Congressional Record. 45: 9310-4. June 24, 1910.
General Deficiency Bill.
William S. Bennet.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the great interest in the parcels post question, I submit herewith the views of the Farmers’ National Congress:
A Brief for a Modern Parcels Post for the United States
[By John M. Stahl, legislative agent Farmers’ National Congress.]
It has been said, and not without justice, that because of greater density of population parcels can be carried at a less cost in the domestic mails of Germany or Belgium than in the domestic mails of the United States, because the average haul would be shorter in Germany or Belgium. But the disparity between the domestic parcels post of the United States and of foreign countries is greater than is warranted by the length of the average haul. No fact is better established in the science of transportation than that the cost of transporting an article bears little relation to the distance transported. But if the density of population should fix the rate of postage and the limit of weight in a domestic parcels post, then surely we should have a lower rate of postage and a higher weight limit than those countries in which the population is not so dense as is ours. For example, the area of the Commonwealth of Australia is 2,974,581 square miles, and the present population is 4,300,000. The area of the United States, excluding Alaska and the islands, is 3,025,600 square miles. Alaska and Hawaii would add a shade less than 600,000 square miles. The area of the Philippine Archipelago is 832,968 square miles, and the population, according to the 1908 census, is 7,835,436. It is certain that, including all our territory and all our population, we have an average population of more than 20 per square mile. Australia has a population of less than 2 per square mile. If the argument of the opponents of a modern parcels post for the United States, founded on the density of population of Belgium, Germany, etc., is a good argument, then the rate charged in our domestic parcels post should be much less and the weight limit should be much greater than in the domestic parcels post of Australia. But the postage rate in the domestic parcels post of Australia is as follows: Intrastate, 1 pound, 6 pence (12 cents); 2 pounds, 9 pence (18 cents); 3 pounds, 1 shilling; and 3 pence (6 cents) for each additional pound up to and including 11 pounds, the postage rate for an 11-pound parcel being 3 shillings (72 cents).
The interstate rate in the parcels post among the six states of Australia is as follows: One pound, 8 pence (16 cents); 2 pounds, 1 shilling 2 pence; 3 pounds, 1 shilling 8 pence; and 6 pence additional for each additional pound up to and including 11 pounds, making the charge for an 11-pound parcel 5 shillings 8 pence ($1.36).
New Zealand is 1,200 miles from Australia and extends for 1,100 miles. It has a population of only 1,000,000. Yet the rate in the parcels posts between the States of Australia and New Zealand is just the same as it is among the States of Australia, and the weight limit is the same.
Now, if the people of Belgium and Germany should have a less postage rate and a higher weight limit in their domestic parcels post than we have because the population of Germany and Belgium is denser than our population, then we should have a much less postage rate and a much higher weight limit in our domestic parcels post than have the people of Australia, because our population is more than ten times as dense as the population of Australia. But, on the contrary, the average postage rate in not only the intrastate but also in the interstate parcels post of Australia is less than in our domestic parcels post, and the weight limit is 11 pounds, as compared with 4 pounds in our domestic parcels post. The rule laid down by the opponents of a modern parcels post for the United States must apply to Australia as well as to Belgium and Germany, and by this rule the rate in our domestic parcels post should certainly be less than 8 cents a pound and the weight limit should certainly be far above 11 pounds.
The postage rate in the domestic parcels post of New Zealand is 4 pence (8 cents) for the first pound and 2 pence (4 cents) for each additional pound. The population of New Zealand is less than one-half as dense as our population. The weight limit in the domestic parcels post of New Zealand is 11 pounds. If the argument of the opponents of a modern parcels post for the United States, founded on the density of population is correct, then the rate in our domestic parcels post, instead of being several times that of New Zealand, should be less, and the weight limit, instead of being only about one-third that of New Zealand, should be greater.
