The unanimity and readiness with which the franking privilege was
surrendered by the members of parliament—men of privilege in a land of
privilege—is proof of the strong pressure of necessity under which the
measure was carried. It is true, a few members seemed disposed to struggle
for the preservation of this much-cherished prerogative. One member
complained that the bill would be taxing him as much as £15 per annum.
Another defended the franking privilege on account of its benefits to the
poor. But the opposition melted away, like an unseasonable frost, as soon
as its arguments were placed in the light of cheap postage. And the whole
system of franking was swept away, and each department of the government
was required to pay its own postage, and report the same among its
expenditures. The debates in parliament show something of the reasons
which prevailed.
_July 22, 1848._ The postage bill came up on the second reading:
Sir Robert H. Inglis, among other things, objected to the
abolition of the franking privilege. He could not see why, because
a tax was to be taken off others, a tax was to be imposed on
members. It would be, to those who had much correspondence, at
least £15 a year, at the reduced rate of a penny a letter. To the
revenue the saving would be small, and he hoped the house would
not consent to rescind that privilege.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the sacrifice of the franking
privilege would be small in amount. But at the same time, be it
small or great, he thought there would be not one feature of the
new system which would be more palatable to the public, than this
practical evidence of the willingness of members of this house, to
sacrifice everything personal to themselves, for the advantage of
the public revenue.
Sir Robert Peel did not think it desirable that members of this
house should retain the franking privilege. He thought if this
were continued after this bill came into operation, there _would
be a degree of odium_ attached to it which would greatly diminish
its value. He agreed that it would be well to restrict in some way
the _right of sending by mail the heavy volumes of reports_. He
said there were many members who would shrink from the exercise of
such a privilege, to load the mail with books. He would also
require that each department should specially pay the postage
incurred for the public service in that department. If every
office be called upon to pay its own postage, we shall introduce a
useful principle into the public service. There is no habit
connected with a public service so inveterate, as the privilege of
official franking.
On a former day, July 5, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said
concerning the abolition of the franking privilege:
Undoubtedly, we may lose the opportunity now and then, of obliging
a friend; but on other grounds, I believe there is no member of
the house who will not be ready to abandon the privilege. As to
any notion that honorable gentlemen should retain their privilege
under a penny postage, they must have a more intense appreciation
of the value of money, and a greater disregard for the value of
time, than I can conceive, if they insist on it.
All the peculiarities which distinguish British institutions from our own,
might naturally be expected to make public men in that country more
tenacious of privilege than our own statesmen. In a land of privilege, we
should expect mere privilege to be coveted, because it is privilege. This
practical and harmonious decision of British statesmen, of all parties, in
favor of abolishing the franking privilege, in order to give strength and
consistency to the system of cheap postage, shows in a striking light the
sense which they entertained of the greatness of the object of cheap
postage. The arguments which convinced them, we should naturally suppose
would have tenfold greater force here than there; while the arguments in
favor of the privilege would have tenfold greater influence there than
here. Can there be a doubt that, when the subject is fairly understood,
there will be found as much magnanimity among American as among British
legislators?
The moral evils of the franking system are far more serious than the
pecuniary expense, although that is by no means undeserving of regard. It
is not only an ensnaring prerogative to those who enjoy it, and an anomaly
and incongruity in our republican institutions, but it is an oppressive
burden upon the post-office, which ought to be removed.
The parliamentary committee ascertained, by three distinct calculations,
(of which all the results so nearly agreed as to strengthen each other,)
that, reckoning by numbers, one-ninth of the letters passing through the
post-office in a year, were franked. And, reckoning by weight, the
proportion was 30 per cent. of the whole. Of seven millions of franked
letters and documents, nearly five millions were by members of parliament.
If all the franks had been subject to postage, they would have yielded
upwards of a million sterling yearly. This was after the parliamentary
franks had been restricted to a certain number (ten) daily for each
member, and limited in weight to two ounces. The amount of postage on
parliamentary franks would be yearly £350,000, averaging about £310 to
each member. But there were a number of official persons, whose franks
were not limited, either in number or weight. These franks were obtained
and used, by those who could get them, without stint or scruple.
The celebrated Dr. Dionysius Lardner, who then occupied a
prominent place among men of letters in Great Britain, testified
before the parliamentary committee in 1838, that he was in the
practice of sending and receiving about five thousand letters a
year, of which he got four-fifths without postage—chiefly by
franks. While he lived in Ireland, his correspondence was so
heavy, not only as to the number of letters, but their bulk and
weight, that he was obliged to apply to the Postmaster-General of
Ireland, Lord Rosse, who allowed them to go under his franks. From
the year 1823, or soon after he quitted the university, until the
year 1828, his letters went and came under the frank of Lord
Rosse, who had the power of franking to any weight. Since he came
to England, his facilities of getting franks were very great.
