Transcriber’s Note: obvious printers’ errors have been corrected but
the spelling, hyphenation etc. in this book is generally inconsistent,
as you might expect from a collection of articles by different authors:
the editor did not impose a uniform style.
_DEBATERS’ HAND BOOK SERIES_
PARCELS POST
DEBATERS’
HANDBOOK SERIES
Enlargement of the United States Navy (3d ed. rev. and enl.)
Direct Primaries (3d ed. rev. and enl.)
Capital Punishment
Commission Plan of Municipal Government (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Election of United States Senators
Income Tax (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Initiative and Referendum (2d ed. rev. and enl.)
Central Bank of the United States
Woman Suffrage
Municipal Ownership
Child Labor
Open versus Closed Shop
Employment of Women
Federal Control of Interstate Corporations
Parcels Post
_Other titles in preparation_
_Each volume, one dollar net_
_Debaters’ Handbook Series_
SELECTED ARTICLES
ON THE
PARCELS POST
COMPILED BY
EDITH M. PHELPS
MINNEAPOLIS
THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY
1911
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The plan of this volume is very similar to that of the others of the
series to which it belongs. It contains a brief, a bibliography, and
reprints of articles containing the various arguments for and against
the parcels post; also, information in regard to the present status of
the parcels post in this and other countries. For the convenience of
the reader, the articles have been arranged in three main divisions:
the General, Affirmative, and Negative Discussions. The bibliography
is similarly divided. It is believed that debaters and others wishing
material on this subject will find this book both convenient and
helpful.
September, 1911.
CONTENTS
BRIEF ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliographies xiii
General References xiii
Affirmative References xvi
Negative References xix
INTRODUCTION 1
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Carr, D. M. Up to Members of Congress 5
Meyer, George von L. Data Relative to Proposed Extension of
Parcels Post 9
Cowles, James L. Our Postal Express 16
Walker, Ernest G. From the Boston Herald. Data Relative to
Proposed Extension of Parcels Post 18
Bennet, William S. Post-Office, Our Mutual Express Company 27
Lewis, David J. System of Postal Express 32
Barth, Dr. Letter. Hearings before the Committee on the
Post-Office and Post Roads 42
German Parcels Post. Monthly Consular and Trade Reports 45
AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION
Sulzer, William. Our Postal Express 49
Rider, Fremont. Parcels Post and the Retailer. World’s Work 52
Mondell, F. W. Star Routes and Rural Parcels Post.
Congressional Record 58
Bennet, William S. General Deficiency Bill. Congressional
Record 62
Walker, John B. Who Will Be Benefited by a Parcels Post?
Cosmopolitan 72
Stickley, Gustav. More Efficient Postal Service. Craftsman 78
Parcels Post Once More. Independent 80
Sulzer, William. People Demand a General Parcels Post 82
Let Us Have a Parcels Post. Hampton’s 87
Curtis, Isabel G. Housekeeping by Parcels Post. Good
Housekeeping 92
Miller, George E. Parcels Post. Housekeeper 94
NEGATIVE DISCUSSION
Maxwell, George H. Perils of Parcels Post Extension 99
Clark, Allan W. Objections to the Parcels Post. Independent 106
Burrows, Charles W. Further Thoughts on Parcels Post 108
Burrows, Charles W. One Cent Letter Postage, Second
Class Mail Matter, and Parcels Post 110
Ordway, John A. Parcels Post 115
Merritt, Albert N. Shall the Scope of Governmental Functions
Be Enlarged so as to Include the Express Business?
Journal of Political Economy 122
Parcels Post in England. Parcels Post Problem 129
Spofford, C. W. A. B. C. of Parcels Post 130
French, F. E. Parcels Post 131
Bogardus, W. P. Why Parcels Post Is Not a Good Thing
for This Country 135
Haugen, Gilbert N. Parcels Post and Postal Savings Banks 138
Smith, S. C. Parcels Post 140
BRIEF
Resolved, That the Federal Government should establish a Parcels Post.
INTRODUCTION
I. It has been claimed that
A. Our postal rates on third and fourth class matter are
exorbitant as compared with those in foreign countries.
B. Foreign parcels post systems afford many conveniences which
we do not have.
II. An extension of our present parcels post system is demanded.
A. Bills providing for it have been presented to Congress.
B. Postmasters-General Wanamaker, Meyer, and others have tried
to secure it.
C. It has been recommended in presidential messages, in
conventions, by postal officials and by the people.
III. The plan which has received most favorable attention is that of
Postmaster-General Meyer, providing for
A. A general parcels post at the rate of 12c a pound, with a
limit in weight of eleven pounds.
B. A rural parcels post at the rate of 5c for the first pound,
2c for each additional pound, limit of weight eleven pounds.
AFFIRMATIVE
The Affirmative is in favor of the Parcels Post, for
I. The United States government would benefit financially.
A. The receipts from the increased volume of business would
more than repay the loss from the reduction in rate.
B. Increased receipts from rural routes would be clear profit.
1. Rural routes are already equipped for this service.
C. If the post with foreign countries pays now, the government
ought to make a profit from a similar domestic service.
II. The general public would benefit by this service.
A. Present transportation charges would be reduced.
1. The express companies would have to reduce rates.
B. Greater convenience in sending merchandise would result.
1. The express companies would have to improve service.
C. The cost of living would be reduced.
III. Rural communities would be benefited.
A. The local dealer would profit.
1. He could do a larger business with less expense, and
with increased facilities for delivery.
