our people, doctors, lawyers, teachers and

other _professional folks_, counting their folks at home the same as

before, some 7,000,000.

Those “few” would be benefited, would they not.

Next we have--

But we have already found about _ninety-one millions_ of the “few people”

among our folks who _would be benefited_ by a cheap, serviceable parcels

post. That leaves somewheres around four millions to be accounted for.

Again, including dependent families not less than 3,000,000 of that

number can be classed as retail merchants. Half of that 3,000,000 are

merchants, dealers, manufacturers, etc., in the “larger cities,” whom

even the opponents of the parcels post have agreed would be _benefited_

by its service. At any rate it has been _demonstrated_ by organizations

of merchants in the large cities that parcel deliveries within a radius

of thirty or forty miles of their stores, which had cost from _eight to

fifty cents_, can be made at an average cost _not exceeding four cents_.

That leaves the country merchants, the jobbers, the railroad and express

company raiders and their hired opinion molders to account for. Of these,

the country merchant is by far the most numerous, likewise the most

deserving of consideration.

On a previous page I made it fairly clear, I think, that a good, cheap

parcels post service would be of great service to him. He has the respect

and the confidence of his customers. He knows the worth of goods. He can

sell the goods--any line or make--at the advertised or catalogued price

and _still make a good profit_, as I have previously shown.

The parcels carriage charge, either by mail or express, is now so high

he is compelled to order in quantities to keep “laid-down-prices” low

enough to meet competition. A cheap parcels post service would put him in

position to meet the competition of the larger merchants of _the cities.

A line of samples_, showing the latest patterns, makes and grades, could

take the place of fully _half the shelf stock he now carries_, aside from

the staples. He could take the order of his customer and have the goods

delivered by parcels post either to his store or, if in a rural delivery

district, to the home of his customer for a few cents--_have it delivered

as cheaply as the big city merchant, manufacturer or mail order house can

have it delivered_.

Do not overlook that last point, Mr. Country Merchant, when _hired_

yappers are coaching you to oppose a good parcels post service. The

government will not pay “rebates” nor allow “differentials” in its

parcels carriage. You can put your packages through the mails at as _low

a charge_ as that paid by a merchant _with millions of capital invested

in stocks of goods_.

Of all the objections now urged against a _domestic parcels_ post in

this country, the dangers lurking in the _mail order house_ is the

most industriously worked. “It would be a fine thing for the eastern

merchant to have a parcels post system whereby he could supply the people

throughout the country,” said a Mr. Louis M. Boswell, a few years since

when speaking to the National Association of Merchants and Travelers,

convened in Chicago.

And who, pray you, is or was Mr. Boswell? Why, Mr. Boswell was one of

the main cogs at that time, in the _Western freight traffic wheels_. Mr.

Boswell _talked for his personal interests_, and for those interests

only. To make his anti-parcels post talk _catch_ his auditors--the

Western merchants--he even told the _truth_ about the express companies.

Freight should be transported as such by _railroads in freight

cars_, and not by the government in mail cars.… I have long

regarded the express companies as _unnecessary middlemen_.…

_Millions of dollars would be saved annually_ to the public if

the express companies were done away with, and I do not believe

the _revenues of the railroads would be decreased_.

“And what are you on earth for,” wrote a self-serving trade

journal editor in 1900, “if not to look after _your own

interests_? A parcels post … will _knock your business silly_.

You are the one entitled to the trade in your town and

neighborhood.”

I present the above quotations as _fair samples_ of the “argument”--its

method and its _source_--against a domestic parcels post. Let it be

noticed that these two quoted statements--as is the case with most of the

other promotion talk against a parcels post--is talked or addressed to

_country, village, town and one-night-stand city merchants_.

The _mail order houses_ “will knock your business silly!”

