ausser dem Botenlohn noch eine besondere Verg[:u]tung beansprucht, weil
er auf dem Botengange gleichzeitig einige Schweine f[:u]r die Herrschaft
nach dem Bestimmungsort hat treiben m[:u]ssen. Da diese Begleitung auf
kein besonders lebhaftes Gangtempo schliessen l[:a]sst, so d[:u]rfen wir
es dem Garzonus nicht verdenken, wenn er die deutschen Boten zum
Wetteifer mit ihren Collegen im alten Persien ermahnt, deren
Geschwindigkeit Xenophon in der Kyrop[:a]die mit dem Fluge der Kraniche
vergleicht."--Ibid., p. 15.
[703] Ibid., p. 4.
[704] B. E. Crole, _Geschichte der deutschen Post_, Eisenach, 1889, p.
214.
[705] "Die Vereinigung Oesterreichs mit den Burgundischen Niederlanden
ruft die erste Reichspost, die Vereinigung von Brandenburg, Preussen,
Cleve und Hinterpommern unter einem Scepter die erste Brandenburgische
Staatspost hervor."--H. von Stephan, op. cit., p. 5.
[706] F. Ohmann, _Die Anf[:a]nge des Postwesens_, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 49,
86, and 92.
[707] "(1) Die Unterhaltung solcher Boten lange Jahre vor Errichtung der
Posten [:u]blich gewesen; (2) dem Taxis w[:a]re nur das Post-, nicht das
Botenwesen zu Lehen gegeben; (3) es w[:u]rden ihnen (den Boten
n[:a]mlich) viele Waren und Kostbarkeiten anvertraut, welche sie
[:u]berliefern und daf[:u]r stehen, welches wieder der Postillone Werk
nicht sei; (4) die Posten dienten wohl zu Briefen, nicht aber zu
Bestellung anderer Sachen, also k[:o]nnten Posten und Boten wohl
nebeneinander bestehen."--Imperial Rescript of 1686, given by Beust,
Teil 1, s. 149 ff; cited F. Haass, _Die Post und der Charakter ihrer
Eink[:u]nfte_, Stuttgart, 1890, p. 93.
[708] "For very good and potent reasons, especially on account of the
troublesome war, as also for the purpose of obtaining good and reliable
information about the Turks, the hereditary enemies of the whole of
Christendom, and other potentates, adjacent to the Empire, in order that
the Emperor, the King, and other potentates may exchange their
correspondence."--Dr. Joseph R[:u]bsam, _L'Union postale_, 1892, p. 126.
[709] "Es lag allweg 5 Meil wegs ein Post von den andern, einer war zu
Kempten, einer zu Bless, einer an der Bruck zu Elchingen und also fortan
imerdar 5 Meil wegs von einander und must allweg ein Pot des andern
warten, und so bald der ander zu ihm ritt, so bliess er ein h[:o]rnlin,
das h[:o]rt ein bott der in der Herberg lag und must gleich auf sein.
Einer musste all Stand ein Meil, das ist 2 Stund (wohl f[:u]r den
Fussg[:a]nger berechnet) weit reiten, oder es ist ihm am Lohn abzogen,
und musten sie reiten Tag und Nacht."--"Memminger Chronicle," cited F.
Ohmann, _Die Anf[:a]nge des Postwesens_, Leipzig, 1909, p. 102.
[710] Dr. Joseph R[:u]bsam, ibid., p. 157.
[711] Ibid., p. 127.
[712] "Contrary to what was usually the case with the postal
arrangements in antiquity and the Middle Ages, the institution founded
by Francis von Taxis, though chiefly intended to serve the purposes of
the State, assumed from its very beginning a character of public utility
and political economy, for it was at the disposal of anybody wanting a
rapid, cheap, and safe means of conveyance for his letters."--Dr. Joseph
R[:u]bsam, ibid., p. 128.
[713] Ibid., p. 130.
[714] Von Beust, cited H. von Stephan, op. cit., p. 6.
[715] B. E. Crole, _Geschichte der deutschen Post_, Eisenach, 1889, p.
201; H. von Stephan, Geschichte der preussischen Post, Berlin, 1859, pp.
6-10.
[716] Proclamation of 6th November 1597; B. E. Crole, op. cit., p. 205.
[717] An account of the struggles between the Taxis family and the
princes is given in Crole's _Geschichte der deutschen Post_ (Part III,
chaps. iv. and v.).
[718] "Trotz der Ausdehnung der Taxis'schen Posten im 'Reich' h[:o]rte
das Botenwesen in den einzelnen L[:a]ndern und in den Reichsst[:a]dten
keineswegs auf sondern entwickelte sich fort und fort und hatte seine
Botenmeister, auch Postmeister und andere Bedienstete."--B. E. Crole,
op. cit., p. 213.