Our parcels post with foreign countries shows beyond argument that the postage rate in our domestic parcels post should be not more than one-third of what it is, at the utmost, and that the weight limit should be several times what it is. The domestic parcels posts of other countries and of Australia and New Zealand show also beyond argument that the postage rate in our domestic parcels post should be only a fraction of what it is and that the weight limit should be several times greater.
Whether or not the railways are owned by the government does not touch the argument founded on the parcel post of other countries. If government ownership of railways lessens the cost of the postal service, it may be an argument that our Post-Office Department pays our railways too high a rate for transporting mail matter, but it has nothing to do with the character of the mail service our government should give our people.
As a matter of fact, government ownership of railways has no apparent effect on the parcel post of foreign countries. Both those in which the railways are in large part owned by the government and those in which the government does not own any railway mileage have a parcel post much superior to ours.
Possibly our government should not conduct a parcel post at any considerable loss, although it should be borne in mind that the object of our Post-Office Department is to serve the people and not to make money. It might be successfully argued that fundamentally there is no greater reason why the Post-Office Department should be a source of revenue than that the War Department should be a source of revenue. The mails have become so very important in the transaction of business, in the communication of intelligence, and affect so many of the operations of our daily life, that each year it becomes apparent that the test of our Post-Office Department should be the excellence of the service it gives our people; and the relation of expenditures, so long as they are judiciously and economically made, to receipts is of less and less importance. But we would not advocate any parcel post that, when fully established and on a normal basis, would add much, if any, to the net cost of our Post-Office Department. However, it is apparent from a study of the profits of our express companies that our Post-Office Department could carry parcels in our domestic post at a much less rate than 16 cents a pound without increasing the net cost of the Post-Office Department. Further, a study of the profits of our express companies show clearly that we are being charged altogether too much by these express companies for the service they give us, and that their charges should be subjected to that most effective of all control—the competition of a modern parcel post. This study shows with equal plainness that the present weight limit on parcels in our domestic post, which compels us to send by express all parcels weighing more than 4 pounds, should be raised to a much higher figure, probably 25 or even 100 pounds. Recent investigations and revelations have shown that our express companies are really subjecting us to extortion.
The competition of a modern parcels post may not prove sufficient of itself to make the charges of the express companies what they should be, but it would certainly be most effective in accomplishing this result. We are subjected to overcharges by express companies as are the people of no other country on the face of the earth. In fact, the most important countries of Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc., are not subjected to any overcharges at all by express companies for the reason that in those countries and colonies there are no express companies of the nature of those existing in this country. On account of the overcharges of our express companies we have a very good reason, indeed, for a modern parcels post in this country; and this very good reason is in addition to those that so many other countries have found amply sufficient to warrant a modern parcels post.
And it should not be forgotten that the enormous profits of our express companies on the capital they actually have invested in the express business show conclusively that our government could give us a modern parcel post without increasing the net cost of the postal service after that parcel post had been established and its business had reached normal proportions.
In an honest endeavor to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the features of our domestic parcel post we can not do better than to study the parcel post of Australia and New Zealand, for the dominant elements in the population of Australia and New Zealand are the same as in ours, the people of Australia and New Zealand have obtained their ideas of government and the functions of government from the same source that we have, their institutions and conditions approach ours nearer than those of other countries, and they have the same problem of adapting the government service to a wide expanse of territory in the settlement and development of a new country. This problem, though much greater than ours at this time—the area of Australia is nearly the same as that of our states, while the population is only about one-twentieth as much—is the same in its nature.
Another reason is that the postal service of Australia and New Zealand is so satisfactory in every way. On page 25 of “L’Union Postale” for 1909 it is stated in regard to the New Zealand postal service: “The financial results of the administration were very satisfactory. The receipts increased by 9.04 per cent and the expenditure by 7.22 per cent over the preceding year.”
It will be seen that the postal business of New Zealand conforms to the rule of good business management that as a business increases in volume the receipts should increase faster than the expense.