2. He could meet the competition of mail-order houses and
city merchants.
B. Country towns and villages would have cheap transportation
which is so essential for favorable growth.
C. The parcels post would turn the tide of civilization from
the cities back to the land.
D. The farmer would be benefitted.
1. He would save time and expense in driving to market.
2. He could have more of the comforts and conveniences of
city life.
3. He would have better market facilities for his products.
IV. A parcels post would not be class legislation.
A. Mail-order houses and city department stores would not
benefit unduly.
B. Express companies would not be seriously injured.
1. Their present rates are excessive.
V. The parcels post has been successful in other countries and is
practicable.
A. It has paid
1. Financially.
2. In comfort and convenience.
B. In nearly every country the rates are lower than in the
United States and the limit in weight is much higher.
NEGATIVE
The Negative is opposed to the Parcels Post, for
I. The present postal deficit would be increased rather than diminished.
A. The cost of the increased service would not be covered by
the increased traffic.
1. The government cannot compete successfully with the
express companies.
2. There would be a continual demand for more and better
equipment.
3. Government undertakings are always more costly than
those under private management.
B. The inconsistencies between our present foreign and domestic
rates are not as great as has been claimed.
II. The general public would not be benefitted by it.
A. It would have little influence on express rates.
B. It would increase the centralization of wealth, population,
and manufactures.
C. The demand for it has been artificially created.
III. Rural communities would be injured by it.
A. Retailers and local dealers would suffer.
1. Orders would be sent direct to manufacturing centers.
2. Mail-order houses would obtain most of the trade.
B. Rural towns and villages would be injured.
1. Trade would be drawn to the larger cities and population
would follow.
C. The farmer would not be benefitted.
1. He would not use it nearly as much as has been claimed.
2. The market for his products would be largely destroyed
by the removal of population to large cities.
3. The rural parcels post alone would be merely an entering
wedge.
IV. Legislation for a parcels post would be discriminating and
unnecessary.
A. Dealers, wholesalers and jobbers in heavy merchandise could
not use it.
B. Mail-order houses and department stores would benefit at the
expense of the retailers and consumers.
C. The Interstate Commerce Commission already has the power to
correct excessive express rates.
D. The rural post alone would increase the business of the
express companies.
V. That the parcels post is in operation in foreign countries at very
low rates and high weight-limits is no argument for its extension in
the United States.
A. Conditions vary so widely.
1. Distances are greater in the United States.
2. The population is more scattered.
3. The railroads are privately owned, and the government
must pay heavy rates for service.
B. It is claimed that the system is run at a loss in England
and Germany.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
An asterisk (*) preceding a reference indicates that the entire article
or a part of it has been reprinted in this volume.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Kansas. State University. Extension Division. Bulletin. Vol. XI. No.
10. July, 1910. Kansas High School Debating League, Announcements,
1910-1911. pp. 26-8.
United States. Library of Congress--Division of Bibliography. Select
List of References on the Parcels Post. 5p. Typewritten. 15c. Supt. of
Doc.
Virginia. Dep’t of Public Instruction, State University, and the
Co-Operative Education Ass’n. Bulletin. Ser. I. No. 3. March, 1911.
Parcels Post. pp. 18-21.
Wisconsin. State University. Extension Division. Bulletin. Ser. No.
204: Extension Ser. No. 18. March, 1908. Parcels Post. pa. 5c.
GENERAL REFERENCES
_Books, Pamphlets and Documents_
Bennet, William S. Freight, Passenger and Intelligence Post: The Public
Need. 14p. pa. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Address William S. Bennet, Representative, Washington, D. C.
*Bennet, William S. Post-Office, Our Mutual Express Company: Speech in
the House of Representatives, May 13, 1909. 8p. pa. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record. 44: 5174-6. Ag. 5, 09.
[Address William S. Bennet, Representative, Washington, D. C.]
*Carr, D. M. Up to Members of Congress. 8p. pa. March, 1908.
Address D. M. Carr, Editor “The Winning West,” Omaha, Nebr.
Congressional Record. 32: Appendix. 208-10. F. 21, ’99. United States
Parcels Post. James L. Cowles.
Printed in connection with a speech by Senator Butler, in the
Senate, F. 20-21, ’99.
Congressional Record. 43: 1866-8. F. 4, ’09. Parcels Post System.
Cowles, James L. General Freight and Passenger Post: Practical Solution
of the Railroad Problem. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. 1898.
*Cowles, James L. Our Postal Express. 2p. Postal Progress League.
Address the Postal Progress League, 125 E. 23rd St., New York
City.
*Lewis, David J. System of Postal Express to Include Both Country
Merchants and Farmers: Speech in the House of Representatives, June 8,
1911. 32p. pa.
Reprinted from the Hearings before Sub-Committee No. 4, of
the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, June, 1911.
pp. 10-38, 48-52. [Address David J. Lewis, Representative,
Washington, D. C.]
Monthly Consular and Trade Reports. No. 326. p. 37. N. ’07. Parcels
Post from United States. Govt. Ptg. Office.
*Monthly Consular and Trade Reports. No. 329. pp. 104-6. F. ’08. German
Parcels Post. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Monthly Consular and Trade Reports. No. 334. p. 192. Jl. ’08. Parcels
Post from United States. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Monthly Consular and Trade Reports. No. 335: 179-80. Ag. ’08. Parcels
Post.
Monthly Consular and Trade Reports. No. 357. Je. ’10. pp. 109-11.
