------------------------+---------+----------+--------------
Routes. │ Pay. │ Receipts.│Excess of pay.
------------------------+---------+----------+--------------
Salt Lake City to Folsom│$385,000}│$23,934 44│ $726,065 56
Atchison to Salt Lake │ 365,000}│ │
Kansas City to Santa Fé │ 35,743 │ 6,536 57│ 29,206 43
Lincoln to Portland │ 225,000 │ 24,791 67│ 200,208 33
The Dalles to Salt Lake │ 186,000 │ 5,660 77│ 180,339 23
│---------+----------+--------------
Total │1,196,743│ 60,923 45│1,135,819 55
------------------------+---------+----------+--------------
_THE RAILWAY POSTAL SYSTEM._
This system, which was suggested by the celebrated Rowland Hill,
originated at a period in English postal history when the requirements
of trade and commerce demanded a revisal of the code. Perhaps no man was
better qualified for the purpose than was Mr. Hill. In 1839 railroad
post-offices were in use for mail-bags. Each railway company provided a
car, when desired to do so by the postmaster-general, for the exclusive
use of the mails. These cars were fitted up with boxes to facilitate the
distribution and reception of the mails. On the London and Liverpool
Road (1839) it required the constant and active employment of two clerks
to assort, receive, and hand out the mails: such is the rapidity of
travel, and so numerous are the post-offices upon this route.
Subsequently these cars were used for the distribution of letters in
large cities, by assorting them on the routes. Not only were such
distributions made on the cars for all the principal stations on the
line of the railroads before the arrival of the cars, but distributions
for the offices connected with the stations, and therefore incidentally
for the entire district of country through which the lines are in
operation. It was some time before our postal department could be made
_sensible_ of the necessity of the system in our country. Perhaps no
other country in the world possessed a larger amount of railroad travel
and postal extent than ours, and yet the spirit of old fogyism was hard
to be subdued in the encounter Young America had with it on this
subject, nor was it until the cars were almost forced upon the
department (experimentally) that they were first introduced. These
experiments were made on the routes from Chicago, Illinois, to Clinton,
Davenport, and Dubuque, Iowa, with the most satisfactory results, as
were those between Washington and New York. The attention of the public
was called to this new postal system by the postmaster-general (William
Dennison) in his report for the fiscal year 1864, who stated “that cars
requisite for the purpose are prepared for one daily line between New
York and Washington, and, by means of clerks taken temporarily from the
post-offices at Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York,
letters intended for distribution at either of these points are
distributed in the cars, and so arranged that they can be despatched
without delay on connecting routes.”
Among the railroads upon which these cars are placed are the
Pennsylvania Central, between Philadelphia and Pittsburg: in fact, the
system is now so fully established that it has become an essential
element in the whole organization of the postal department. Those
employed in the several post-offices from which the light of order
radiates, under this new system, can fully appreciate the advantages
resulting from it, as merchants and others already acknowledge
“This radiated head of the Phœnix,”
as it rises above the ashes of the old _fogy_ system.
Mail-matter from every direction will reach our citizens much
earlier,—in most cases several hours sooner. This will show at once how
essential to our merchants is this new improvement: nor can we at this
early period of its introduction calculate all the advantages likely to
result from it. The idea of a post-office performing its distributing
duties on a railway, going at the rate of thirty miles an hour, is one
of those scintillations of genius which only emits light once in a
century,—that century the present.[49]
_THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE._
“I have said so much, that if I had not a frank I must burn
my letter and begin again.”—COWPER.
It is the abuse of certain privileges, which all governments accord to a
portion of its officers, which leads to fraud, crime, and corruption.
Among these, that of the franking system may be ranked as a most
prominent one. Had it been checked at an earlier period of our postal
history, how many evils would have been prevented, and how far more
plethoric would have been its treasury!