Without such means, he would have found it very difficult indeed
to send his letters by post. His heavy correspondence was chiefly
sent through official persons, who had the power of franking to
any weight; and his correspondents knew that they could send their
letters under care to these friends; so that he received
communications from them in the same way. He endeavored to save as
much trouble as he could, by dividing the annoyance among them,
and by enclosing a bundle of letters for the same neighborhood
under one cover. He said that, to obtain these privileges a man
must be connected or known to the aristocratic classes, and that
it was certainly unfair, as it gave unfair advantages to those who
happened to have friends or connections having that power. His
foreign correspondence was carried on through the embassies; and
in this way the letters came free. He got his letters from the
United States free in that way. Any man who was a Fellow of the
Royal Society, or who lived among that class, could avail himself
of these means of obtaining scientific communications.
The number of franked letters posted, throughout the kingdom, in two weeks
in January, 1838, is stated in the following table.
Week ending Country to London to Country to Total
London. country. country.
15 January, 41,196 43,345 36,361 122,902
29 January, 46,371 51,046 37,894 135,311
——— ——— ——— ———
Total, 87,567 96,391 74,255 258,213
Proportion, .339 .373 .287 1.
It was stated in the debates, that before the franking privilege was
limited, it had been worth, to some great commercial houses, who had a
seat in parliament, from £300 to £800 a year; and that after the
limitation it was worth to some houses as much as £300 a year. The
committee spoke of the use of franks for scientific and business
correspondence, as “an exemplification of the irregular means by which a
scale of postage, too high for the interests and proper management of the
affairs of the country, is forced to give way in particular instances. And
like all irregular means, it is of most unfair and partial application;
the relief depends, not on any general regulation, known to the public,
and according to which relief can be obtained, but upon favor and
opportunity; and the consequence is, that while the more pressing suitor
obtains the benefit he asks, those of a more forbearing disposition pay
the penalty of high postage.” It also keeps out of view of the public,
“how much the cost of distribution is exceeded by the charge, and to what
extent therefore the postage of letters is taxed” to sustain this official
privilege. The committee therefore concluded in their report, that “taking
into the account the serious loss to the public revenue, which is caused
by the privilege of franking, and the inevitable abuse of that privilege
in numerous cases where no public business is concerned, it would be
politic in a financial point of view, and agreeable to the public sense of
justice, if, on effecting the proposed reduction of the postage rates, the
privilege of franking were to be abolished.” Only the post-office
department now franks its own official correspondence; petitions to
parliament are sent free; and parliamentary documents are charged at
one-eighth the rate of letters. Letters _to_ the Queen also go free.
In our own country, the congressional franking privilege has long been a
subject of complaint, both by the post-office authorities and the public
press. There are many discrepancies in the several returns from which the
extent of franking is to be gathered.
From a return made by the Postmaster General to the Senate, Jan. 16, 1844,
the whole number of letters passing through the mails in a year is set at
27,073,144, of which the number franked is 2,815,692, which is a small
fraction over 10 per cent.
The annual report of the Postmaster-General in 1837, estimates the whole
number of letters at 32,360,992, of which 2,100,000, or a little over 6
per cent, were franked.
In February, 1844, the Postmaster-General communicated to Congress a
statement of an account kept of the free letters and documents mailed at
Washington, during three weeks of the sitting of Congress in 1840, of
which the results appear in the following table.
Week ending Letters. Public Doc. Weight of Doc.
May 2, 13,674 96,588 8,042 lbs.
June 2, 13,955 108,912 9,076
July 7, 14,766 186,768 15,564
——— ——— ———
Total, 42,395 392,268 32,689
Average, 14,132 140,756 10,896
Session 33 466,345 4,314,948 359,579
weeks,
Whole number of Letters and Documents in a session of thirty-three weeks,
4,781,293.
Average weight of Public Documents, 1-⅓ oz.
Of the 42,375 free letters, 20,362 were congressional, and 22,032, or 52
per cent. were from the Departments.