Parcels Post. Germany and Australia. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Postal Progress. 1907-1911. Post Office: The Minister of Peace. 4p.
Postal Progress League.
Address the Postal Progress League, 125 E. 23d St., New York
City.
*United States. Congress, House of Representatives. Parcels Post:
Hearings before the Committee on the Postoffice and Post Roads. April
20-29, 1910, 322p. pa. 25c. Supt. of Doc.
Recommended for purchase.
United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Parcels Post:
Hearings before Sub-Committee No. 4 of the Committee on the Postoffice
and Post Roads, June, 1911, 390p. pa. Supt. of Doc.
Recommended for purchase.
*United States. Post-Office Dep’t. Data Relative to Proposed Extension
of Parcel Post. (60th Cong., 1st Sess., Senate. Doc. 366.) 15p. ’08.
Govt. Ptg. Office.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record. 42: 3041-5. Mr. 6, ’08.
World Almanac, 1911. Postal Information, pp. 99-105.
A summary of the present governmental regulations respecting
foreign and domestic mails.
_Magazine Articles_
Arena. 34: 113-9. Ag. ’05. European Parcels-Post. J. Henniker Heaton.
Reprinted in condensed form in the Review of Reviews. 32:
345-6. S. ’05.
Bulletin. Pan American Union. 32: 365-8. F. ’11. Parcels Post
Convention between the United States and Haiti.
Contains the text of the convention adopted by Haiti and the
United States in 1910.
Catholic World. 81: 353-61. Je. ’05. Parcel-Post System of Germany. J.
C. Monaghan.
Chautauquan. 64: 7-8. S. ’11. Parcels Post Next.
Cosmopolitan. 35: 3-10. My. ’03. Governmental Parcel-Post in Great
Britain. J. Henniker Heaton.
Cosmopolitan. 36: 217*-19*. Ap. ’04. Postal Parcels Delivery One Cent a
Pound. John B. Walker.
Dun’s Review. 14: 12-4. F. 24, ’06. Parcels-Post System of Germany. J.
C. Monaghan.
Reprinted in the Hearings before Subcommittee No. 4 of
the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads, House of
Representatives, June, 1911. pp. 70-3.
Nineteenth Century. 25: 894-901. Je. ’89. Agricultural Parcels Post.
Henry P. Dunster.
Nineteenth Century. 54: 981-4. D. ’03. Cash on Delivery, or Shopping by
Post. J. Henniker Heaton.
Arguments for and against the extension of the parcels post
system in England to admit the cash on delivery feature.
North American. 187: 330-6. Mr. ’08. Parcels Post. George von L. Meyer.
Outlook. 72: 147-8. S. 20, ’02. Cheap Parcels Post from England.
Outlook. 79: 148. Ja. 14, ’05. Comparison of Postal Rates. James L.
Cowles.
Postal Progress. Vol. I. No. 6. pp. 1-4. Ag. ’07. Common
One-Cent-a-Pound Postal Rate. James L. Cowles.
Clippings from American Industries, June 15, 1907, and Iron
Age, July 4, 1907, form a part of the article.
Scientific American. 98: 455. Je. 27, ’08. Reduction of Foreign Parcel
Postal Rates.
Scientific American Supplement. 48: 20008. D. 2, ’99. Parcels Post
Exchanges with Germany.
Survey. 25: 121-2. O. 22, ’10. Parcels Post Made in Germany.
AFFIRMATIVE REFERENCES
_Pamphlets and Documents_
Congressional Record. 42: 3081-4. Mr. 7, ’08. Post-Office Appropriation
Bill: Speech in the House of Representatives, March 3, 1908. James M.
Griggs.
Congressional Record. 42: 6567-8. My. 15, ’08. Special Parcels Post.
George von L. Meyer.
Congressional Record. 45: 2958-9. Mr. 8, ’10. Amendment for the Parcels
Post. Mr. Hardwick.
Congressional Record. 45: 3223-4. Mr. 14, ’10. Extension of Parcels
Post: Letter to John M. Stahl. George von L. Meyer.
Congressional Record. 45: 9310-4. Je. 24. ’10. General Deficiency Bill:
Speech in the House of Representatives, June 21, 1910. William S.
Bennet.
Reprinted in the Congressional Record. 45: Appendix 382-6.
Congressional Record. 46: 1243-5. Ja. 21, ’11. Proposed Parcels Post:
Speech in the House of Representatives, January 17, 1911. Ralph W. Moss.
Congressional Record. 46: 1273-6. Ja. 21, ’11. Limited Parcels Post.
Congressional Record. 46: 1443-5. Ja. 25, ’11. Why the People Favor a
General Parcels Post: Speech in the House of Representatives, January
17, 1911. William Sulzer.
Congressional Record. 46: 1881. F. 2, ’11. Resolution Adopted by
Nebraska Farmer’s Congress in Favor of Parcels Post.
*Congressional Record. 46: 1941-7. F. 3, ’11. Star Routes and Rural
Parcels Post: Speech in the House of Representatives, January 19, 1911.
F. W. Mondell.
Congressional Record. 46: 2773-4. F. 9, ’11. Parcels Post: Speech in
the House of Representatives. Ralph W. Moss.
Consists mostly of quotations from the Price Current and other
trade journals.
Meyer, George von L. Address at the Banquet of the New England
Postmasters, October 12, 1907. 14p. pa. Govt. Ptg. Office.