As early as 1782, even in its incipient state, far-seeing men objected
to its exercise. In December (6th), 1782, an ordinance extending the
privilege of franking letters to the heads of all the departments was
reported and taken up. Various ideas were thrown out on the subject at
large,—some contending for the extension proposed, some for a total
abolition of the privilege as well in members of Congress as in others,
some for a limitation of the privilege to a definite number or weight of
letters. Those who contended for a total abolition represented the
privilege as productive of abuses, reducing the profits so low as to
prevent the extension of the establishment throughout the United States,
and throwing the whole burden of the establishment on the mercantile
intercourse. On the other side, it was contended that in case of an
abolition the delegates or their constituents would be taxed just in
proportion to their distance from the seat of Congress,—which was
neither just nor politic, considering the many other disadvantages which
were inseparable from that distance; that, as the correspondence of the
delegates was the principal channel through which a general knowledge of
public affairs was diffused, any abridgment of it would in so far
confine this advantage to the States within the neighborhood of
Congress, and that as the correspondence at present, _however
voluminous_, did not exclude from the mail any private letters which
would be subject to postage, and if postage was extended to letters now
franked the number and size of them would be essentially reduced, the
revenue was not affected in the manner represented. The ordinance was
disagreed to, and the subject recommitted with instructions to the
committee, giving them ample latitude for such report as they should
think fit. Whether the report was ever made we are not advised; but its
latitude has increased with the introduction of every new State and
Territory. Since the above date, almost every postmaster-general has
alluded to the franking privilege. Mr. Blair, in his report of 1863,
says,—
“I renew the recommendation made last year, that the franking privilege
of postmasters be abolished, except for correspondence between them and
other officers of the department upon official business.
“It should be abolished also as to the correspondence of all persons
addressed to the several departments and executive officers of
government, except upon official correspondence addressed by an officer
of the government.
“Both these privileges, as they now exist, have been much abused, and
have no proper place in a correct postal system.”
Mr. Blair, however, falls into the same error that many official rulers
commit,—that of calculating chances of success, instead of commanding
them. In the report alluded to, we find this passage:—that “the postal
revenue has nearly equalled the entire expenditures,—the latter
amounting to $11,314,206.84, and the former to $11,163,789.59, leaving a
deficiency of but $150,417.25. Good reason, therefore, exists for the
expectation that within a brief period this important department of the
General Government will become self-sustaining.”
We do not think so. The postal department is not, nor can it ever be
made, a speculative one. It is based on the increase of trade and
commerce throughout an extent of country unparalleled in history, as
uniting in one system of rule upwards of thirty millions of people. To
keep up the routes over such a vast space, connecting State to State,
Territory to Territory, passing over lakes, rivers, mountains, even over
the land-route to California, through almost impassable sections,
contending with difficulties scarcely to be realized in descriptions,
the expense is necessarily great. Previous to 1850 many of the routes
bordering the Atlantic were for the most part isolated lines, near to
which trade and traffic had not approached. The settlement of
California, and the opening of a trade which has ultimately proved a
second Peru, as regards gold, may be dated as the commencement of a new
era in the physical progress of our country. In connecting a line of
posts, establishing post-offices, and furnishing modes of conveyance,
the question of dollars and cents is but a secondary consideration. The
word profit was repudiated, and the sole purpose of the government was
to establish the post, no matter at what cost. The time may come when it
shall prove self-sustaining, but never if at the expense of the public
interest, nor while the franking system exists.
We contend that every letter, document, or newspaper, no matter by whom
mailed, or how high the functionary, should be prepaid; for men in
authority are the servants of the people, and have no more claim upon
the _public treasury_ than has the lowest worker in any of the
departments. _The postal department, however, in its official
correspondence, should be the only exception to the rule._
Nor is it the mere privilege we complain of, but its abuse. Reduce it to
an honest and equitable use, and we venture to say the public will
endure the act.
Mr. George Plitt, in his report while a special agent of the post-office
department, made February 3, 1841, speaking of the franking privilege,
says, “The actual number of franked packages sent from the post-office
of Washington City during the week ending on the 7th of July last was
201,534; and the whole number sent during the last session of Congress
amounted to the enormous quantity of 4,314,948. All these packages are
not only carried by the department into every section of the country
_free of charge_, but it is actually obliged to pay to every postmaster
whose commissions do not amount to $2000 per annum, _two cents for the
delivery of each one_! Supposing all the above to have been delivered,
the department would lose from its revenue for this one item upwards of
$80,000, besides paying for the mail-transportation.”