In the month of October, 1843, an account was kept at all the offices in
the United States, of the number of letters franked and received in that
month by members of Congress. The number was 18,558, which would give
81,370 for 19 weeks of vacation. To these add 223,992 mailed in 33 weeks
of session, and four-fifths as many, 179,193, for letters received, and it
gives a total of 484,555 letters received and sent free of postage by
members of Congress in a year, besides the Public Documents. The postage
on the letters, at the old rates, would have been $100,000.
From the same return of October, 1843, it appears that the number of
letters franked and received by national and state officers, was
1,024,068; and by postmasters, 1,568,928; total, 2,592,998, the postage on
which, at 14-½ cents, would amount to $376,073.
These calculations would give the loss on free letters, at that time,
$476,073. This is besides the postage on the public documents, 359,578
pounds, the postage on which, at 2-½ cents per ounce, would come to
$147,581.
Total postage lost by franking, $623,654.
Document No. 118, printed by the House of Representatives of
Massachusetts, 1848, gives $312,500 as the amount of postage on franked
letters, and $200,000 for franked documents, making a total of $512,500.
The report of the Post-office Committee of the House of Representatives,
May 15, 1844, contains a return of the number of free letters mailed and
received at the Washington post-office, during the week ending February
20, 1844, with the corresponding annual number, and the amount of postage,
at the old rates—allowing the average length of a session of Congress to
be six months. From this I have constructed the following table.
Departments Letters Letters Total No. Postage.
received sent Annually.
House of 1,882 1,505
Representatives
Senate 7,510 10,271
—— ——
Total of 9,392 11,776 550,368 $114,697
Congress
President U. S. 304 174 24,856 4,895
Post Office 6,041 3,615 502,112 102,474
State 1,989 2,253 220,584 41,600
Department
Treasury 6,800 2,405 478,660 100,949
Department
War Department 2,592 2,626 271,336 61,475
Navy Department 1,709 2,082 197,132 39,809
Attorney-General 52 816 45,136 10,678
—— —— —— ——
Total 2,290,184 $476,577
Whole number of letters franked at Washington: 2,290,184
Add, franked by members at home: 111,348
Franked by postmasters: 1,568,928
Total of free letters: 3,970,450
Add, franked documents: 4,314,948
General total number: 8,285,398
The postage on all which, at the old rates, would be at least: $1,000,000
The annual report of the Postmaster-General, December, 1847, estimates the
number of free letters at five millions, the postage on which, at present
rates, would be at least $375,000, to which the postage on the documents
should be added.
The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the postage due on the free
letters and documents, if reckoned according to the old rates, would be at
least one million, and under the present rates above half a million of
dollars annually; equal to 12 per cent of the whole gross income of the
department.
When our present postage law was under consideration, the committees of
both Houses recommended the abolition of the franking privilege, for
reasons of justice, as well as to satisfy the public mind. The report of
the House Committee has this passage:
“As the post-office is made to sustain itself solely by a tax on
correspondence, it should derive aid and support from everything
it conveys. No man’s private correspondence should go free, since
the expense of so conveying it becomes a charge upon others; and
the special favor thus given, and which is much abused by being
extended to others not contemplated by law, is unjust and odious.
Neither should the _public_ correspondence be carried free of
charge, where such immunity operates as a burden upon the
correspondence of the citizen. There is no just reason why the
public should not pay its postages as well as citizens—no
sufficient reason why this item of public expenses should not be
borne, like all others, by the general tax paid into the public
treasury.”