*Sulzer, William. Our Postal Express: Speech in the House of
Representatives, June 9, 1910. 8p. pa. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record. 45: 8287-97. Je. 15,
’10. [Address William Sulzer, Representative, Washington, D. C.]
*Sulzer, William. People Demand a General Parcels Post: Speech in the
House of Representatives, February 6, 1911. 15p. pa. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record. 46: 2094-7. F. 6, ’11.
[Apply to William Sulzer, Representative, Washington, D. C.]
United States. Post Office Dep’t. Annual Report of the Postmaster
General. 1907. pp. 9-11. Extension of the Parcel Post. 10c. Supt. of
Doc.
_Magazine Articles_
Arena. 23: 103-6. Ja. ’00. Needed Postal Reform. Louis E. Guillow.
Arena. 35: 212-3. F. ’06. England’s Magnificent Postal-Service Record.
Arena. 37: 308-9. Mr. ’07. Postal Service in Japan.
Cosmopolitan. 36: 379*-81*. F. ’04. Aid Which the Post Office
Department Might Render to Commerce. John B. Walker.
*Cosmopolitan. 36: 497*-9*. Mr. ’04. Who Will Be Benefited by a Parcels
Post? John B. Walker.
*Craftsman. 14: 592-4. S. ’08. More Efficient Postal Service. Gustav
Stickley.
*Good Housekeeping. 53: 2-10. Jl. ’11. Housekeeping by Parcels Post.
Isabel G. Curtis.
*Hampton’s. 26: 261-4. F. ’11. Let Us Have a Parcels Post.
*Housekeeper. 31: 11-35. Ag. ’08. Parcels Post. George E. Miller.
Independent. 53: 2607-8. O. 31, ’01. Parcels Post.
Independent. 56: 306-9. F. 11, ’04. Post Office, Our Mutual
Transportation Company. James L. Cowles.
Independent. 63: 1185-7. N. 14, ’07. Parcels Post.
Independent. 67: 986-7. O. 28, ’09. It Must Come.
*Independent. 70: 105-7. Ja. 12, ’11. Parcels Post Once More.
Nation. 90: 345. Ap. 7, ’10. For a Parcels-Post. Reuben G. Thwaites.
Nineteenth Century. 53: 253-63. F. ’03. Agricultural Parcel Post. J.
Henniker Heaton.
Outlook. 90: 801-2. D. 12, ’08. Postal Deficit and a Rural Parcel Post.
Outlook. 96: 567. N. 12, ’10. Express Monopoly versus a Parcels Post.
Postal Progress. Vol. I. No. 4. pp. 1-2. Ap. 1, ’07. Foreign Parcels
Post Necessary.
Scientific American. 102: 274. Ap. 2, ’10. Need of an Improved Parcels
Post.
World’s Work. 21: 13978-86. F. ’11. Post-Office: An Obstructive
Monopoly. Don G. Seitz.
*World’s Work. 21: 14248-51. Ap. ’11. Parcels Post and the Retailer.
Fremont Rider.
NEGATIVE REFERENCES
_Pamphlets and Documents_
*Bogardus, W. P. Why Parcels Post Is Not a Good Thing for This Country.
8p. pa. Iowa Retail Hardware Ass’n.
Address A. R. Sale, Iowa Retail Hardware Association, Mason
City, Iowa.
*Burrows, Charles W. Further Thoughts on Parcels Post: With an
Examination of Postmaster-General Meyer’s Recommendations. 19p. pa.
Address Charles W. Burrows, 633 Euclid Av., Cleveland, Ohio.
*Burrows, Charles W. One Cent Letter Postage, Second Class Mail Rates,
and Parcels Post: Address Delivered before the National Hardware Ass’n,
March 30, 1911. pp. 11-25.
Address Charles W. Burrows, 633 Euclid Av., Cleveland, Ohio.
Congressional Record. 40: 3476-82. Mr. 7, ’06. Parcels Post: Speech in
the House of Representatives. Gilbert N. Haugen.
*French, F. E. Parcels Post: Address before the Southern Merchant’s
Ass’n, Nashville, Tenn., February 28-March 3, 1911. Leaflet No. 8. 15p.
pa. American League of Associations.
Address the American League of Associations, Room 343,
Rand-McNally Bldg., Chicago, Ill.
*Haugen, Gilbert N. Parcels Post and Postal Savings Banks: Speech in
the House of Representatives, March 13, 1908. 8p. pa. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record. 42: 3548-51. Mr. 17,
’08. [Address Gilbert N. Haugen, Representative, Washington, D.
C.]
Hutsinpillar, C. A. Parcels Post: Address Delivered before the Annual
Convention of the Ohio Hardware Ass’n, February 23, 1904, 3p. pa.
gratis.
Address C. A. Hutsinpillar, Ironton, Ohio.
*Maxwell, George H. Perils of Parcels Post Extension. Leaflet No. 7.
35p. pa. American League of Associations.
Reprinted in the Hearings before the Committee on the
Post-Office and Post-Roads, April 20-29, 1910. [Address
American League of Associations, Room 343, Rand-McNally Bldg.,
Chicago, Ill.]
Menace of a Parcels Post. 40p. pa.
Address S. R. Miles, Mason City, Iowa.
Miles, S. R. Extracts from an Address Delivered before the Federated
Commercial Clubs of Minnesota, January 17, 1908. 14p. pa.
Address S. R. Miles, President, National Retail Hardware
Dealers Ass’n, Mason City, Iowa.
