Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 18 (of 20)

by Charles Sumner

DISTANCE ALONE DOES NOT CAUSE EXPENSE.

Sometimes it is supposed that the great distances of our country cause the large expense; but this is a mistake, founded on superficial observation. The large expense proceeds from something besides distance. Here I quote the words of Rowland Hill:—

“It is not matter of inference, but a matter of fact, that the expense to the Post-Office is practically the same, whether a letter is going from London to Barnet [eleven miles] or whether it is going from London to Edinburgh [four hundred miles]; the difference is not expressible in the smallest coin we have.”[99]

I have already mentioned that the actual cost of transportation from London to Edinburgh was only one thirty-sixth of a penny, and this was the average for all letters throughout the United Kingdom. With so small a fraction of a penny representing the cost of the longest line, it was apparent that the element of distance must be eliminated from the question. A recent writer thus strongly testifies to this rule:—

“If Mr. Hill demonstrated one thing more plainly than another, it was that the absolute cost of the transmission of each letter was so infinitesimally small, that, if charged according to that cost, the postage could not be collected. Besides, it is not certain that the one letter would cost the Post-Office more than the other.”[100]

But this rule is as applicable in our country as in the United Kingdom, always provided the lines are productive.

This rule, first enunciated by Rowland Hill, was substantially adopted by the Parliamentary Committee, when they say,—

“That it is the opinion of this Committee, that that part of the inland postage on letters which consists of tax ought to be the same on all; that, as the cost of conveyance per letter depends more on the number of letters carried than on the distance which they are conveyed, the cost being frequently greater for distances of a few miles than for distances of hundreds of miles, the charge, if varied in proportion to the cost, ought to increase in the inverse ratio of the number of letters conveyed; but as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry such a regulation into practice, and as the actual cost of conveyance (assuming the charged letters to bear the whole expense of the franked letters and of the newspapers) forms less than the half of the whole charge exclusive of tax, the remaining portion consisting chiefly in the charges attendant on their receipt at and delivery from the Post-Office, your Committee are of opinion that the nearest practicable approach to a fair system would be to charge a uniform rate of postage between one post-town and another, whatever might be their distance; and your Committee are further of opinion that such an arrangement is highly desirable, not only on account of its abstract fairness, but because it would tend in a great degree to simplify and economize the business of the Post-Office.”[101]

All this is plainly reasonable, whether in the United Kingdom or the United States.

The actual cost of each letter is inversely as the number of letters, irrespective of distance. The weight enters very little into the question. Take, for instance, a route of ten miles, at ten cents a mile, and another of one hundred miles at the same rate. If on the route of ten miles there is an average of only one letter, as is the case on some routes, this one letter would cost one dollar, while ten thousand letters on the route of one hundred miles would cost only one mill a letter. The Post-Office pays a fixed compensation for the daily transportation of its mails between certain places, and this compensation is not varied by any addition to the number of letters. Therefore on all productive or paying lines, as between Washington and New York, and then between New York and Buffalo, additional letters may be received for distant places, without adding to the cost, until the letters reach St. Louis or New Orleans, or any other place accessible by a self-supporting line, and the actual cost of a letter for the longest distance will be no more than for the shortest. It will be the same alike to New Orleans and to New York. Thus on the assumption of a continuous self-supporting line the question of distance does not enter into the cost, and thus again we see the injustice of compelling the correspondence on such a line to the contributions it is now obliged to make.