Is it likely that such a direction would carry a letter to Miss Jeannie?
or the following to its direction?—
MISS S. SORERIE,
beckie if Hossee if H.
grltne et persep Yell
oone hundder 45
Neither town nor State, it will be perceived, is here given. We furnish
another:—
TO GENITZ DENGKENSON
Ap. Risen. Coolkill Kounty, near Genezene.
A letter was received in this city by John Smith (we will not give the
real name), containing a draft for three thousand dollars. The letter
simply stated, “Enclosed you will find a draft on T—— D——, Washington
City, for three thousand dollars, being a part of the proceeds of
property sold. The balance will be forwarded soon, &c.” Now, this John
Smith was anxiously awaiting the proceeds of a sale of property in
England, he being one of the heirs expectant, and had been previously
notified of the sale in question. As a matter of course, he imagined
this to be the first instalment, coming as it did from the very town
from which he expected it. The letter was simply directed to “John
Smith, Catharine Street, Southwark, Philadelphia.” The carrier on that
route, aware of Smith’s anxiety to hear about his property, delivered
the letter as directed, at least as near as it was possible without the
number of the house. Smith opened the letter in presence of the carrier,
and exclaimed, “It is all right, old fellow!” The draft was presented,
the money paid, and Smith went on his way rejoicing. By the time he had
spent one-third of the money, it was discovered that he was not _the_
John Smith. He returned the two thousand dollars, and the right party
was willing to await John Smith the Second’s remittance for his thousand
dollars. The cause of this could alone be attributed to the carelessness
of the remitting party in not giving the particulars or name of the
person from whom the legacy came. The names of the expectants being
exactly the same, and living on the same street, no other result could
be expected.
The following report of Postmaster Dennison (1865) furnishes an
epitomized view of the dead-letter department:—
“The number of dead-letters received, examined, and disposed of was
4,368,087,—an increase of 856,262 over the previous year.
“The number containing money and remailed to owners was 42,154, with
enclosures amounting to $244,373.97. Of these, 35,268, containing
$210,954.90, were delivered, leaving 6886 undelivered, with enclosures
to the value of $33,419.07. The number containing sums less than one
dollar was 16,709, amounting to $4647.23, of which 12,698, containing
$3577.62, were delivered to the writers.
“The number of registered letters and packages was 3966.
“The number of letters containing checks, bills of exchange, deeds, and
other papers of value was 15,304, with a nominal value of $3,329,888, of
which 13,746, containing $3,246,149, were delivered, leaving unclaimed
1558, of the value of $83,739.
“The number containing photographs, jewelry, and miscellaneous articles
was 69,902. Of these, 41,600 were delivered, and 28,302 remain for
disposal, or, being worthless, have been destroyed. The number of
valuable letters sent out was 107,979,—an increase of 38,792 over the
previous year.
“There were returned to public offices, including franked letters,
28,677.
“The number containing stamps and articles of small value was 8289, and
of unpaid and misdirected letters, 166,215.
“The number of ordinary dead-letters returned to the writers was
1,188,599, and the number not delivered was 297,304, being about 23 per
cent. of the whole. Of those not delivered, less than 4 per cent. were
refused by the writers.
“The number of foreign letters returned was 167,449, and the number
received from foreign countries was 88,361.
“In the last report the attention of Congress was called to the
expediency of restoring prepaid letters to the owners free of postage.
The measure is again commended, with the additional suggestion that
letters be forwarded at the request of the party addressed from one
post-office to another without extra charge.
“The number of letters conveyed in the mails during 1865 is estimated at
467,591,600. Of these, 4,368,087 were returned to the
dead-letter-office, including 566,097 army and navy letters, the
non-delivery of which was not chargeable to the postal service, they
having passed beyond its control into the custody of the military and
naval authorities. Deducting 1,156,401 letters returned to writers or
held as valuable, the total number lost or destroyed was 2,352,424, or
one in every two hundred mailed for transmission and delivery. Fully
three-fourths of the letters returned as dead fail to reach the parties
addressed through faults of the writers, so that the actual losses from
irregularities of service and casualties, ordinary and incidental to the
war, did not exceed one in every eight hundred of the estimated number
intrusted to the mails.