*Ordway, John A. Parcels Post: Address before the New England Drygoods
Ass’n, March, 1911. Leaflet No. 9. 15p. pa. American League of
Associations.
Address the American League of Associations, Room 343,
Rand-McNally Bldg., Chicago, Ill.
Parcels Post: from the Standpoint of an Iowa Editor. Parcels Post
Circular No. 3, Series 1911. 4p. pa. Iowa Retail Hardware Association.
Address A. R. Sale, Iowa Retail Hardware Ass’n, Mason City,
Iowa.
*Parcels Post Problem: From the Standpoint of the Towns and Small
Cities. 30p. pa. National Hardware Bulletin.
Address M. L. Corey, Secretary, National Retail Hardware
Association, Argos, Ind.
Shall the Country Towns Be Destroyed by a Local Rural Parcels Post.
Pamphlet No. 5. Home Advancement Series. 30p. pa. American League of
Associations.
Most of this pamphlet is a reprint of pp. 274-96 of the Report
of the Hearings before the Committee on the Post-Office and
Post-Roads, April, 1910. [Apply to M. L. Corey, Argos, Ind.]
*Smith, S. C. Parcels Post: Speech in the House of Representatives,
March 3, 1908. 15p. pa. ’08. Govt. Ptg. Office.
Reprinted from the Congressional Record. 42: 2928-31. Mr. 3,
’08. [Address S. C. Smith, Representative, Washington, D. C.]
Spofford, C. W. A. B. C. of Parcels Post; A. Catechism, 11p. pa.
Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress, Proceedings, 1907. pp. 232-40.
Parcels Post.
_Magazine References_
*Independent. 70: 72-3. Ja. 12, ’11. Objections to the Parcels Post.
Allan W. Clark.
Independent. 70: 185. Ja. 26, ’11. Parcels Post Again. Sylvester C.
Smith.
*Journal of Political Economy. 16: 417-35. Jl. ’08. Shall the Scope
of Governmental Functions Be Enlarged so as to Include the Express
Business? Albert N. Merritt.
North American Review. 174: 807-19. Je. ’02. Defects and Abuses in Our
Postal System. Henry A. Castle.
Parcels Post. pp. 812-4.
North American Review. 178: 222-34. F. ’04. Postal Service. E. F. Loud.
Parcels Post. pp. 224-6.
Outlook. 96: 794. D. 3, ’10. Parcels Post. George P. Engelhard.
_SELECTED ARTICLES ON THE PARCELS POST_
INTRODUCTION
The parcels post is not a new question. It has been the subject of
popular discussion for years, and several of our postmasters-general
have recommended an extension of our present system, sufficient, at
least, to put it on an equal basis with our foreign service. Those who
are familiar with the parcels post systems of other countries, and
those who believe that the express companies should not be permitted to
monopolize so large a part of the parcels-carrying trade, are in favor
of these recommendations. On the other hand, those who believe that the
government should not enter into any commercial undertaking, and those
who fear that the change will be detrimental to the country communities
and will result in the centralization of our population in the large
cities, are strongly opposed to any increase in our present rates, or
in the size of the package to be accepted.
There are several organizations who are actively engaged at the
present time in supporting or opposing all attempts to enact parcels
post legislation. The Postal Progress League, with headquarters at
125 East 23d St., New York City, has for its aim the improvement of
our postal service, and is at present actively promoting the cause
of the parcels post. This organization is made up of manufacturers,
wholesalers, publishers and importers, and is supported by many of the
state Granges. The Postal Express Federation is a new organization,
formed for the express purpose of urging a reform of our parcels post
service, and is supported by many of the same organizations which are
back of the Postal Progress League. The American League of Associations
(headquarters at Room 343, Rand-McNally Building, Chicago, Ill.), is
composed of wholesalers in all lines of merchandise. Its object is to
promote the welfare of the small towns and country communities, and to
oppose the centralization of population in cities. It is at present
actively engaged in fighting the parcels post.
These organizations as well as several others, named in the
bibliography given elsewhere in this volume, publish and distribute
literature for and against the parcels post, and the student of this
subject will find it profitable to get into communication with them.
Hearings on the subject of a parcels post have been held before the
House Committee on the Post-Office and Post Roads, at two different
times, in April, 1910, and in June, 1911. At these hearings, have
appeared representatives of the associations named in the preceding
paragraph and of others who approve or oppose the recommendations
for an enlarged parcels post. Among those who have appeared in favor
of the parcels post are the various state Granges and farmer’s
organizations, the American Dyers and Cleaners Association, the
Manufacturing Perfumers Association, the Associated Retailers of St.
Louis, the Pennsylvania State Federation of Labor, the Society of
American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists, and the National
American Woman’s Suffrage Association. Other societies opposing the
parcels post are the National Retail Hardware Association, the United
Commercial Travelers, the National Association of Implement and Vehicle
Dealers’ Associations, the National Associations of Retail Druggists
and Grocers, and various Oil, Paint, and Varnish Clubs and Associations.
Postmaster-General George von L. Meyer recommended that our present
parcels post system, which is now limited to parcels weighing four
pounds or less, be extended to include all parcels of eleven pounds
or less, and that the rate be reduced from sixteen to twelve cents a
pound. He also recommended that a similar post be established on the
rural routes for all parcels of eleven pounds or less, with a rate
of five cents for the first pound and two cents for each additional
pound. Various bills have been introduced into Congress embodying
part or all of these suggestions. Other measures that have been
presented provide that the government be given a complete monopoly
of the parcels-carrying trade. One bill of this kind introduced by
Representative David Lewis of Maryland, provides that the government
shall take over the business of the express companies and have complete
control of the carrying business in parcels under a given weight. This
bill also provides that the zone-system of rates, now in operation in
Germany, be adopted.