In the last published report of the postmaster-general of New Zealand it is pointed out that notwithstanding several important reductions in the postage rate the revenue of the postal service had during the preceding sixteen years increased by a considerably larger amount than the expense. “From December 16, 1907, the postage on inland post cards was reduced to one-half penny. From January 1, 1908, the rates for inland letters were made 1 penny for the first 4 ounces and one-half penny for each additional 2 ounces. From January 1, 1908, the commission chargeable on money orders within New Zealand is 3 pence for each 5 pounds sterling or fraction of 5 pounds. Owing to the reduction in postal rates made the year before, the number of parcels increased 81.57 per cent.” “The rate of postage for inland parcels was reduced from 6 pence for the first pound and 3 pence for each additional pound to 4 pence for the first pound and 2 pence for each additional pound. The public, moreover, has by the change been induced to send by parcels post articles which were previously forwarded as packets.” “The reduction in postal rates may be practically referred to as having resulted in a great increase in parcels-post business.” There was a handsome net balance to the credit of the postal business. “The net balance on the year’s transactions would be much higher if the value of official correspondence dealt with were taken into account.” “The expansion of the business has necessitated large additions to the staff. The increase of the staff was, however, below the percentage of increase of the receipts. An amendment to the post-office act contributed to improve the financial condition of the postal service.” The experience of New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Australia in postal service is well stated by the colonial treasurer, Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, in one of his recent financial statements, as follows: “Experience has shown that every concession in postal rates creates a new class of business which is ultimately to the profit of the post-office.”
Of course, in the official publications of the Commonwealth of Australia and of New Zealand one hears nothing to the effect that the government should not engage in any competitive business—one hears that only in the United States. If that were put into effect, our national government would be compelled to stop building war ships in the navy-yards, to close up altogether the government printing establishment, to stop at once all its irrigation projects, to close up all the land-grant colleges, to stop at once casting cannon and making small firearms and ammunition, etc. As a matter of fact, when our Constitution was framed there was no question among those that framed it that it should give to the national government the power to do certain things, in competition with private enterprise, that would be for “the public welfare;” and there was never any intimation that the national government should not engage in any competitive business. On the other hand, those that helped to frame the national Constitution and to secure its adoption participated in and sanctioned legislation by Congress that put the national government into several lines of competitive business.
The publications of the labor officials of Australia and New Zealand are decidedly numerous, and show plainly that the working people of these colonies, as well as the other elements of their population, are heartily in favor of a modern parcel post. It may truly be said that the parcel post of Australia and New Zealand has the hearty and universal approval of the people of those colonies. The officials and the rank and file of the labor organizations of these colonies are among the heartiest supporters of their parcel post. And it is certain that the very large majority of the rank and file of our labor organizations and the very large majority of our city people, as well as of farmers, heartily favor a modern parcel post.
As for the relation of a modern parcels post to the so-called catalogue houses: In his official reports the postmaster-general of both Australia and New Zealand frequently emphasizes that for years a thoroughly modern colonial, intercolonial, and foreign parcels post has been enjoyed by the people of those colonies, even in “the most remote districts to which the mail service penetrates.” Notwithstanding this, in all of the many publications on Australia and New Zealand, or by the officials of those colonies, there could not be found a sentence to the effect that the local merchants of those colonies have been in the least injured in their business by catalogue houses.
This fact certainly merits being emphasized. In all the countries in which there is a modern parcels post the catalogue house is unknown. In our country, which is the only enlightened country that has not a modern parcels post, the catalogue house exists and, to some limited extent, flourishes. Hence the fact is plain that instead of a modern parcels post aiding catalogue houses the very opposite is true. If the universal experience of humanity counts for anything, then the antiquated parcels post, such as we have, aids the catalogue house and the modern parcels post puts it out of business and keeps it out of business.