“The returns of dead-letters from cities are largely in excess of
proportions based upon population. To them special efforts have been
directed to secure the most efficient service, and it is believed
improvements in operation, chiefly that of free delivery, will diminish
the number of undelivered letters at offices in densely-populated
districts.
“The number of applications for missing letters was 8664,—an increase of
3552 over the previous year. A misapprehension prevails in regarding the
dead-letter-office as a depository for the safe keeping of undelivered
letters, and not as the agent for their final disposal, to correct which
the regulations are appended.
“The amount deposited in the treasury under act of 3d of March last
were:—
On account of sales of waste paper $9,420 67
Unclaimed dead-letter money 7,722 70
——————————
$17,143 37
“Less than twenty-five per cent. of advertised letters are delivered. In
some of the larger offices the proportion does not exceed fifteen per
cent. The payment of two cents for each letter advertised involves a
yearly expenditure of about $60,000 for letters returned as dead to the
department. Measures have been adopted to reduce the expense, and the
advertising is now secured at one-half the rate allowed by law. An
obstacle to this economy is found in the law requiring the list of
letters to be published in newspapers of largest circulation, which
should be repealed, and the mode of advertising left to the discretion
of the postmaster-general.”
We have stated that imperfect direction is in nine cases out of ten the
cause of the miscarriage of letters. We would here suggest to the
department the propriety of having competent clerks to superintend this
office, so that the letters returned to the writers should not give the
same cause of complaint. Many of the clerks so employed make sad havoc
of this portion of postal literature, and exercise little or no judgment
in their direction of letters to the parties to whom they are returned,
or at least for whom they are intended. Name of street and number of
house are alike omitted, and thus a letter comes from the
dead-letter-office as difficult to decipher or make out as it was when
sent thither. Haste in that direction seems to be the chief cause of
this display of hieroglyphical knowledge.
In the subjoined extracts from a letter which appeared in the “Chicago
Journal” (1864) are some practical hints to letter-writers:—
“I have just seen a letter of three pages, and not a word in it,—the
work of a poor crazed soldier; not a character of any tongue in Babel,
but only a little child’s meaningless imitation of writing; and in that
letter were ninety dollars. It came here; the department discovered the
writer, his regiment, and death. The money waits. Letters sometimes have
most interesting histories. Thus, an officer here in Washington writing
a letter to his wife, who is in New York, simply signed it with his
given name, and carelessly subscribed it ‘Washington.’ The letter came
hither; and now who and where was the writer? In the body of the letter
was a chance allusion to some brigade: ‘upon this hint’ the department
played Othello and ’spake.’ The brigade was inquired after and of, was
found, and it answered: the writer was a major, and was dead. His wife
had removed from her old desolate home, but she was discovered, and the
money placed in her hand as if by the hand of the dead.
“_Every_ letter, no matter what trifles are in it, should begin with the
post-office, State, and poor terrestrial date, day, month, and year. It
is all very fine to write from ‘Clover Lawn,’ or ‘Willow-Tree,’ or
‘Sweet Home,’ and date it ‘Sunday Eve,’ ‘Birthday,’ or ‘Moonshine;’ but
suppose the post-mark is dim, and the letter gets into this marble
cemetery, what then? And then as to the superscription. By the present
fashion we have first the name, life-size, and, if the sex will possibly
allow it, Esquired; then the post-office; last and least, and tucked in
a corner like a naughty boy, the State.
“Now, is not this reversing the order of things,—cribbing the greater
and magnifying the less? People, I presume, will not be persuaded to
change their mode of address, letters dead or alive; but how would it do
to direct a letter thus?—
‘MASSACHUSETTS, _Boston_,
‘DR. O. W. HOLMES.’
“The little traveller would be sure to get into the right State at the
first dash, make straight for the post-office, and finding the funny
doctor would be an easy business.”