The General Discussion, following this Introduction, contains data in
regard to our present parcels post systems both foreign and domestic,
also similar data concerning the systems of other countries. It also
contains information regarding many of the recommendations that have
been made for an enlarged parcels post and the measures that have been
presented to Congress. The student is advised to familiarize himself
with the facts given in this discussion before proceeding to take up
the arguments for and against the parcels post.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Up to Members of Congress.
D. M. Carr.
Bills have been introduced in the present Congress, by Senators Burnham
and Kean, with a view of further improving the postal service. These
measures are for the purpose of enabling the postal department to
extend its parcel delivery service, commonly designated as the “parcels
post.”
There is a large percentage of citizens who strongly advocate
an enlargement of the parcels carrying service performed by the
government. A number of foreign countries have for years maintained
parcels post systems on broad gauge plans; in fact, in Great Britain,
in Germany and a few other countries, the parcels post is conducted in
a manner so as to almost monopolize the express business. But in these
countries conditions, both geographically and commercially, are vastly
different from conditions that obtain within the United States. In the
old countries, there is greater density of population, and distances
which mail matter traverses are about one-thirteenth the distance that
the average piece of mail matter is carried in the continental United
States.
In considering any postal innovation, it is essential that not alone
the operation and the revenue of the postal department be taken into
consideration, but also what the effect of the innovation will be upon
the industries located in various districts of the United States.
Some of the bills introduced in Congress, chief among them, that
introduced by Congressman Hearst during a former session, and the one
by Congressman Henry of Connecticut, during the present session, have
elements that mark them as undesirable and thoroughly impractical under
prevailing conditions, or any possible conditions that may arise in the
United States during the next quarter century.
The postal department is not conducted for the purpose of profit;
rather it is conducted to perform a special service, which governmental
function can best perform for the people. But the department should
be self-sustaining. The revenue derived for the services rendered
the people should be sufficient to cover all expense of operation
economically performed. Any legislation involving the performance of
this service for less than cost to the government does not appeal to
the economist as wise or desirable. Yet the postal department does
perform certain services at a loss, although there are compensating
circumstances which more than overbalance the expenditure. In the
carrying of newspapers and periodicals, under the present system, there
is probably a loss, but at the same time the people receive a general
benefit far outweighing the cost to the government by having cheap
and good literature and such information as the press of the country
conveys and this at the minimum of expense. The second class rate, a
subsidy granted the press, has been instrumental to a degree impossible
of estimation in improving the intelligence of the people and raising
the standard of citizenship.
The proposals set forth in the Henry bill, involving the establishment
of a parcels post system with a maximum weight of 11-pounds and the
maximum charge for maximum weight 25 cents from one postoffice in the
United States to any other postoffice or where mail is delivered,
are objectionable from an economic view. In the first place, such
service would entail heavy losses annually to the department; these
losses possibly reaching $150,000,000 or $200,000,000 annually.
Then again this system of parcels post would be a wonderful factor
in increasing the unequal distribution of business throughout the
nation. Geographical and other conditions greatly vary throughout
the states of the United States. In the thickly populated districts,
where manufacturing is carried on, the cost of labor and the cost of
production of articles of manufacture, ranges from 20 to 50 per cent
less than in other sections, principally in the agricultural regions.
A parcels post that allows the transportation of merchandise at as low
a rate as that provided for in the Henry bill, would enable consumers
residing in agricultural districts, where wages are high, to purchase
their goods in the lowest priced markets in the United States, and the
results of this system would be to concentrate industries in the large
cities and densely populated districts to the detriment of agricultural
and other sections now undergoing commercial and manufacturing
development. This would retard the growth of towns and the upbuilding
of manufacturing industries in those sections. Thus it can be seen that
there would be no compensating effects to justify the installation of a
parcels post of this character.
The exorbitant charges made by the express companies and other carriers
have caused the people of the United States to demand that the package
carrying machinery of the United States postal department be enlarged.
Recognizing this demand, Postmaster-General Meyer in his annual report
made the recommendation that the parcels carrying service of the
government be broadened and that the parcels post be extended so as to
make the maximum weight of a package carried 11 pounds with a graduated
rate up to one pound and a pound rate of 12 cents, making the maximum
rate for the maximum weight $1.32. He also recommended that a parcels
post be established over rural delivery routes, starting from the
post-office where the route emanates and ending upon a rural route. For
this service he recommended that the limit of weight be 11 pounds and
the charge 5 cents for the first pound and 2 cents for each additional
pound, making the maximum charge for an 11 pound package 25 cents, and
that this service be limited to bonafide merchants and others residing
along the line of a rural route.
In making his recommendation as to parcels post enlargement, it
is evident that the postmaster-general well considered not alone
the welfare of the department as to revenues sufficient for proper
maintenance and the installation of a more efficient service, but
as well carefully weighed the economic aspects as they relate to
geographical and commercial conditions throughout the Union.
