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 [pg 036] 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:”