The large number of letters written by persons in the military service
of the United States, whose locality could not be ascertained,
contributed very considerably to the increase of “dead-letters.” But the
great proportion of ordinary dead-letters which were returned was
decidedly those of the careless order. Many were not even signed, and
others so imperfectly directed that it was totally impossible to
decipher even the name or residence of the writer. Time after time have
postmasters called public attention to this state of things, and,
strange as the fact may appear, this very timely (as it was supposed)
suggestion had the contrary effect: _the number of ill-spelt and
ill-directed letters increased!_
_PANDORA’S MAIL-BOX OPENED._
Among the “mail-matters” which had accumulated at the dead-letter-office
in Washington since 1848, and which were sold to the highest bidder on
the 6th of December, 1859, were the following articles:—coats, hats,
socks, drawers, gloves, scarfs, suspenders, patent inhaling-tubes, gold
pens, pencils, ladies’ slippers _half worn_, all kinds of jewelry,
undersleeves, fans, handkerchiefs, box of dissecting-instruments,
pocket-Bibles, religious books, others not quite so acceptable to the
moral portion of the community, shirts, bed-quilts, boots, spurs, gaffs
for game-fowls, shawls, gaiters, tobacco, razors, &c. &c.
_ADVERTISED LETTERS._
Advertised letters, uncalled for and sent to the dead-letter-office,
cost the government annually over $60,000! This is a _dead_ loss, as,
from the very nature of the superscription and imperfect direction, such
letters have no more chance of reaching their places of destination than
a sinner has of going to heaven.
_DECOY-LETTERS._
Devices employed for the public good, if predicated on the principles
that maintain _all men dishonest_ and are themselves deceptive, both in
theory and practice, cannot be considered either honorable or
complimentary to our public men. The system, more particularly in its
connection with the postal department, originated, we are inclined to
think, from some suspicious postmaster or his chief clerk, and thus was
established a plan to test the employees, alike unjust and questionable
in equity. It is said that these decoy-letters can never injure honest
men. Are we to understand from this that men of questionable character
and thieving proclivities are employed by the government? Is it
customary to appoint rogues to office, and, after appointing them, lay
traps for their detection? If this is the fact, then may we well
exclaim, with Cowley,—
“Man is to man all kinds of beasts,—a fawning dog, a roaring lion, a
thieving fox, a robbing wolf, a dissembling crocodile, a treacherous
_decoy_, a rapacious vulture.”
Once establish the decoy system as a general one, extending it to all
branches of the government, trade, and commerce, introduce it into
stores and factories, and we shall soon have the flag of suspicion
waving over that of the Stars and Stripes: we will constitute ourselves
a nation of rogues, and become in the eyes of the world a huge “DECOY
DUCK,” instead of the proud heretofore emblem of our country, the
glorious Eagle!
We care very little about the opinion of Judge Betts, who on one
occasion maintained the principle in a very _learned speech_, which when
summed up amounted simply to this, that all men are rogues and require
watching,—in fact, in morals as well as honesty they are _lame ducks_,
and a _decoy_ is necessary to watch their actions. The learned judge
said,—
“I am persuaded that letters would rarely be intercepted in their
transmission by post if every person concerned in mailing or carrying
them could be impressed with the idea that each package enclosing
valuables may be but a bait seeking to detect whoever may be dishonest
enough to molest, and to become a swift witness for his conviction and
punishment.”
If this is logic, it lacks one important principle in theory to
establish its practical application, and that is, _common sense_. We
consider the decoy system, at least as a national means to detect
rogues, beneath the dignity and character of the nation. Reason and
philosophy teach us that God never puts evil into our hearts, or stirs
it up there by any positive influence. A man is tempted by his own lust,
and enticed into sin by the influence, acts, and example of wicked men.