In 1834 the “Washington Globe,” speaking upon this subject, used the
following language:—
“Particular cases of gross abuse upon the post-office are within our
knowledge, and the postmaster-general will be informed of hundreds of
others. The opinion of those acquainted with the subject, which we have
no doubt is correct, is that the department has lost within the last
year, by the extension of the franking privileges of the members of
Congress, and by abuses of law, more than _one hundred thousand
dollars_. This revenue would in a short time pay off the debts of the
department, and leave the people all the mails they now have. Who loses
this sum? Not the department only, but the people,—the honest
correspondents by the post, who prefer paying postage on their letters
to obtaining franks. In fact, the abuses are growing so rapidly as to
justify a fear of their endangering the establishment. The restrictions
of the law seem to have been by some men wholly borne down and
prostrated, and the franking privilege is rapidly extending itself over,
and covering a great part of, the ordinary private correspondence of the
country.”
The post-office is an establishment of the greatest utility. The law
throws it upon its receipts for postage as its sole support. When these
fail, the mails must stop; and every dollar that is taken from them is
so much drawn from the service of the public. The duty, therefore, of
protecting the department from the loss of its revenue is imposed upon
the postmaster-general not only by the general principle of the law, but
by the necessity of saving the establishment from annihilation, total or
partial. The sentiment of the people, ever against abuse and the
improper use of privilege, will sustain the postmaster-general in his
course.
The “Globe,” after alluding to the further abuse of the franking
privilege, says,—
“If the government had been placed upon the footing of citizens, and had
paid during Mr. Barry’s administration one-third even of what these
would have paid for the same services, would the department have been in
debt? Strike an account with the executive government only, even for the
last year, and we find that the balance due to the department, including
the losses by abuses, would more than pay its whole debts. To those,
then, who charge that the department is ‘insolvent,’ we say that its
unrequited labors have justly earned for it a revenue more than
sufficient to meet all the demands against it.”
In connection with this subject,—and it is one that, when fully exposed,
will astonish the country,—we annex the following from the “American
Merchant,” New York, for July, 1859. “There is not the slightest doubt
that very extensive frauds may be successfully carried on in the
department; but we incline to the opinion, however, that the most
aggravated ‘frauds’ perpetrated on the department, and which are the
more hard to be borne that there is no remedy for them under the
existing law, are those which grow out of the franking privilege. It
would astonish the world, could the figures be correctly ascertained, to
see to what extent this evil is carried. From a statement made by the
postmaster of Washington City to the Post-Office Committee of the House
of Representatives, in January, 1854, we gather the following items of
‘franked’ matter sent during _one month_ from Washington alone:—
Pounds weight. Postage.
Letters from members of Congress 3,446 $4,664
Documents ” ” 693,508 110,961
Letters from Departments 7,065 6,782
Newspapers (numbering 1,110,020) 111,002 11,100
——————— ————————
Total for one month 815,021 $133,507
For twelve months 9,780,242 1,602,087
Postage for one year, if not prepaid 3,158,390
“Let it be remembered that this amount of $2,500,000, which is a fair
average for one year, is actually _taken out_ of the revenues of the
department in one city. Is it strange that our postal system should be
non-supporting?
“If it be right that the General Government should defray the expenses
of sending ‘pub. docs.’ and the public and private correspondence of
members of Congress to every part of the country, then a sufficient
appropriation should be made for that purpose, and there should be some
means of fixing a limit to this system of dead-heading. And if letters,
papers, and public documents were the only commodities transported under
this talismanic ‘frank,’ it would be less a matter of concernment; but
when, as has been the case, members of Congress send home their dirty
linen to be washed, at the expense of the post-office department, the
subject assumes a more serious aspect, and the sovereign people—very
impudently, perhaps—persist in knowing why such things are. From the
statements of the department for the ten years ending with 1856, the
total expenses were $68,136,197, and the revenue from postages
$54,014,652, leaving a deficiency of $14,121,545. The appropriation by
government during the same space was $5,626,682,—which reduces the
actual deficiency to a little more than $9,000,000.”