The report of the Senate Committee goes still more fully into the
argument, leading to the same conclusion. In explaining the reasons for
the dissatisfaction with the post-office, then so widely felt by the
people, and the consequent diminution of its revenues, it argues thus:
“The _immediate_ benefits of the post-office establishment
accruing to that portion of the people only who carry on
correspondence through it, and these enjoying those benefits in
very unequal degrees, according to their various pursuits, habits,
or inclinations, it has seemed to be required by the principles of
equal justice that the expenses of the establishment should be
defrayed by contributions collected equally from each person
served by it, in proportion to the amount of service rendered. The
obvious justice of this rule, admitting as it does of so near an
approximation to exact justice in its practical application to the
business of this department, has commended it to all: and,
accordingly, the department has always been _professedly_ governed
by it: but, unfortunately, so wide has been the departure from
this just and equitable rule in the actual practice, that it has
become a word of promise, kept only to the ear, and broken to the
sense. Far from exacting of all equal contributions towards
meeting the necessary expenses of this department in proportion to
the amount of service rendered to each, about one-eighth part
numerically, and probably not less than one sixth part in weight
and bulk of the whole correspondence, has been privileged to pass
free of all charge—to say nothing of the immense amount of public
documents conveyed under similar privilege, while the expense of
the whole has been borne by high charges upon the non-privileged
part of the correspondence. It may be said this privilege was
granted, and has been extended, from time to time, for the public
service, and in furtherance of the public interest. Admitted; but
is it not perceived that it still involves a palpable violation of
the principle of equal justice, before shown to be at the
foundation of all our institutions, and an adherence to which is
indispensable in the conduct of all our affairs? How can it be
made to comport with any just conceptions of right, for the
Government to levy so large a tax, for the common purposes of all,
upon a portion only of its citizens? As well might the post-office
be used as a source of general revenue, as to be taxed specially
with the expenses of this branch of the public service—a mode of
raising revenue for general purposes universally admitted to be so
unequal and unjust that it has never been resorted to in this
country but in a single instance of extreme necessity, and then
only for a very short time. It is true, the post-office may be,
and is in other countries, successfully resorted to as a means of
extorting money from the people; but this must be where the
principles of government are widely different from ours, and the
leading policy being not the promotion of the happiness and
welfare of the many, but the advancement of the few, justifies the
use of any means which may subserve that end. There force and
fear, not justice and mutual good will, are the controlling
influences. According to the nature of our government, it might
with much more propriety be asked, by those who use the
post-office establishment, that its whole expense be borne by the
general treasury, than that they should be required to defray the
expense of the public service performed in this or any other
department; because it may with truth be urged, that although the
advantages of this department accrue _immediately_ to them, yet
mediately at least they inure to the great benefit of the whole
country.”
These objections are of great weight, even under the old or the present
postage. With cheap postage, they ought to be conclusive. In the language
of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, men who would then wish to
retain the franking privilege “must have a more intense appreciation of
the value of money, and a greater disregard for the value of time, than I
can conceive, if they insist on it.” The only other reason for retaining
the privilege would be, that honorable gentlemen, in the receipt of eight
dollars per day for attending to the business of the nation, would be
willing to spend their time in writing franks at two cents a-piece, for
the sake of having their names circulate through the post-office with the
letters M. C. attached to them.
A serious objection to the franking system is, that it unavoidably tends
to constant strife and altercation between members of congress and the
department. The head of the department, naturally and properly careful of
the income of the post-office, sees with pain the vast encroachment upon
the revenue made by the franking system. He becomes rigid in the
construction of the law; he deems every frank that does not come within
its letter an abuse; he adopts the assumption that franks were only
designed for the personal accommodation of the individual, and not for his
family or friends. He watches to detect some unwarranted stretch, he finds
a plenty; he examines a franked letter, he stops it; complaint is made to
the member whose signature has been treated with disrespect, an explosion
follows, the public service is hindered, and the honor of law is lowered.
At this moment there is a bill pending in congress, to protect the franks
of members, in consequence of a franked letter having been stopped, on the
ground that the direction was not in the handwriting of him who gave the
frank. Any espionage upon men’s letters, is plainly an intolerable
grievance in a republican government. The British government were
compelled to allow franks of members to cover all that was under them, and
they therefore restricted them in weight and number. The only available
method for us is to abolish the privilege itself. The experience under the
present postage law proves that it is impossible to abolish the privilege,
except by establishing cheap postage. The act of 1844 attempted greatly to
restrict the franking privilege, but in three years every material
restriction has been practically done away. There is no middle ground
between boundless franking and no franking. The bill above referred to has
passed the senate, in spite of the most earnest remonstrances of the
Postmaster-General, so that now the frank of a member of congress covers
all that is under it, within the prescribed limit of two ounces weight.
Those members who are so disposed can frank envelopes for their friends,
in any number, and send them in parcels of two ounces, to be used
anywhere, without any more meddling of the post-office clerks. The remedy
will be, to reduce the rate of postage so low, that it will be worth no
person’s while to use the franking privilege, or to seek its benefits from
those who hold it; or so that, if it is retained, those who use it will at
least show that they “have a more intense appreciation of money, and a
greater disregard for the value of time,” than ordinary persons can
conceive!
It has been said that it will be impossible to secure the services of
postmasters, without giving them the franking privilege. But it will be
found that the cheap and uniform postage, always prepaid, will so greatly
diminish the labor of keeping the post-office, as to remove the objection
in most cases to taking the trouble. And for the rest, it is only for the
department to demand that, if the people of any neighborhood wish a
post-office they must furnish a postmaster, and this difficulty is
annihilated.