[719] Ibid., p. 231.
[720] E. Gallois, _La Poste et les Moyens de Communication des Peuples
[a'] travers les Si[e']cles_, Paris, 1894, p. 94.
[721] B. E. Crole, op. cit., p. 247.
[722] The territory of the Taxis posts shrank between the years 1790 and
1811 from 3,922 square (German) miles to 745 square (German) miles, and
a number of territorial posts took the place of the Imperial posts. In
1810 there were no less than 43 of these territorial posts.--_Die
Brieftaxe in Deutschland_, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1862, p. 4; C. F.
M[:u]ller, _Die F[:u]rstlich Thurn und Taxis'schen Poster und
Posttaxen_, Jena, 1845, p. 7.
[723] Oskar Grosse, _Die Beseitigung des Thurn und Taxis'schen
Postwesens in Deutschland_, Minden in Westf., 1898, p. 33.
[724] C. F. M[:u]ller, op. cit., p. 13.
[725] The rates for a letter weighing 1 loth (1/2 ounce) were:--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance | |
(German | In W[:u]rtemberg | In Prussia
Miles). | (Taxis Posts). | (State Post).
---------+------------------------------+-----------------------------
1-3 | 2kr. = 6-6/7 pf. | 2-1/4 sgr. D 1-1/2 sgr. E
3-6 | 3kr. = 10-2/7 pf. | 3 sgr. 2-1/4 sgr.
6-12 | 4 kr. = 1 sgr. 1-5/7 pf. | 4-1/2 sgr. 3 sgr.
12-18 | 6kr. = 1 sgr. 8-4/7 pf. | 6 sgr. 3-3/4 sgr.
18-24 | 8kr. = 2 sgr. 3-3/7 pf. | 7-1/2 sgr. 4-1/2 sgr.
24-30 | 10 kr. = 2 sgr. 10-2/7 pf. | 7-1/2 sgr. 4-1/2 sgr.
30-36 | 12 kr. = 3 sgr. 5-1/7 pf. | 9 sgr. 6 sgr.
36-42 | 14 kr. = 4 sgr. | 10-1/2 sgr. 6 sgr.
42-48 | 16 kr. = 4 sgr. 6-6/7 pf. | 10-1/2 sgr. 6 sgr.
48-54 | 18 kr. = 5 sgr. 1-5/7 pf. | 12 sgr. 7-1/2 sgr.
54-60 | 20 kr. = 5 sgr. 8-4/7 pf. | 12 sgr. 7-1/2 sgr.
---------+------------------------------+-----------------------------
D: Rates established 18th December 1824.
E: Rates established 1st October 1844.--Ibid., pp. 9 and 39.
[726] K. A. H. Schmid, _Zur Geschichte der Briefporto-Reform in
Deutschland_, Jena, 1864, p. 36.
[727] Oskar Grosse, _Die Beseitigung des Thurn und Taxis'schen
Postwesens in Deutschland_, pp. 98-9.
[728] Ibid., p. 47.
[729] Ibid., p. 66.
[730] The conditions were in many respects similar to those obtaining in
the United States. _Vide supra_, p. 191.
[731] "In England you have thickly congested rural districts, large
towns every few miles, and tremendous cities: in Canada you have a
population of less than 8,000,000 spread over a vast area, with few
cities or large towns, and with vast spaces that must be traversed where
no population exists.... We are giving, as compared with England, a flat
rate in an area twice as great as Britain gives parcel post, and where
all the conditions are much less favourable."--Hon. L. Pelletier, _Parl.
Debates, Canada_ (_Commons_), 4th June 1913.
[732] _Canada Official Postal Guide_, 1917, pp. 27-8.
[733] Such improvements as the introduction of letter-cards, reply-paid
postcards, etc., afford conveniences to the public, but they have little
bearing on general questions of rates of charge. The number of such
articles passing by post is insignificant in comparison with the total
postal traffic.
[734] Thus, in the United Kingdom, the number of letters registered in
1913-14 was .68 per cent. of the total number posted. The total cost of
the supplemental services, including registration, insurance, and
express delivery, was in 1913-14 only about a million, out of a total
cost for all postal services of over [L]17,000,000 (_Annual Report of
the Postmaster-General_, 1913-14, p. 92).
[735] "In the present century the Post Office has assumed three new
functions--the transmission of money, and telegrams, and the custody of
savings. These are alike only in requiring a widespread system of branch
offices."--A. M. Ogilvie's article on "The Post Office" in R. H. Inglis
Palgrave's _Dict. Political Economy_, London, 1899, vol. iii. p. 175.