Many of the packages thus franked, even when received by the parties, to
whom they are sent, are rarely opened, for the simple reason that the
newspapers (_which also go free_) containing the same documents or
speeches have already been received, read, and commented upon. For
instance: it is well known to every member of Congress, and to every one
connected with the post-office, that long after the President’s message
has been published in every newspaper throughout the country, thousands
upon thousands are sent daily under frank from Washington. This was our
written objection to the privilege in 1841. Now the same thing extends
to “Annual Reports” of the respective heads of departments, other
reports, and speeches of members of Congress, which are never read in
pamphlet form by the masses to whom they are sent. Many of these
speeches, which attracted no attention in the House and created little
or no sensation out of it, are handsomely gotten up, neatly printed,
artistically stitched, and mailed by the members at the expense of the
government to their constituents, to whose literary merit and classical
beauties the words of Virgil would most aptly apply:—
“Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademtum.”
There are two meanings to this terrible passage from the Latin poet. The
learned reader will apply the less terrible to the subject in question.
It would present a painful picture were we to sum up by number, bulk,
and character the public documents which weigh down the mails passing
from Washington City to every other in the country,—not cities alone,
but towns, villages, hamlets, grog-shops, and places _not reputable,
either to the sender or the recipient, to name_. Documents, such as
valuable books, find their way as per direction to ignorant blacks and
foreigners, many of whom can neither read nor write. Wholesale and
ponderous as are these costly matters, they are few in comparison to the
speeches which members of Congress send to their constituents. We
refrain from alluding further to these matters, as we feel humiliated as
a citizen of the United States when we consider that it is done under
the law.
J. Holt, postmaster-general, in his report (1859), speaking of the
franking privilege, says,—
“It may be added, if it is proper that the government shall be charged
with the expense of conveying the matter now passing free through the
mails, justice alike to the public and to the department requires that
the amount thus due shall be precisely ascertained,—which can best be
done by prepayment at the mailing-offices. There can be no enlightened
administration of the postal system without a complete knowledge of its
financial resources and liabilities, which can never be attained while
the incubus of the franking privilege is hanging over it. Under the
stifling pressure, too, of this incubus, the department is forced to
continual efforts to ameliorate its condition, which must often result
in curtailments to be deplored, because they deprive the public of
mail-accommodations for which they have fully paid, and which they are,
therefore, entitled to enjoy.
“Another potent reason for the abolition of the franking privilege, as
now exercised, is found in the abuses which seem to be inseparable from
its existence. These abuses, though constantly exposed and animadverted
upon for a series of years, have as constantly increased. It has been
often stated by my predecessors, and is a matter of public notoriety,
that immense masses of packages are transported under the government
frank which neither the letter nor spirit of the statute creating the
franking privilege would justify; that a large number of letters,
documents, and packages are thus conveyed, covered by the frank of
officials, written, in violation of law, not by themselves, but by some
real or pretended agent; while whole sacks of similar matter, which have
never been handled nor seen even by government functionaries, are
transported under franks which have been forged. The extreme difficulty
of detecting such forgeries has greatly multiplied this class of
offences, whilst their prevalence has so deadened the public sentiment
in reference to them that a conviction, however ample the proof, is
scarcely possible to be obtained. The statute of 1825, denouncing the
counterfeiting of an official frank under a heavy penalty, is
practically inoperative.”
The French deputies and peers have no franking privilege; in England it
was abolished for members of Parliament since the establishment of the
penny post. For an amusing account of an abuse of the franking privilege
in England, see page 66.