Now, of course, it must be admitted that, in this day of super-heated

service of _self_, a man’s _personal_ interests must receive his _first_

consideration. But I cannot for the life of me see why these “Western

merchants and travelers” take the talk handed them by “traffic” cappers,

express company agents and _space muddlers_--take it in such large

_slugs_--and apparently overlook the fact that these talking and writing

bubblers _are serving special interests_. Can you understand it, Mr.

“Storekeeper” of Rubenville? Or you, Mr. “Merchant” of Swelltown? Or you

Mr. “Shipper” of Cornshock or Feedersville?

Mr. Benson in his March article in Pearson’s, says something anent the

great hue and cry which the raiders, aided in this particular case by

merchandise jobbers and some of the larger department store retailers,

are trying to raise among country merchants and rural residents about

what a great “menace and danger” the mail order houses would be if a

cheap, serviceable parcels post was put into operation. I hope my readers

will carefully peruse what he has said. Here it is in part only:

The railroads, in fighting the parcels post through the country

merchants, are playing the old game. The old game is to work

upon the fears of a minority, create what appears to be a

difference of opinion among the people, and thus give Congress

an opportunity to say that as sentiment seems to be divided,

it would perhaps be better to do nothing until the public can

thrash the matter out and discover what it wants. In the present

instance we see great firms like Marshall Field & Company

combined in an organization to spread among country merchants

fear of a parcels post. Such an association was recently formed

in Chicago with a membership of 300.…

There is only one country merchant, perhaps, to every 500 country

customers, and the country customers are all in favor of a

parcels post. All other things being equal, Congress always moves

in the direction of the greatest number of votes. But in this

matter, as in many others, things are not equal. Great financial

interests and a few country merchants are regarded by Congress as

a majority.…

“At any rate, I cannot forget that while Marshall Field & Company cry out

against a parcels post, because it would build up the mail order houses,

that they themselves do a large mail order business.

“This action on their part may seem like patriotism of the highest

sort--but it isn’t. The mail order houses don’t care a rap about a

parcels post. They are not against it, but they are not for it. My

authority for this statement is Mr. Julius Rosenwald, President of

Sears, Roebuck & Company of Chicago, the largest mail order house in the

world. I approached him upon the subject, believing that he would grow

enthusiastic, but he didn’t. He said he had never signed a petition for

a parcels post, or otherwise interested himself in the matter, and never

should do so. He didn’t tell me why, but I found out why and will tell

you.

“The minimum freight rates of the railroads literally drive country

customers into the mail order houses. A farmer’s wife, we will say, has

a present need for two or three articles that she can buy from a mail

order house for less than her local merchant can afford to sell them to

her. But the articles weigh only fifteen pounds, the express charge would

annihilate her saving, and the minimum freight rate, for which she might

as well have 100 pounds shipped to her, is just as high as the express

rate. But she still wants the two or three articles and she wants to

buy them from the mail order house. So what does this thrifty woman do?

First, she increases her order by putting down a few articles that she

will need perhaps three months later. Then she canvasses her neighbors

for orders until she gets enough to make 100 pounds, and divides the

freight charges pro rata. The result is that the mail order house gets an

order for 100 pounds of goods instead of an order for the fifteen pounds

that would have been bought if a parcels post like the English or the

German had enabled the farmer’s wife to order only what she first meant

to buy. Incidentally, the country merchant in her vicinity is not helped

thereby.

“If you have any doubt about the truth of this statement, send a petition

for a parcels post to Mr. Julius Rosenwald, President of Sears, Roebuck

& Company, Chicago, and see how quickly he will not sign it. You will

not be able to get him to lift a finger to help you. He is sending out

fifty-eight loaded freight cars each day, comparatively little express

matter, doing a business of $63,000,000 a year, and is quite satisfied

with such transportation facilities as exist.

“But don’t blame the mail order men because they don’t help you. Help

yourself. First, help yourself by getting it clearly in your mind who in

this matter is the chief offender. Your government is the chief offender.