A careful study into Mr. Meyer’s plan will show that it does not
contemplate any revolution in commercial methods. Notwithstanding the
charges made to the contrary, by those opposed to his views, it does
not appear that should his system be adopted by Congress that the large
houses doing an exclusive mail order business would have any advantage
over the merchants of the smaller cities and towns. The rural parcels
post would certainly be not alone advantageous to the twelve or fifteen
millions of people residing in agricultural districts, who are now
served by more than 38,000 rural carriers, but would be of great value
to the live merchants in the smaller towns who at a minimum of expense
could utilize the rural service for the delivery of goods to their
patrons in the country.
The bills introduced, respectively by Senators Burnham and Kean, are in
perfect harmony with the recommendations of the postmaster-general.
With the diversion of small packages from the express companies
to the mails, the revenues to the postoffice department would be
proportionately greater than the increased cost occasioned by the
greater tonnage of matter carried.
During the past fiscal year, the expense of maintaining the rural
delivery routes was in excess of $26,000,000. The installation of a
parcels delivery over the rural routes would most likely during the
first year place the rural delivery on a self-sustaining basis. There
are 38,253 rural routes. Should each carrier over a route on his daily
trip carry only 88 pounds of merchandise from the local stores to
the patrons on his route, it would give the government a revenue of
approximately $24,000,000 annually, and this service can be performed
without other carrying equipment than rural carriers now have.
When every phase of the recommendations of Postmaster-General Meyer be
carefully weighed, it becomes apparent that his plans are based upon
soundest business judgment.
Opposition to Mr. Meyer’s recommendations comes from three sources,
namely:
Large manufacturers, jobbers and other classes of business men who
annually spend enormous amounts for letter postage.
Country merchants who are unduly alarmed over the growth of the
catalogue houses, and who fear that a parcels post extension will
increase the mail order business to their detriment.
Express companies, whose revenues would be decreased by operation of
the system.
Data Relative to Proposed Extension of Parcel Post. pp. 1-6.
OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL,
_Washington, D. C., March 4, 1908._
MY DEAR SENATOR: It affords me great pleasure, in compliance with
your request, to place at your disposal the data which are available
relative to the proposed extension of the parcel post.
It does not appear to be generally appreciated that a comprehensive
system of parcels post is already in satisfactory operation in most
foreign countries. Exhibit No. 1 gives detailed information on this
subject. I show here the limit of weight which has been fixed in a
number of instances:
Pounds.
Great Britain 11
Germany 110
France 22
Italy 11
Chile 11
New Zealand 11
Austria 110
Belgium 132
The Netherlands 11
Cuba 11
The rates in the countries mentioned are much lower than those shown in
Exhibit No. 2, which have been recommended for the general parcel post
in the United States.
The present rate on the general parcel post is 16 cents a pound
for people in our own country, the limit of weight being 4 pounds,
while the rate from the United States to 29 foreign countries is 12
cents a pound and the limit of weight to 24 of these countries is 11
pounds. In other words, our own people must pay 4 cents a pound more
for the privilege of dispatching packages to each other than when
destined to residents of a foreign country. I have therefore urged a
rate of 12 cents a pound for packages forwarded through the mails to
post-offices in the United States and its possessions, subject to the
same regulations as exist at the present time, with the exception of
increasing the weight limit to 11 pounds. The service can be rendered
at a cost well within the rates recommended.
According to the report of the record of weight of second-class mail
matter, transmitted by the Post-Office Department to the House of
Representatives under date of February 1, 1907, the average haul of all
second-class matter was 540 miles.
Of the total receipts of the Post-Office Department 69 per cent are
expended for labor and supplies, and 7 per cent for conveyance charges
other than those paid the railroads for transporting the mail. A
general rate for parcel post of 12 cents a pound would produce a
revenue of $240 a ton. Even on the basis of a 540-mile average haul,
I find the debit and credit sides of 1 ton of parcel post to be as
follows:
By postage $240.00
To railroad transportation, 540 miles, at 5½ cents $29.70
Other transportation charges 16.80
Labor and supplies 165.60
------
Total cost 212.10
------
Profit 27.90
A local parcel post confined to rural delivery routes is also advocated
at the rates given in Exhibit No. 3. The Department favors the
establishment of this special service because of its ability to render
it with great advantage to the farmer, the country merchant, and other
patrons of the routes, as the necessary machinery (over 38,000 routes
now regularly covered by rural carriers) is in operation. There are
some 15,000,000 people living on these routes, which shows the vast
possibilities of the rural service. It has been estimated that if but
three packages of the maximum weight were handled each trip on the
rural routes now established the resulting revenue, even at the low
rates given, would more than wipe out the postal deficit. The increased
cancellations would automatically advance the salaries of postmasters
of the fourth class, and the remaining revenue, which would be
clear gain, would be of great assistance in making the rural service
self-sustaining. The rural service will, in all probability, cost the
government this year $34,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over last
year.
The history and advantages of the rural delivery should be understood
by our people. There is a feeling in many quarters that it is an
extravagance and an unnecessary drain upon the postal revenues. The
first rural route was established in the latter part of 1896, $14,840
being expended for rural delivery during that fiscal year. At that time
the postal deficit was $11,411,779. During the fiscal year ended June
30, 1907, the expenditures for rural delivery aggregated $26,671,699,
while the postal deficit showed a decrease, as compared with 1897, of
$4,800,000, the deficit amounting to $6,653,282. This would seem to
show that while the expense incurred for maintaining rural delivery is
great, yet the rural delivery has been instrumental in increasing the
general postal receipts. However, its benefits to our people can not be
measured in dollars and cents.