Having expressed our opinion and given that of others on the abuse of
the franking privilege and on the propriety, in a national point of
view, of doing away with it entirely, it is by no means implied that a
different construction of the right would not do away with our
objections, and also those of the many who consider its abuse a growing,
if not a dangerous, evil. Whatever may be done to lessen the evil, as
well as the heavy expense which it inflicts upon our government, and
which will bring about a state of things that will redound to the credit
of those who inaugurate a reform in this department of our government,
will be cordially endorsed by the people.
Our members of Congress, it is true, stand politically very differently
as regards positions from the representatives of other nations; but,
still, that is no reason why governmental privilege should be abused to
the extent it is.
By an act of Congress passed at the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh
Congress, December 1, 1862, to March 4, 1863, “The postmaster-general
may arrange for the delivery by route-agents of newspaper bundles not
taken from, or intended for, any post-office. The postmaster-general may
regulate the manner of wrapping mail-matter not paying letter postage,
so that it may be easily examined; and postmasters are allowed to tear
off the wrappers to see if letter postage is evaded. Publishers dealing
with the post-office must swear to their statements: there is a fine of
$50 for each offence in sending papers to other than subscribers at
quarterly rates. The franking privilege is limited as follows: first,
the President, by himself or his private secretary; second, the
Vice-President; third, the chiefs of the several executive departments;
fourth, such principal officers, being heads of bureaus or chief clerks,
of each executive department, to be used only for official
communications, as the postmaster-general shall prescribe; fifth,
Senators and Representatives, including delegates from Territories, the
Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House, to cover correspondence
to and from them, and all printed matter issued by authority of
Congress, and all speeches, proceedings, and debates in Congress, and
all printed matter sent to them,—their franking privilege to commence
with the term for which they are elected, and to expire on the first
Monday of December following such term of office; sixth, all official
communications addressed to either of the executive departments by an
officer responsible to that department: in all such cases the envelope
should be marked ‘official,’ with the signature thereto of the officer;
seventh, postmasters have the franking privilege for official
communications to other postmasters: in such cases the envelope shall be
marked ‘official,’ with the signature of the writer, and for any such
endorsement of ‘official’ falsely made, the person making the same shall
forfeit $300; eighth, petitions to either branch of Congress shall pass
free in the mails; ninth, all communications addressed to any of the
franking officers above described, and not excepted in the foregoing
clauses, must be prepaid by postage-stamps. The franking privilege shall
be limited to packages weighing not exceeding four ounces, except
petitions to Congress and congressional or executive documents, and
publications published, procured, or purchased by order of either house,
which shall be considered as public documents and entitled to be franked
as such; and except, also, seeds, cuttings, roots, and scions, the
weight of the packages of which may be fixed by regulations of the
postmaster-general. Publishers of periodicals, magazines, and newspapers
which shall not exceed sixteen ounces in weight shall be allowed to
interchange their publications reciprocally free of postage, such
interchange to be confined to a single copy of each publication.”
This act took effect July 1, 1863: all acts inconsistent with it were
thereby repealed.
Here is an extensive pull upon the postal department, yet one that if
strictly adhered to would not create such an opposition to the system
as its abuse has caused. _Barrels of flour, dirty clothes, and other
family matters_ certainly are not included in the above. If so, then
will the postal department have to connect with its legitimate business
that of an express. A “National Franking Privilege Express” would not be
a bad title.
Although the idea of the government becoming a common carrier of _dirty
linen, barrels of flour, immense masses of book-matter and documentary
papers_, was never entertained, yet the franking privilege is gradually
preparing the way for its accomplishment. It is, therefore, evident to
us that the system is gradually destroying the whole theory on which the
post-office is founded, and if carried out still further will cripple
its operations materially. It has been suggested that in lieu of the
franking privilege now allowed by law to members of Congress and others,
they should be furnished with postage-stamps, to be paid for out of the
contingent fund of the House. If the privilege is to be extended in any
shape, let it be under that of the franking system; for the moment
stamps are substituted, that very moment a rush for “cash
representatives” will be most eagerly sought for, and the contingent
fund, to use a modern phrase, will “be soon swallowed up.” There would,
of course, be less _franking of public documents_ by the use of
_stamps_, but a far more extensive use of them for _other purposes_.