So far as postal matters are concerned, your government is protecting the

interests that are robbing you. Your government goes even to the extent

of submitting to robbery at the hands of the interests that rob you. I

refer to the continuing scandal of exorbitant mail contracts.”…

Now, I desire to talk somewhat directly to the rural and village

storekeeper and of storekeeping.

The manufacturer, wholesaler or jobber always sells the retail

merchant--_the quantity buyer_--_cheaper_ than they will sell in broken

lots to the consumer. They will always sell to _you_ cheaper than they

will sell to your customer, will they not?

You have an “edge” of 20 to 40 per cent., have you not? But to hold

that “edge” now, you must order in quantities which _anticipate_ the

demands of your custom, must you not? You must “stock up,” must you

not? If you miss your guess, and _underbuy_ the demands of your trade,

you must, later, “sort up,” must you not? If you sort-up, you do it at

“broken-lot” rates and pay _excessive carriage charges_ for delivery to

your place of business, do you not? If, on the other hand, you _overbuy_

the demands of your trade, your shelves are soon full of “shelf-worns,”

are they not? These shelf-worns you must unload, must you not? To do

that, you offer “bargains,” do you not? Unloading “bargains” _loses your

“edge”_--your _profits_--does it not?

But still another point in your present _and compelled_ method of

business. Your customer is _never_ so well pleased with your _sacrifice_

“bargains” as he or she is with the _fresh, up-to-date article_, which

you sell at a _profit_. Is that not so?

Now, let us see how a _cheap_ parcels post would “knock your business

silly.” Let’s put the rate, say at 5 cents for parcels up to one pound, 8

cents to two pounds, 10 cents to three pounds, 12 cents to four pounds,

and so shading up in weight to twenty-five pounds, _at one cent a pound_.

I present this scale of weights and prices merely to illustrate. I have

given them no particular thought or consideration--that is, I do not

present them as a _recommended_ basis for a parcels carriage system. I

believe, however, that the government can carry and _deliver_ parcels at

about the rates named _and not create any larger “deficits”_ than the

postal service now shows.

That aside, let us see how you, Mr. _Retail_ Country Merchant, would come

out in the deal:

_First_: You would not have to “stock up” beyond the _known_ demands of

your customers. Your “shelf-capital,” then, would need not, necessarily,

be more than _half_ what is now is.

_Second_: You could serve your customers fresh goods of latest pattern

and at _less_ cost, and still serve them _at a profit_, instead of

working off shelf-worn “bargains” on them at a _loss_.

_Third_: Mrs. Lucy Smith sees a Sereno Payne _imported_ glove, advertised

by an “eastern merchant” or some distant “mail order house.” It is the

“very latest” and guaranteed to be the very best “kid” ever built--from

a _premature_ calf. Or Uncle Joe wants a mop rag-holder for Martha. It,

too, is advertised by some distant manufacturer, merchant or mail-order

bogey man. Say the advertised price of each is $1.00. Each, of course,

weighs _less than one pound_.

Now, if Mrs. Smith or Uncle Joe orders _direct_, the article costs them,

postage added at our hypothetical rate, $1.05. Of course, they will have

inquired of you before they ordered--to see if you have it in stock--will

they not? Well, you haven’t it in stock--and you can’t work off on them

“something just as good.” Mrs. Smith just _must_ have those particular

gloves, and no other mop-holder will satisfy Uncle Joe. Now what do you

do?

Do you tear off a yard or two of tirade about mail order houses that are

“knocking your business silly” and about manufacturers who are “flooding

the country with fake goods?” If you do, you ought to quit business and

go put your head in pickle or take the “cure.” But you won’t tirade. No

sir, nary tirade from you! You will be onto your job in a minute. And why?

Well, first, you know that you can get those gloves or that mop-holder

for 20 _to_ 40 _per cent less_ than the rate advertised for Mrs. Smith

and Uncle Joe. You can have either sent by mail and deliver it to Mrs.

