Since the members of the above commercial associations can not to any important degree be beneficiaries of the present confiscatory and restrictive system that has a monopoly of the transportation of merchandise in packages of 4 pounds to 20 pounds, some other reason for their opposition to the parcels post must be found, and in that connection the testimony given by these gentlemen at the hearing is interesting.
The main objection to the parcels post was that it would build up catalogue houses to the injury of retail businesses.
In reply to questions by members of the congressional committee, however, some of their specific objections applied only to the rural free delivery now firmly established and which nobody dreams of abolishing.
The other objections advanced were also to conditions already in existence, some of which at least it would seem would be less objectionable if we had a serviceable parcels post.
For instance, the mailing of catalogues by the catalogue houses. That can be done now to the farmer’s door for one-half cent an ounce, but even that low rate does not always get the business. I have seen the catalogue of Sears, Roebuck & Co. and the Chicago House Wrecking Co. that were sent by each of these firms to addressees who did not specify how he wished them sent. They were received since the date of the hearing; both catalogues came by prepaid express.
Had we a parcels post competing with the express companies and reducing their extortionate charges the express companies would be less able to deprive the government of that revenue by underbidding the Post Office Department rate on catalogues.
Catalogue Houses Don’t Need the Parcels Post, and Oppose It
At the congressional hearing so much was said by the opponents of the parcels post about the catalogue houses, how they were behind the parcels post—that it was for their sole benefit, etc., etc.—that I went to Chicago and succeeded in getting an interview with Mr. Julius Rosenwald, president of Sears, Roebuck & Co. He declined to support the parcels post. He said they were very well satisfied with conditions as they are, under which they had built up their immense business, which was done entirely by catalogue and without salesmen or commission. He explained that only an insignificant amount of their sales went by mail, that what did was unprofitable, as it cost as much to make ready and handle such little sales as larger shipments, jewelry being the only exception, and even for that they advised express.
Evidence that catalogue houses do not want or need, and do oppose, the parcels post was not lacking at the hearing.
For example: Marcus M. Marks, of the Merchants’ Association of New York, after stating that the Merchants’ Association is not in favor of a general parcels post and has frequently placed itself in opposition thereto he quoted one of the large Chicago catalogue houses as in opposition, and for this reason: “The result would be that instead of shipping goods in large bulk it would tend to create a demand for small shipments, which would increase his expense of doing business.” Marshall Field & Co., one of the largest concerns in this country, were referred to by both J. G. Baker, president National Federation of Retail Implements, etc., and H. L. McNamary, of the Hardware Dealers’ Association, as opposed to the parcels post.