This has been clearly illustrated in some of our States where the
_stamps_ have been substituted for _franking_. If, however, the
postage-stamp system should be adopted, let the transmission of books,
&c. be forwarded, under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate and
Clerk of the House, by the ordinary mode of conveyance. This would be a
check on those extravagant members who consider it a duty due their
constituents to supply them with books enough to make a library. In one
single instance, a member from Utah, in 1858, cost the government over
seven thousand dollars by the transmission of books, &c.
As a clear and explicit definition of the limits of the franking
privilege of members of Congress, the following letter to certain
members of Congress who claimed certain (extended) privileges will be
found interesting. The members had asked leave to frank certain
documents intended to aid a praiseworthy object not strictly entitled to
that privilege, as well as other favors not sanctioned by either the
letter or the spirit of postal laws, rules, and regulations:—
“POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT, 1865.
“APPOINTMENT-OFFICE, WASHINGTON.
“GENTLEMEN:—I am instructed by the postmaster-general to acknowledge the
receipt of your joint letter of the 15th instant, and to say that while
he fully appreciates the importance of furnishing the public with
correct information on the subject of the treatment and sufferings of
our brave men who, unfortunately, are prisoners in the hands of the
rebels, and would willingly lend all proper aid in his power to
accomplish this object, he cannot, with his sense of official duty,
direct the postmaster of Boston to respect at his office the franks of
members of the Senate or House of Representatives while they are
sojourning at the seat of government. Nor can he authorize the use of
_fac-simile_ stamps for the purpose of franking matter passing through
the mails.
“The franking privilege to Senators and members of Congress is a
personal one, and travels with the party entitled to it, and cannot be
exercised in two or more places at the same time. By the terms of the
law, it is ‘to cover correspondence to and from them, and all printed
matter issued by authority of Congress, and all speeches, proceedings,
debates in Congress, and all printed matter sent to them,’ thus limiting
the privilege to the matter herein named. Consequently, if it come to
_the knowledge_ of a postmaster that a package bearing a proper frank is
composed of matter not named in the law, it becomes his duty to
disregard such frank and charge postage thereon.
“The standing regulations of the department provide that ‘no privileged
person can authorize his clerk or any other person to write (or stamp)
his name for the purpose of franking any letter or packet.’ ‘The
personal privilege of franking travels with the person possessing it,
and can be exercised in but one place at the same time.’
“‘No privileged person can leave his frank behind him to cover his
correspondence in his absence.’ ‘If letters or papers be put into a
post-office bearing the frank of a privileged person who notoriously has
not been in that vicinity for several days, ... it is the duty of the
postmaster to treat them as unpaid.’ ‘Postmasters are requested to
report to the department all violations of the franking privilege.’
“The use of a _fac-simile_ stamp for franking letters or packets by
Senators or members of Congress has never been authorized or approved by
this department in any way; but, on the contrary, the postmaster-general
has invariably decided against the use of such stamps whenever the
question has been brought to his notice, for the reason, among others,
that it affords opportunity to perpetrate frauds upon the department and
its revenues to an almost unlimited extent.
“From the foregoing you will see that the postmaster-general cannot with
consistency or propriety comply with the request contained in your
letter.
“I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant.
“A. W. RANDALL,
“_First Assistant Postmaster-General_.
“Hon. ———, }
} _United States Senate_.”
“Hon. ———, }
_MAILS ON THE SABBATH._
“Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy.”
Ever since the postal system was established, an opposition has been
made to its operations on the Sabbath. It is not for us to question the
moral principle upon which these objections were based. The law for the
observance of the Sabbath comes to us in language that cannot be
mistaken and from a source not to be denied. But we question whether it
applies to the wheels of a government, which, in the same order as that
of the spheres, must move on for its maintenance.
The Rev. Thomas Scott (whose authority we annex, not feeling capable of
giving a religious view ourselves) says, speaking upon the subject of
the Sabbath,—
“‘Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work,’ was merely an
_allowance_, and not an _injunction_; for the Lord forbade, by other
precepts, all labor on some of these days, but they were assigned for
the diligent performance of the business which relates to this present
life, while the seventh was consecrated to the immediate service of God.