With regard to the transmission of public documents, printed by order of
the two houses of congress, it is undeniable that very much of the
printing itself, and the circulation of them through the mail, is a sheer
abuse and wanton waste. And it is probable that a great check would be
given to these abuses, if there were an account required and a charge made
on the public treasury of all this circulation, at the same rate with
other pamphlet postage. The circulation, even if kept up at its present
rate, would in fact cost no more than it does now; but the burden would be
taken from the letter correspondence of the country, and placed where it
ought to be, on the general treasury. The statement of 1844, that four
millions of public documents are circulated in a single session, attracted
much attention of the public press at the time. One influential paper, the
New York Journal of Commerce, has the following remarks under the head of
“National Bribery:”
“It has just been stated in congress, that the two houses had
ordered _fifty-five thousand copies_ to be printed, of the Report
of the Commissioner of Patents: and that the cost to the country
would be $114,000. This Report is a huge document, printed in
large type, with a large margin, containing very little matter of
the least importance, and that little so buried in the rubbish, as
to be worth about as much as so many ‘needles in a hay-mow.’ Then,
this huge quantity of trash, created at this large expense, is to
be _franked_ for all parts of the country, by way of _currying
favor and getting votes next time_, lumbering the mails, and
creating another large expense. We have taken the trouble to weigh
the copy of this document, which was forwarded to us, and find its
ponderosity to be 2 lbs., 14 ozs., or, with the wrapper, about
_three pounds_! The aggregate weight of the 55,000 copies, is
therefore EIGHTY-TWO AND A HALF TONS! Eighty-two and a half tons
of paper spoiled; and the nation taxed $114,000 for spoiling it;
and then compelled to lug it to all parts of the Union through the
monopoly post-office and the _franking_ privilege! Poor patient
people!
“Such taxes, to be defrayed by high postage on letters and
newspapers, grow out of this _franking_ privilege; and the power
which congress reserve to themselves, of distributing free, as
many documents as they choose to print at the public expense!
These documents, it seems, are the grand means resorted to by many
members, of ‘_currying favor_’ with the influential, and thus
‘_getting votes next time!_’ ”
A late number of the Boston Courier contains the following humorous but
not untruthful description of this franking business, written by a
correspondent at Washington:
“The object of assembling the representatives of the people is
_discussion_, not business; or at least, no other business to
speak of. And this is labor enough for any man. Why, one gentleman
of the house informed me that he had 2700 names on his list of
persons to whom he must send documents, and he is _not_ a
candidate for re-election.
“Now, let us suppose that the average number of each member’s
_document_ constituency is but 2500, and that each gets _four_
favors only from his servant in congress. This would throw upon
the shoulders of each member the labor of procuring, and franking,
and directing _ten thousand_ speeches in the course of a session.
What more business than this should be expected of a man?
especially, when we consider that the representative must receive
and answer, at length, all sorts of letters, from all sorts of
people, upon all sorts of topics, from Aunt Peg’s pension to Amy
Dardin’s horse. If each member requires 10,000 speeches to his
constituents, somebody has got to make them. And as there are
something over 280 members of both branches there must be a supply
of about _three millions_ of this kind of ‘fodder.’ How can it be
otherwise than that the congressional talking-mill must be kept
constantly going? And what a famine would there be should it stop
grinding? Going into a Western member’s room the other day, and
seeing him with his coat off in the middle of the apartment, up to
his middle in documents, and speeches, and letters, laboring
lustily with his pen, I alluded to his press of private business.
“ ‘Stranger,’ said he, ‘I never came to congress before, and I
never want to come again. I tell _you_ that this office of member
of congress is not what it is cracked up to be. I calculated to
have a good time here this winter, after racing all over my
district, and making more than five hundred stump speeches in
order to get elected. But the fact is you can see the way I enjoy
myself. It is what I call the enjoyments horribly. Why, sir, I
never began to work in this way before in all my life.’ I asked,
‘How comes on the loan bill in your branch?’ ‘O, they are spouting
away, sir, and here I am franking the speeches. The Lord only
knows what is in them.’ ‘And the Ten Regiment Bill?’ ‘I know
nothing about it, and don’t want to. Look at them thar letters,’
pointing to a two bushel basket of private correspondence—‘not one
half of them answered; look at these speeches, not a quarter of
them franked. What attention can I give to loan bills and regiment
bills? Sir, I must attend to my _constituents_.’ And we left him
to his labors. Our impression is, that it takes all day Saturday,
and Sunday too, to bring up the franking and letter writing
business of the week, for the members seldom get out to church.”