That a local parcel post would be of material advantage to the retail
merchant in competition with mail-order houses is seen at once when it
is pointed out that the latter, at the proposed general parcel post
rate of 12 cents a pound, would be obliged to pay $1.32 for sending an
11-pound package to a rural route patron, a difference in favor of the
local storekeeper of about 10 cents a pound, or $1.07 on an 11-pound
package.
Letters and petitions for the extension of the parcel post are being
received from all sections of the country. Many commercial bodies
formerly opposed to any action of this kind are on record as being
heartily in favor of it.
On the other hand, objections have been raised to the measures the
Department is advocating. Although no sound argument has been advanced
in opposition, the contentions which have been made are not without
interest. I mention the more important of them, at the same time giving
the replies which they have elicited:
It has been stated that the Department is not equipped to deliver
11-pound parcels received in the general mails. The present postal
regulations provide that where a package is of undue size or weight a
formal notice shall be sent the addressee requesting him to call for
it. This practice, would continue were the weight limit increased to
11 pounds, in the case of offices having free delivery. Nor would it
work a hardship, for under the present limit of 4 pounds the average
weight of parcels sent through the mails is but one-third of a pound.
Increasing the weight limit would not have nearly as great an effect on
the average weight of parcels mailed as seems to be commonly supposed.
Where packages were addressed to persons living on rural routes they
would, of course, be delivered to the boxes of the patrons by rural
carriers, who would not thereby be inconvenienced.
The claim that the special local rate recommended for the parcel post
on rural routes would eventually be extended to include the entire
postal service has been given considerable publicity. The impossibility
of this becomes apparent when attention is directed to the cost of
railroad transportation, which has no part in the former service. About
$45,000,000 were paid last year for mail transportation and $6,000,000
for postal cars.
Others have said that large mail-order houses would, under the proposed
law, utilize the special parcel post or rural routes through agents
to the great disadvantage of the country merchant, first assembling
their orders and despatching them by express or freight to suitable
distributing points. The Department has recommended provisions which
will prevent any such use of the routes. It should be remembered, too,
that even in the absence of a specific prohibition of this nature,
any systematic attempt upon the part of a mail-order house to thus
distribute its wares would necessitate the employment of many thousands
of local representatives. The catalogues of these concerns indicate in
no uncertain way that they attribute their success, in large measure,
to their low selling expense, and that the absence of any sort of
agents is the principal feature of their argument in accounting for the
supposedly low prices of their goods.
The cry of “class legislation” has been raised. There is, of course, no
discrimination involved, for all who can be reached by rural carriers
will be accommodated. It would be as reasonable to decry the laws
which permit the delivery of mail to patrons living on rural routes,
while persons differently situated are obliged to make a trip to a
near-by post-office to obtain their letters.
Those who claim that an increase in the weight limit would work
an injury to country merchants appear to have the impression that
mail-order houses now deliver their goods extensively through the
postal service, and that this practice would largely increase if the
recommendations which have been made become law. Upon a moment’s
reflection it will be perceived that the present rate of 16 cents
a pound ($16 per hundred-weight), as well as the proposed rate of
12 cents a pound ($12 per hundred-weight), are alike prohibitive on
practically all lines of merchandise. Mail-order houses make their
shipments usually by freight or express and would continue to do so.
Antagonism to the proposed measures, when analyzed and found not to be
the result of selfish motives, appears to be based upon inaccurate or
insufficient information. In illustration, I desire to invite attention
to a communication of the Richmond Commercial Club, of Richmond, Ind.,
which appeared in the Congressional Record of January 4, 1908. In this
letter the statement was made that a certain mail-order house would
save $40,000 a year on the mailing of catalogues alone. Catalogues are
rated as third-class matter, whereas the Department’s recommendations
with respect to parcel post relate to fourth-class matter only.
Catalogues are now mailable at 1 cent for 2 ounces, or 8 cents a pound,
4 cents a pound less than the rate proposed for the general parcel
post. The mail-order house referred to, therefore, would gain nothing
under the proposed law in the mailing of its catalogues.
With the adoption of new conveniences of life by urban residents, and
the ever-increasing attractions of the city, especially potent in their
influence upon the younger generation, the importance of affording
farmers and ruralites generally every legitimate advantage becomes more
and more apparent. The free rural delivery has improved materially
and intellectually the life of great numbers of these people. Is it
too much to ask that the Department shall make a further use of this
important system; a use which, while adding appreciably to the postal
revenues, will directly and vitally benefit every man, woman, and
child within reach of a rural route? The countryman would have the
necessities of life delivered at his gate at an average cost of 2 cents
a pound, thereby facilitating and increasing consumption. This would
mean augmentation of the trade of thousands of country merchants. The
commercial traveler should appreciate the advantages of this system; it
would increase his orders because the country merchant buys from the
jobber or the wholesaler. Every component part of our commercial system
would feel the effects of an increased prosperity.
It would inevitably tend toward the improvement of the roads. Better
roads and improved postal facilities in the rural districts would
result in increased values of farm lands. The rural service as now
organized has accomplished something in this direction; its enlargement
will add to the good attained.
Believe me, faithfully yours,
G. v. L. Meyer.
Hon. Henry E. Burnham, _United States Senate, Washington_.
Exhibit 1.
Parcel Post Rates in the Domestic Service of the Countries Named.
Great Britain.--Postage rates for the first pound, 3 pence (6 cents),
and for each additional pound, 1 penny (2 cents); maximum weight, 11
pounds; greatest length, 3 feet 6 inches; greatest length and girth
combined, 6 feet.