"The so-called 'Post Office' is in fact a collection of different,
though connected, industries."--C. F. Bastable, _Public Finance_,
London, 1903, p. 206.
[736] See H. R. Meyer, _Public Ownership and the Telephone in Great
Britain_, New York, 1907.
[737] "To-day, State ownership is the general rule over Europe, and only
in America is there private ownership on a large scale. It is
significant that the first seizure of this monopoly of the State was in
France, on the simple ground that it was not safe to allow so important
a device to be in other than the hands of the State. In 1837 a law was
passed making every kind of telegraph a State monopoly. This was due to
Napoleonic influence. It was not until 1870 that the British Government
claimed the monopoly."--John Lee, _Economics of Telegraphs and
Telephones_, London, 1913, p. 2.
[738] "No man can feel a more intimate conviction than I do that,
whatever our financial difficulties may be, we must not take measures to
meet them which should bear upon the comforts of the labouring
classes.... Well, then, I must, with my sense of public duty, abandon
the idea of raising a revenue from the Post Office."--Sir R. Peel, 11th
March 1842, _Parl. Debates_ (_Commons_), vol. lxi. col. 434.
"If, therefore, it should also happen that it (the penny) is the best
rate adapted ultimately to produce the largest amount of money profit,
such a coincidence would be the result of _accident, not of
design_."--_Report from Select Committee on Postage_, 1843; evidence of
Sir Rowland Hill, Answer 74.
"The Post Office, and, since the fall in silver, the Mint, both produce
in England a net revenue, but the yield of revenue ought to be
considered as purely incidental if not accidental."--J. Shield
Nicholson, _Principles of Political Economy_, London, 1901, vol. iii. p.
372.
As a war measure the United Kingdom has now increased the rate on
letters over one ounce in weight. Such letters are, however, only a
small proportion of the total number of letters posted (_vide supra_, p.
33). Canada has imposed a war tax of one cent on all letters, and on
postcards (_supra_, p. 57).
[739] _Vide_ Alfred Marshall, _Principles of Economics_, London, 1907,
vol. i. p. 124.
"If I put a letter in the pillar-box rather than walk half a mile to
deliver it by hand, it is clear that I value the service at one penny at
least, and if its true value is to be taken at less than a penny, it
must be assumed that some one would have carried the letter for less
than a penny if the Post Office monopoly had been absent. But to deal
thoroughly with this question it would be necessary to enter on a
discussion of the Austrian theory of value and Marshall's conception of
'consumer's rent.'"--E. Cannan (_Memoranda on Classification and
Incidence_, p. 163).
[740] "Notre syst[e']me fiscal demande aux imp[^o]ts indirects la plus
grande partie de nos recettes budg['e]taires. Les allumettes sont
lourdement tax['e]es. ['E]crire une lettre est, malgr['e] tout, moins
indispensable [a'] l'homme qu'allumer du feu. Tant que les objets de
premi[e']re necessit['e] sont frapp['e]s, il n'y a pas raison
d['e]cisive pour refuser de laisser pr['e]lever sur les correspondances
de toutes sortes un imp[^o]t indirect, qui appara[^i]t, dans les
['e]critures budg['e]taires, comme un exc['e]dent de recettes des
Postes, T['e]l['e]graphes, et T['e]l['e]phones sur leurs d['e]penses.
"Si l['e]gitimes que soient en principe les b['e]n['e]fices de
l'['E]tat-postier, tenons pour certain que le public, [a'] moins de
quelque catastrophe impr['e]vue, ne permettra pas de les accro[^i]tre
beaucoup, et que les Ministres de Finances de demain auront beaucoup de
peine [a'] conserver le peu qui leur en reste."--_Rapport portant
fixation du Budget g['e]n['e]ral_, Chambre des D['e]put['e]s, Session
1909, No. 2767.
[741] "The widest division of public revenue is into (1) that obtained
by the State in its various functions as a great corporation or
'juristic person,' operating under the ordinary conditions that govern
individuals or private companies, and (2) that taken from the revenues
of the society by the power of the sovereign."--C. F. Bastable, _Public
Finance_, London, 1903, p. 158. Of. C. C. Plehn, _Introduction to Public
Finance_, New York, 1909, p. 79; E. B. A. Seligman, _Essays in
Taxation_, New York, 1913, p. 400, et seq.; see also Bastable, op. cit.,
p. 156.