The concerns of our souls must indeed be attended to, and God
worshipped, every day, that our business may be regulated in
subserviency to his will; but on the other days of the week ‘we shall do
_all our work_,’ reserving none for the Sabbath, except WORKS OF
CHARITY, PIETY, AND NECESSITY; for these alone consist with the holiness
of that sacred day of rest, and are allowable, ‘because the Sabbath was
made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’ All works, therefore, which
arise from avarice, distrust, luxury, vanity, and self-indulgence, are
entirely prohibited.
“Buying and selling, paying wages, settling accounts, writing letters of
business, reading books on ordinary subjects, trifling visits, journeys,
excursions, dissipation, or conversation which serves only for
amusement, cannot consist with ‘keeping a day holy to the Lord;’ and
sloth is a _carnal_, not a _spiritual_, rest.
“Servants, and some others, may, however, be under a real _necessity_ of
doing things which are not necessary in themselves: though good
management might often greatly lessen the evil,” &c.
Speaking of cattle, the learned author says, “The cattle must also be
allowed to rest from the hard labor of husbandry, journeys, and all
employments connected with trade or pleasure; though doubtless we may
employ _them too_ in works of necessity, piety, and charity; and thus
they may properly be used for the gentle service of conveying those to
places of public worship who could not otherwise attend or perform the
duties to which they are called.”
It will be observed that, indirectly, the author sustains the argument
we advanced above, that the wheels of a government, like the works of
creation, must necessarily move on “without impediment,” and that any
labor performed on the Sabbath connected with such operations comes
under the head of “necessity.”
Governments are formed and their laws based upon those of nature: we
imitate and follow them as being essential to sustaining and
perpetuating their stability and usefulness.
Nor do we think our preachers are disposed to interfere with the mails
running on the Sabbath; for they invariably are the most anxious on a
Monday morning to receive their letters and newspapers, which, as we all
know, are invariably assorted and distributed throughout the office on
the Sabbath for an early delivery on Monday. _We allude to this
important clerical fact because in several instances they have
threatened to report clerks for neglecting their duties on the Sabbath,
simply because that labor was not devoted, as it would appear, for their
especial benefit!_ This want of consistency on the part of a portion of
the clergy seems more tinctured with hypocrisy than it is with
Christianity.
Return J. Meigs, the postmaster-general under James Madison in 1815, in
reply to certain petitions remonstrating against the mails running on
the Sabbath, makes use of the following language (we give extracts
only):—
“ ... The usage of transporting the mails on the Sabbath is coeval with
the Constitution of the United States; and a prohibition of that usage
will be first considered.” He then gives the various mail-routes on the
principal roads, and says,—
“If the mail was not to move on Sunday on the routes enumerated, it
would be delayed from three to four days in passing from one extreme of
the route to the other. From Washington to St. Louis the mail would be
delayed two days; from Washington to New Orleans the mail would be
delayed three days; from New Orleans to Boston it would be delayed from
four to five days; and, _generally_, the mails would, on an average, be
retarded equal to one-seventh part of the time now employed, if the
mails do not move on the Sabbath.
“On the smaller cross-roads or routes the transportation of the mail has
been avoided on the Sabbath, except when necessary to prevent great
delays and to preserve connections with different routes.”
In relation to _opening_ the mails on the Sabbath, it may be noticed
that the ninth section of the “act regulating the post-office
establishment” makes it the duty of the postmaster to attend to the
duties of his office “every day” on which a mail shall arrive at his
office, and at “all reasonable hours” on every day of the week. When a
mail is conveyed on the Sabbath, it must be opened and exchanged at the
offices which it may reach in the course of the day. This operation at
the smaller offices occupies no more than ten or twelve minutes; in some
of the larger offices it occupies one hour, and, it is believed, does
not greatly interfere with religious exercises as to the postmasters
themselves.