Smith or Uncle Joe at the _advertised_ rate, pay the parcels charge

yourself and still make 10 to 20 cents on the deal. If the gloves or the

mop-holder strikes you as a probable “seller,” you can order a half dozen

or a dozen pairs of the gloves, or three or four mop-holders, and _still

keep your parcel inside the one or two pound rate_.

One other point in closing:

Well, it may be of no use--of _no_ service value to the reader who asks

the question. He may be a man who has reached his limit of endurance--who

has given up all hope of improving or correcting _legalized_ injustices

which _rob him to enrich others_. If so, he has my sympathy. Or he may

be a man who has “set into the game” and lost, or one who is _hired_ as

a capper, steerer or “look out” for its operators. I cannot say. If the

former, he still has my sympathy; if the latter, my contempt.

I am fully convinced that the outrages permitted by the municipal, state

and national governments of this country in rendering public service to

its people have _discouraged thousands_ of its _best citizens_--best in

_manhood_ I mean, of course. The beneficiaries of the outrages I speak

of are, usually, rated as “best” at the bank, in the society columns and

_in court proceedings_. Even our divorce court records give the latter

_conspicuous precedence_.

“Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates and men decay.”

No truer thought as to the politics and policy of _government_ was ever

written than that. When wealth accumulates by _legalizing_ the spoliation

and exploitation of the great body of a nation’s people for the benefit

of a few, _the decay of its manhood is all the more rapid_. When any

considerable body of a nation’s citizens begins to ask, “What is the

use?”--that nation has reached the danger line--has started down the

decline.

Now, I undertake to say that no observing man of average intelligence

can be found in this country today who will not give it as his _honest

opinion_--unless, of course, he is _hired_ to say otherwise--that

not only thousands but _millions_ of our people--of its industrial,

productive manhood and womanhood--are asking, “What is the use” of

arguing and struggling against the oppressive conditions which the _laws

and our administrative and judicial officers force upon us_? What is the

use of “knocking” the men who get the “graft,” the rake-off or the loot?

“Their big bunch of money,” says one writer, “makes so much _noise_, no

one hears our knocks.” “Everybody is out for the stuff,” says another.

“It is _their_ representatives not ours who make the laws and it is

_their_ judges not ours who adjudicate them.” “Industry, thrift, brains

and even _honesty_ have ceased to count anywhere, save on _their_

payrolls. _Money alone counts._”

“Stop knocking, my son,” has become _common_ in paternal counsel. “Sit

into the game and _get money_. Of course, ‘get it honestly if you _can_,

but _get it_.’”

“And if I fail,” asks the boy.

“Well, my son, unless you are careful to salt away in some place secure

from assessors and raiders as well as from thieves, the chips _I have

raked in_, your best course is to _get on the payroll of the gamesters_.”

A recent reading says, in effect, that there are dropped into the life

of every man moments in which “he has the chance to act the hypocrite

or to act the scoundrel.” But when _aided and abetted_ by the law, such

“chances” are not merely for the _moment_. They extend through days and

years, and those so aided and abetted usually take _both_ chances--_act

both the hypocrite and the scoundrel, and to the time limit of their

protected opportunity_.

But that is neither all nor the _worst_ of it.

This _legalized_ hypocrisy and scoundrelism is now _widely_ known to the

honest, productive citizenship of the country, _and it is daily becoming

better known_. What is the result? Simply this:

The law and government administrators are, in permitting such injustices,

not only _creating class distinction_ by the enrichment of a few of our

citizens and holding the millions to the subsistence level--_hundreds of

thousands of them to the “bread-line”_--not only that, but legalized and

_protected_ injustice is _dignifying hypocrisy and scoundrelism_. It is

sapping the _moral foundations_ of a worthy manhood as well as _robbing_

it of its material wealth and earnings.

But what has this sermonizing to do with the parcels post question, some

one asks? It has this to do with it!