[742] E.g. "The common mode of levying a tax on the conveyance of
letters is by making the Government the sole authorized carrier of them,
and demanding a monopoly price. When this price is so moderate as it is
in this country under the uniform penny postage, scarcely if at all
exceeding what would be charged under the freest competition by any
private company, it can hardly be considered as taxation, but rather as
the profits of a business; whatever excess there is above the ordinary
profits of stock being a fair result of the saving of expense, caused by
having only one establishment and one set of arrangements for the whole
country, instead of many competing ones."--J. S. Mill, _Principles of
Political Economy_, London, 1871, vol. ii. p. 461.
[743] _Vide_ note 2, opposite.
[744] "Wherever the benefit to the individual can be even approximately
estimated there is a strong presumption in favour of levying the cost
incurred from him and converting the tax into a 'fee.'"--C. F. Bastable,
op. cit., p. 267.
"To be properly remunerative to the State, as to a private individual,
the price at which a commodity is sold must be sufficient to pay
interest on the capital invested in the business, that is to say, to pay
for the use of the property which must be used in producing the
commodity, as well as to pay the more immediate cost of its production
in wages and materials. There is no ground at all for the theory
sometimes put forward that the State should deliberately abstain from
making a profit from the working of an institution like the Post Office.
Taxpayers are indeed nearly all users of the Post Office, and users of
the Post Office are nearly all taxpayers, but there is nothing to show
that people are taxed in the same proportion as they use the Post
Office--the largest taxpayers are not necessarily the largest users of
the Post Office. Consequently it is not a matter of complete
indifference whether the State, which in this case means the taxpayers,
makes a profit on the business or not. The only question difficult to
decide is how much interest on the capital invested the State ought to
obtain, in order to make the business remunerative but not a source of
taxation. When the State has no monopoly, or only a monopoly secured by
driving out all competitors in fair commercial rivalry (if such a case
has ever occurred), it may charge what it can get for the commodity sold
without making the business a source of taxation. But when the State has
conferred on itself a monopoly of a business, it is evident that to
charge the price which would bring in the largest profit would often be
simply equivalent to laying a tax on the commodity. In this case, the
price charged should only be such as would produce a rate of interest
which would satisfy private individuals or joint-stock companies,
supposing there were no monopoly. The rate of interest should be
reckoned in relation to the actual market value of the property used,
not in relation to what it may have originally cost the State. When the
State makes a bad investment the loss should be written off once for all
as soon as it is discovered. If, for instance, a State has bought
telegraph apparatus for far more than it is worth, there can be no
reason why the senders of telegrams, and not the whole body of
taxpayers, should pay for the mistake."--Edwin Cannan, _Elementary
Political Economy_, London, 1903, pp. 130-1.
The cost which ought in strictness to be taken is the cost of the most
economical private commercial undertaking which would provide an equal
service if the monopoly of the Post Office were withdrawn:--
"I do not regard the greater part of the Post Office revenue as a tax at
all. If all of it were earned by doing for the public on a large scale
work that no private company could do as cheaply, because it would have
to do it on a small scale, then I should say that none of the Post
Office revenue was a tax. That part, however, of its revenue which it
gets by prohibiting others from performing services for the public is a
tax."--Alfred Marshall, _The Times_, 6th April 1891.
[745] The terms "Mixed Taxes" and "Quasi-Taxes" have been applied to
charges of this character. "Mixed Taxes, or Quasi-Taxes, naturally arise
when a governing body makes demands for payments, and gives something in
return, but without any pretence of equivalence between individual
payments and individual returns."--R. Jones, _The Nature and First
Principle of Taxation_, London, 1914, p. 7.
[746] E.g. "Many definitions of the word 'tax' have been proposed, but I
know of none which would include just so much of the Post Office revenue
as happens to be in excess of the amount expended in the year and no
more.
"I believe that the desire to reckon this amount and no more as a tax,
arises from a somewhat dim impression that it is the sum which the State
exacts in excess of what a private company, without any legal or natural
monopoly, would have to be satisfied with for performing the same
services. But it is not. In the first place, such a private company
would expect and receive about 3 per cent. on its capital in addition to
the mere working expenses. We do not know what the capital of the Post
Office is, but it must be very great, seeing that all the more important
offices are owned in fee simple. Secondly, a company would raise new
capital for new buildings and the purchase of more land, instead of
defraying the expense as if it were current working expenditure.
Thirdly, a company would not 'encourage thrift' by giving away upwards
of [L]700,000 a year to the depositors in the savings bank, by paying
2-1/2 per cent. Fourthly, in all sorts of ways the Post Office is not
conducted as a commercial enterprise would be. For example, it spends
more than a company would do in the less profitable districts.
"The only argument I know of in favour of treating the so-called 'net
revenue' alone as a tax, thus breaks down. If any part of the gross
revenue is a tax, the whole must be."--E. Cannan (_Memoranda on
Classification and Incidence_, p. 163).
