Foot-prints of a letter carrier; or, a history of the world's correspondece

by James Rees

NEWSPAPERS, EXCHANGES, ETC.

“Gazettes sent gratis down and franked,

For which thy patron’s weekly thanked.”

The question of the right to send and receive letters and packets through the mail free of postage is not denied, for it is so expressly stated in the “Laws and Regulations of the Post-Office Department,” chap. xviii. sect. 228. It is viewed in the light of “personal privileges,” or as an official trust for the maintenance of official correspondence. In both its forms the right varies in respect to different classes of officers and individuals, in the kind as well as weight of matters which may be so sent or received. An interchange between publishers of pamphlets, periodicals, magazines, and newspapers of their respective publications is allowed for the purpose of promoting the dissemination of this kind of information, of which they are the vehicles. This is the head and front of the franking privilege, nothing more, but should be considerably less.

“There are many other channels of knowledge, and of very important knowledge, too, which are not privileged. Newspapers are daily or weekly letters, written to a number of persons at once. They may be good or bad, sound or vicious, as any other letters; and the intensity of their action is increased by the multiplying process of printing. This action may be good or bad: if, therefore, the community is believed to stand in want of newspapers, as we certainly believe it does in a very great variety of ways, it is already going very far to grant them the privilege of a greatly-reduced rate of postage [1841].”[53]

Since the above was written, these rates have been reduced to almost a nominal value. Indeed, we cannot see any reasonable objection to be made for such exchange, both as regards the franking privilege and the postage on exchange-newspapers. Patriotism on the part of those claiming the right of the first would induce them to forego it, while those who enjoy the latter should remember that, as they derive profit from their labor, the government should not be the sufferer in consequence. Upon this subject we consider the following article from the very able report of Postmaster Joseph Holt in 1859 as containing the best and the most forcible arguments that can be used to correct what we consider more in the light of an error than that of an abuse. The press of our country is too enlightened to persist in claiming a privilege that militates against the financial interest of the government; and we feel assured that, if the subject is properly brought before them, they will readily conform to any law that may be established to correct the error or do away with an abuse.

(From the Report of the Postmaster-General.)

“Post-Office Department, 1859.

“The act of 1825 authorized ‘every printer of newspapers to send one paper to each and every other printer of newspapers within the United States free of postage,’ and such is the existing law. However slight the support which this statute may seem to give to publishers, it imposes in the aggregate a heavy and unjust burden on the department. The advantage thus conferred inures to the benefit alike of the publisher who sends and of him who receives the paper in exchange. I have in vain sought for any satisfactory explanation of the policy indicated by this provision. It seems far more exceptionable than the franking privilege, since the latter professes to be exercised on behalf of the public, whereas the exemption secured by the former is enjoyed wholly in advancement of a private and personal interest. The newspapers received in exchange by the journalist are, in the parlance of commerce, his stock in trade. From their columns he gathers materials for his own, and thus makes the same business use of them that the merchant does of his goods, or the mechanic of the raw material which he proposes to manufacture into fabrics. But as the government transports nothing free of charge to the farmer, the merchant, or the mechanic, to enable them to prosecute successfully and economically their respective pursuits, why shall it do so for the journalist? If the latter can rightfully claim that his newspapers shall be thus delivered to him at the public expense, why may he not also claim that his stationery and his type, and indeed every thing which enters into the preparation of the sheets he issues as his means of living, be delivered to him on the same terms? It has been urged, I am aware, that postage on newspaper exchanges would be a tax on the dissemination of knowledge; but so is the postage which the farmer, merchant, and mechanic pay on the newspapers for which they subscribe, a tax on the dissemination of knowledge, and yet it is paid by them uncomplainingly. If it be insisted that the publishers of newspapers, as a class, are in such a condition as to entitle them to demand the aid of the public funds, it may be safely answered that such an assumption is wholly unwarranted. Journalism in the United States rests upon the broadest and deepest foundations, and is running a career far more brilliant and prosperous than in any other nation of the world. The exceedingly reduced rates at which its issues pass through the mails secure to it advantages enjoyed under no other government. Under the fostering care of the free spirit of the age, it has now become an institution in itself in this country, and controls the tides of the restless ocean of public opinion with almost resistless sway. It is the avant-courier of the genius of our institutions, and is everywhere the advocate of progress and of the highest and noblest forms of human freedom. Is it not, therefore, to the last degree unseemly, if not worse, that in its own enterprises, and in furtherance of its own pecuniary interests, it should claim permission to violate habitually a great principle of which it is the constant advocate, and which underlies our whole political system,—the principle of equal rights to all and special privileges to none? If, however, from the grandeur and beneficence of its mission, the press is to be excepted from the operation of this wholesome democratic doctrine, and is to be subsidized to the extent of its postages by the government, then undeniably such subsidy should be contributed from the common treasury, instead of being imposed, as at present, on the oppressed revenues of the post-office department, which, under all circumstances, should be maintained inviolate.

“Into the same category, but for more cogent reasons, must fall that class of weekly newspapers which the statute of 1852 requires shall be delivered free of postage to all subscribers residing within the limits of the county in which they are published. This requisition is less sound on the score of principle than even the discrimination in favor of the press. There may be something in the characteristics of the latter—ennobled as it is as the organ of the intellect and heart of millions of freemen—which might induce many to grant to it special and distinguishing immunities; but why a citizen who chances to reside on one side of a county line shall be exempted from a postage on his newspaper, which his neighbor on the other side of that line is obliged to pay on the same paper, surpasses my comprehension.”