The English writer above referred to says of the mail-carrying situation in Germany:
The German post has no occasion to enforce heavy rates. It can impose its own terms on the railway companies. By law these have to carry free all parcels under eleven pounds in weight. Thus the mistake which has crippled the activity of the British parcels post has been avoided.
Of course there can be no just comparison between a service carried on under such conditions and ours, for the basic conditions are so fundamentally dissimilar.
The matter of railroad ownership lies at the very foundation of this question. If this government owned the roads and operated them, it would matter little what went forward as mail and what under another designation. But that is not the case now and it is to be hoped never will be. From this standpoint, as well as from those hereinbefore mentioned, it is manifestly unfair to argue that because other countries do so and so in their mail service, therefore we should do the same.
It is significant that no country giving a large service of the kind under consideration undertakes to say that its receipts equal the cost of the service. I have not been able to find any report showing the cost of the parcels department. It is stated by some pretty high authority that the general belief among these nations is that they are rendering it at a loss. It is hard to reconcile that condition of the business with any idea of fairness. We may properly carry on the educational feature of the mail service, in part, out of the general revenue of the government; but who will say that we may fairly carry the individual’s produce to market or his merchandise home for him at public expense in whole or in part? Why should all the people be taxed to pay a postal deficit created by moving freight for the people at less than cost of service? Is there any reason why this branch of pure business should be conducted at public expense which would not justify the performance by the government of any other department of business?