[747] "The payment for the same service may be a price in one State, a
fee in a second, or a tax in a third.... The controlling consideration
in the classification of public revenues is not so much the conditions
attending the action of government or the kinds of businesses conducted
by the government, as the economic relations existing between the
individual and the government."--E. R. A. Seligman, _Essays in
Taxation_, p. 423.
[748] This has been held a justification for regarding the letter rate
as a whole as a pure tax:--
"A special service is no doubt rendered to each contributor of the tax,
as well as a general service to the whole community, by means of the
facilities of communication always available; but the charge is what is
technically known as a tax, and the fact that a particular, as well as a
general, service is rendered, does not alter the tax nature of the
charge. Apart from the theory it has also to be considered that the
productive portion of the Post Office revenue is derived from charges
where the cost is very little--from letters, for instance, in the
metropolitan district, or in and between great centres of population,
where the cost of conveyance and delivery does not exceed, probably,
one-tenth of a penny per letter, and the surplus of nine-tenths is spent
on other services of the Post Office on which there is a deficit."--Sir
Robert Giffen, K.C.B. (_Memoranda on Classification and Incidence_, p.
94).
The argument is that in large towns the cost of the service is
infinitesimal, and the charge is therefore tax. Obviously this has no
application to country services.
Plehn does not take this view:--
"_Postal surplus not the result of taxation._"
"There are some writers who regard any surplus acquired in this way as
practically the result of taxation, and class any charge for the public
service, above the cost thereof, as a special tax. This classification
presupposes that the service is, by nature, of a public character, an
assumption contrary to the fact, for no function except that of
governing itself, in the narrowest possible sense, is _by nature_ of a
public character, nor, on the other hand, _by nature_ of a private
character. On this consideration, therefore, it is better to class these
gains, not as taxes, but as the earnings of a public industry."--C. C.
Plehn, _Introduction to Public Finance_, p. 358.
[749] "On the purely financial side the gain from the service must
generally be a small one; the return for capital employed is little, and
the only remaining element would be the economy that results from the
application of monopoly, and the consequent unity of the service. Any
further charge is really a form of taxation."--C. F. Bastable, _Public
Finance_, London, 1903, p. 209.
"When we come to look more closely into the essential character of this
'public utility' in respect of its economic and financial value, it will
appear that in this case an important administrative function has
attached to it, as it were involuntarily, an effective contrivance for
the levying of a tax, such as to require that the Post Office be taken
up in connection with the theory of taxation."--G. Cohn, _Science of
Finance_, translated by T. B. Veblen, Chicago, 1895, p. 126.
[750] The rates for postcards, printed matter, and samples roughly
correspond with the cost of service and are perhaps to some extent
prices.
[751] The suggested classification, if satisfactory from the speculative
point of view, does, however, give rise to practical difficulties. In
public financial statements it is, of course, impossible to show the
actual nature of the revenue on such a basis. The only practicable
course is to classify as a whole the gross revenue and the net revenue
for the entire service. There is difference of opinion even as to this
apparently simple problem. The common-sense solution would seem to be
that recommended by Sir Edward Hamilton, viz. to reckon the net revenue
as a tax and the balance of gross revenue as payment for services
rendered; although in view of the complications resulting from the
existence of unremunerative services, and the failure to make proper
allowance in respect of the capital employed in the service, such a
course is unscientific and misleading.
"The whole of the receipts from the various sources administered by the
Post Office has always been treated in our Public Accounts as 'Non-Tax
Revenue.' It is all carried to the Exchequer; and the whole cost is
annually provided by Parliament. Therefore, to omit altogether this
public receipt from a classification of taxes would seem to be the
natural course to take. But the charge which is made for the carriage of
letters, telegrams, and parcels, so far as the Post Office services are
a State monopoly, is unquestionably 'an obligatory contribution by
persons in respect of or incidental to something which they do.'
Accordingly, to take no account of this charge, which nobody can avoid,
would be to omit something which falls within our definition of a tax.
At the same time it is obvious that to treat the whole of the Post
Office revenue as a tax would for present purposes be misleading,
inasmuch as the amount actually expended by the State represents direct
and immediate service rendered to those who write letters or send
telegrams. Regard being had to these considerations, when balanced one
with another, it appears to me that the least incorrect course to adopt
is to treat as a tax the amount by which the revenue derived from Post
Office services exceeds the cost of administering those services."--Sir
E. W. Hamilton, K.C.B. (_Memoranda on Classification and Incidence_, p.
36).
See also p. 361, n. 2, _supra._