_Of the numerous array of law enriched hypocrites and scoundrels in this

country, nowhere can be found more of them to the lineal or square rod

than can be counted in the ranks of the favored beneficiaries of existing

postal laws and regulations--in the ranks of the opponents to cheapening

and bettering the parcels carriage service._

FOOTNOTES

[17] By latest Postal Union agreements, 12 cents a pound, instead of 16

cents a pound (maximum limit 4 pounds) for United States delivery.

[18] Postoffices, 1910.

Transcriber’s Note

List of changes made to the original text:

Page 9, “poloi” changed to “polloi” (the _hoi polloi_) (we’ll ignore the

wrongness of using “the” as well as “hoi”; our author is an expert on

postage, not Greek)

Page 51, “controvening” changed to “contravening” (contravening the

constitutional rights)

Page 57, “be” changed to “he” (but he showed no hesitancy)

Page 73, “neswpapers” changed to “newspapers” (indeed newspapers in

general)

Page 85, “Posmaster” changed to “Postmaster” (what our Postmaster General

is after)

Page 89, “italization” changed to “italicization” (my italicization of

certain of its phrasings)

Page 91, “Massacheusetts” changed to “Massachusetts” (hulling beans in

Massachusetts)

Page 123, “naratives” changed to “narratives” (historical narratives

about the civil war)

Page 123, “evidenee” changed to “evidence” (shall be made to appear by

evidence)

Page 125, “bureauocracy” changed to “bureaucracy” (Next to a bureaucracy)

Page 150, “perparatory” changed to “preparatory” (the names and locations

of preparatory schools)

Page 183, “wastful” changed to “wasteful” (the loose, wasteful methods)

Page 199, “bagagge” changed to “baggage” (transports them in the baggage

cars)

Page 208, “hubub” changed to “hubbub” (not going to raise any noisy

hubbub)

Page 213, “dominition” changed to “domination” (independent of party

domination)

Page 213, “presistently” changed to “persistently” (which the government

persistently refuses)

Page 214, “tonnaged” changed to “tonnage” (his estimated tonnage of

franked and penalty matter)

Page 225, “unsurps” changed to “usurps” (in such practice usurps the

function)

Page 232, “accunt” changed to “account” (Expenditures on account of

previous years)

Page 236, unnecessarily duplicated word “has” deleted (has, so far as I

have seen, [has] shown)

Page 250, “uniformely” changed to “uniformly” (uniformly, if not

entirely, support)

Page 251, “franchiess” changed to “franchises” (private enterprise under

franchises from the government)

Page 259, “reveneus” changed to “revenues” (this raid of the express

companies on postal revenues)

Page 261, “accure” changed to “accrue” (the surplus shall accrue)

Page 264, “remembeerd” changed to “remembered” (When it is remembered)

Page 269, “testimnoy” changed to “testimony” (the testimony of numerous

other railroad representatives)

Page 277, “befudling” changed to “befuddling” (a lot of befuddling,

alleged data)

Page 280, “dominent” changed to “dominant” (the dominant factors involved)

Page 287, “abitrary” changed to “arbitrary” (unjust regulations and

arbitrary impositions)

Page 296, “corruscations” changed to “coruscations” (with rhetorical

coruscations)

Page 307, “doue” changed to “done” (shipping is done by railroad

employes.)

Page 312, “throught” changed to “thought” (when thought reached the

conclusion)

Page 345, “af” changed to “of” (the possibility of collecting a higher

rate)

Page 345, “approbrium” changed to “opprobrium” (there is no opprobrium in

the word)

Page 354, “mecrhants” changed to “merchants” (one-night-stand city

merchants)

Page 359, “spoilation” changed to “spoliation” (the spoliation and

exploitation)

End of Project Gutenberg's Postal Riders and Raiders, by W. H. Gantz

It was carefully figured in 1900 that our rural, or non-railroad,