“Lead us not into temptation,” is one of those wise and holy lessons
which the Saviour of the world instructed his disciples to pray for, so
as they might carry it out in their holy mission, strengthened by the
Divine blessing resting upon it. Men, however, are not unfrequently
placed in situations “as have a tendency,” says Scott, “to give our
inward corruptions and the temptations of Satan and his agents peculiar
advantage against us.”
Is it, therefore, to be wondered at that a government like ours should
assume a Satanic form, and employ agents for the express purpose of
leading men into temptation? We consider the “decoy-letter” system
exactly a case in point. It may not be uninteresting to some of our
readers to give the origin of this ridiculous and equally _sinful_
manner of testing men’s honesty.
As might be supposed, it never could have originated in an enlightened
nation, and yet enlightened nations indorse its antiquity of folly. We
trace it to China and as far back as the dimness of its history can
carry us. It may surprise some to hear the term unenlightened applied to
China, the land of classic works, and the richest and most important in
all Asia. Philosophers have made the works called “Kings” the basis of
their labors in morality and politics. History has always received the
attention of the Chinese, and their annals form the most complete series
extant in any language. Poetry, the drama, and romantic prose fictions
are among the productions of the Chinese _literati_,—“_Literæ
inhumaniores_” meaning learning rather of an inhuman or barbarous
tendency.
The Chinese were in possession of three of the most important inventions
or discoveries of modern times long before they were known to the
nations of the world, besides which they were the inventors of two
remarkable manufactures,—silk and porcelain. The art of printing was
practised at least as early as the tenth century; but the use of movable
types instead of blocks seems never to have occurred to this ingenious
people. The knowledge of gunpowder among them dates at a very early
period; but the application of its use to fire-arms they learned from
the Europeans. Finally, the peculiar directive properties of the
loadstone were applied to purposes of navigation by the Chinese several
centuries before they were employed in Europe.
We have given a sketch of the arts and sciences of China, but it would
be totally impossible to give the reader any thing like an idea of the
character and morals of its inhabitants. When China was first explored
by European travellers it was believed to be a nation that had alone
found out the true secret of government, where the virtues were
developed by the operation of the laws: indeed, judging from what they
had read, an almost perfect people was expected to greet their sight.
Alas! how is history falsified! Few nations, it is now agreed, have so
little honor or feeling, or so much duplicity, cunning, and mendacity.
Their affected gravity is as far from wisdom as their ceremonies are
from politeness.
The government of China is one of fear; and it has produced the usual
effects,—duplicity and meanness. Suspicion is one of their leading
features, and thus every man is not only suspected of being a rogue, but
in reality every one is a rogue. Expert thieving is considered an art,
yet if discovered is punished. The merchants cheat each other by rule:
hence it is not strange that the DECOY SYSTEM should have originated in
that country.
Laws were enacted to punish those who laid the decoy, as well as those
who fell into the trap. These punishments consisted of the bastinado,
the pillory, banishment, hard labor, death. These two first are almost
constantly in use: indeed, the merchant who is bastinadoed for leading
his clerk into crime by the “decoy means,” as well as the clerk himself,
looks upon it as a “paternal correction,” and thanks the judge for the
care bestowed upon his morals. And yet although this system was
practised some three thousand years ago, it is still followed and, of
course, still punished.
Even in Jewish history we have instances of this system being pursued.
See 1 Kings xiii.
It was also extensively practised in France during the rebellion.
Mechanics and others who followed labor for maintenance were subjected
to these “decoys,” which presented themselves in various shapes. An old
lady residing in this city told the author that her husband found a
doubloon on his work-table, placed there by a nobleman in whose house he
was fitting up tapestry. Indignant at the insult offered a Frenchman and
a citizen, he nailed the coin to the table, from which not without great
difficulty the tempter could remove it.
Is it, we ask, consistent with our form of government and the national
character of the people that this relic of barbarism, like that of
slavery, should be permitted to exist or be practised by its chief
officers?
Detectives only should adopt the system to aid them in their search _for
a criminal_, but an agent detective has no right to set a decoy to test
the honesty of men upon whom, even before and after his appointment, no
suspicion rested. We again pronounce it mean and contemptible.