The rural delivery service has grown to more than 20,000 routes. Official reports show that the average weight of mail delivered by each team or single-horse wagon in the rural delivery service is only 25 pounds. On nearly all the trips the carrier could practically as well take 500 pounds in his wagon. The more than 40,000 rural carriers make more than 12,480,000 round trips each year. If a parcels post on the rural routes earned $2 for each round trip the gain would be, in round numbers $25,000,000 a year, and this, with some little reforms that all agree should be and easily could be made, would wipe out the postal deficit. Now, if the rate on the pound packages in a rural route parcels post was 5 cents a pound the carrier to earn the $2 per round trip would be compelled to carry not the 500 pounds that he could, but only 20 pounds additional going and coming or a total load of only 45 pounds.
This is a fair calculation as to profit to the government, for the expense for the rural carrier service would not be any greater whatever, and the small expense for handling the additional 20 pounds at the terminal post-office would be more than covered by the increased first-class mail (handling which is very profitable) resulting from the parcels post.
As, on the average, about 100 families are served by each rural route, if, on the average, each family had delivered or sent each trip only one-half pound of parcel, taking into account that a good many parcels would weigh less than 1 pound and that every parcels-post bill proposes for them a higher rate than for heavier packages, the rate could be made much less than is proposed and yet the postal deficit would be wiped out altogether!
And this would be of very great benefit to the 4,000,000 families served by the rural mail delivery. The rural carrier passes the farm every week day, yet if the farmer wants a package from the town he must go after it—each of the 100 farmers must hitch up and drive to town and back for packages that the one carrier could have brought them as well as not with the outfit that he already has. Or these 100 farmers must hitch up and take to town packages that the carrier could have taken for them with the outfit he already has. The time and labor saved the 4,000,000 families on rural routes would amount to many times the present postal deficit.
It is only natural that farmers should be especially desirous of a modern parcels post, because, as already stated, the express service stops with the railway station. Hence the farmer has no express service that reaches to him as have the people of towns and cities. The express companies have never cared to carry their business to the farmer, and this must convict them of only the most reprehensible motives in opposing a parcels post limited to rural routes, which would extend the equivalent of an express service to the farmers. As bearing on the farmer’s need of a modern parcels post, the following from a letter just received from Hon. W. L. Ames, Oregon, Wis., a practical farmer and a leader of national reputation in all agricultural movements, is of interest:
“One of the things we most need is better and prompter transportation facilities for rather small articles. I recently needed a small but important repair for a machine. It weighed 4¼ pounds. It cost 55 cents. The express company charged 45 cents to bring it to Oregon—200 miles. The charge was altogether too high, but what I felt most disposed to complain about was that it took a week to bring the repair to me. Mail matter moves promptly; but the express company knew that it was certain of the job of carrying that repair to me, hence no need of haste on the part of the express company. We need better and added facilities for the prompter moving of such merchandise. Present delay is a serious handicap, and undoubtedly a parcels post would give us prompt service at a less rate, as it would not be expected that the parcels post would do more than make a moderate profit for the government, whereas the express business is a constant ‘melon-cutting’ business. We must not forget, also, that all the equipment for a parcels post on rural routes is already installed.
“If the government would take charge of what it already has and add rules to fix charges for carrying parcels on the rural routes, it would relieve us of much unjust charge and also much annoyance and loss of time. Under the rulings of the Post-Office Department prohibiting rural carriers from acting as agents for anyone to obtain business, carriers are afraid to carry parcels to any extent. But what cuts a yet greater figure is that no rule can be established to fix the charges for carrying parcels and make them the same for all. Each person on a rural route and the carrier cannot dicker for the transportation of each article. That would soon lead to great dissatisfaction, as some would think that others were being favored. And to dicker on each parcel would take so much time and be so much trouble that the carrier could not be expected to do it. All we need to put into effect a modern parcels post on the rural routes is a law fixing a reasonable and proper rate for the transportation of parcels and making it the business of the rural carrier to handle parcels as well as the mail matter he now carries.”