The practice of “delivering letters and newspapers on the Sabbath” is of
recent origin, and, under the above-quoted section, commenced in 1810.
Prior to that period, no postmaster (except the postmaster at Washington
City), was required to deliver letters and newspapers on the Sabbath.
The “reasonable hours” were to be determined by the postmaster-general,
who established the following regulations, now existing:—“At
post-offices where the mail arrives on Sunday, the office is to be kept
open for the delivery of letters, &c. for _one hour_ after the arrival
and assorting of the mail; but in case that would interfere with the
hours of public worship, then the office is to be kept open for one hour
after the usual time of dissolving the meetings for that purpose.”
Also, if the mail arrives at an office too late for the delivery of
letters on Saturday night, the postmaster is instructed to deliver them
on Sunday morning, at such early hour as not to encroach upon the hours
devoted to public religious exercises. If these regulations are not
strictly attended to, it must be imputable to the urgency of applicants
and the complaisance of postmasters.
After the preceding statement, it is to be observed that public policy,
pure morality, and undefiled religion combine in favor of a due
observance of the Sabbath.
Nevertheless, a nation owes to itself an exercise of the means adapted
to its own preservation and for the continuance of those very blessings
which flow from such observance; and the nation must sometimes operate
by a few of its agents, even on the Sabbath; and such operation may, as
in time of war, become indispensable, so that the many may enjoy an
uninterrupted exercise of religion in quietude and safety. In the
present state of the nation it may be supposed necessary _daily_ to
convey governmental orders, instructions, and regulations, and to
communicate and receive information. If the daily carriage of the mail
be as relates to the safety of the nation a matter of _necessity_, it
also becomes a work of _mercy_.
When peace is fully established, the necessity will greatly diminish,
and it will be at all times a pleasure to this department to prevent any
profanation of the Sabbath, as far as relates to its official duty or
its official authority.
In England the postal regulations for the Sabbath are as follows. They
differ very little from our own:—
“During the time the office is open on Sunday (viz. from 9 to 10 in the
morning, and one other hour), the public are allowed to prepay foreign
and colonial letters, to purchase stamps, and to have letters
registered; and all other duties are performed as usual, except
money-order and savings-bank business,[50] which on that day is wholly
suspended.”
At no provincial town in England or Ireland is there more than one
delivery on Sunday or the sacramental fast-days; and any person is at
liberty to prevent even this delivery, so far as relates to himself, as
shown by the following regulations:—
“1st. Any person can have his letters, &c. retained in the post-office
on Sunday, by addressing to the postmaster a written request, duly
signed, to that effect; and such request will be held to include
newspapers and all other postal matters, even such as may be marked
‘immediate,’ as no distinction is allowed.
“2d. No letters, &c. the non-delivery of which by the letter-carrier on
Sunday has been directed can be obtained from the post-office window on
that day.
“3d. Private box-holders have the option of applying for letters at the
office while it is open for delivery on Sunday, or of abstaining from so
doing, as they may think proper; but no person can be permitted to
engage a private box for Sunday only.”
_DEAD-LETTERS._
“And thus there were many dead.”—GOWER.
It would fill a volume were we to attempt any thing like a history of
this department of the general post-office. One thing, however, would
impress itself forcibly upon the minds of our readers, were we to
furnish such a history, and that would be to establish the fact beyond
the possibility of a doubt that “the fools are not all dead yet.”
As far as the employees of the post-office are concerned, if not
irreverent, this would be a “consummation devoutly to be wished.”
Many of these letters, containing important information and large
amounts of money, are so villanously directed that a modern mesmeriser
would find himself at fault, or a spiritual medium confounded, if put in
connection with the writers, in their endeavor to arrive at the mystery
of such superscriptions as it has been our misfortune to encounter
during our connection with the post-office. In another portion of this
work we furnish the reader with numerous specimens of such directions.
Would we could give specimens of their chirography also! In connection,
however, with “dead-letters,” we annex the following superscriptions to
letters which contained money and drafts, and of course found their way
to the “dead-letter office:”—