Postal Riders and Raiders

by W. H. Gantz

Then, too, when our President and his Postmaster General so warm up to a surplus of $220,000, it is possible, if not probable, that a trifle like $345,000 might have been a convenience as a deficit reducer in December, 1910.

On page 19 of Mr. Hitchcock’s report, he presents the following as one of thirty “Improvements in Organization and Methods” accomplished by the Postoffice Department during the year ended June 30, 1911:

A change in the financial system whereby the surplus receipts of postoffices throughout the country are promptly centralized at convenient points for the purpose of meeting other postal expenditures incurred during the period in which the surplus receipts accrued, thus paying the expenses of the service from current receipts and obviating the necessity of applying to the Treasury for a grant to meet an apparent deficiency in postal revenues when, as has happened in many instances, no actual deficiency exists.

Now, that is certainly an “improvement” worthy of all commendation. If, as stated, it provides for “Meeting other postal expenditures incurred during the period in which the surplus receipts accrued” it certainly should prevent “an apparent deficiency … when … no actual deficiency exists.”

But why, then, is it reported that over $7,000,000 of expenditures for the year ended June 30, 1910, are charged to the fiscal year 1911? The report bears date December 1st, 1911—four months after the fiscal year 1911 closed. If the receipts of postoffices throughout the country are “promptly centralized” for the purpose of meeting current expenditures, it would require super, if indeed not supple, expertness in accounting to figure out a surplus of $220,000 for a year’s business which assumes over seven millions in unpaid bills of a previous year without, apparently, knowing what amount of unpaid bills can be shunted onto the next year.

But, it may be argued, there is nothing inconsistent in Mr. Hitchcock’s claim as just quoted, of an improvement in the department’s system or methods of accounting which makes, or should make, unnecessary the carrying over to 1911 so large a sum for expenditures made in or an account of the year 1910. While the improved methods have been introduced, it may be argued that insufficient time has elapsed, even to December 1st, to admit of their application in making up the fiscal report for the year 1911. In short, that the improved methods were introduced so late in the fiscal year 1910 that the resulting betterments in the system of accounting could not be shown in the report for 1910-11.

Yes, that possibly might be of some weight in considering this claimed improvement in the accounting methods of the department. There is, however, one serious objection to its acceptance as evidence in this case—evidence in proof that there was not sufficient time to make the improved methods operative in the showing for the fiscal year 1911:

(5) The adoption of improved methods of accounting by which the surplus or deficiency in the postal revenues is approximately determined within three weeks from the close of each quarter, instead of three months thereafter, on the completion of the audit of postmasters’ accounts.

(6) The adoption of an accounting plan that insures the prompt deposit in the Treasury of postal funds not immediately required for disbursement at postoffices, thus making available for use by the department several millions of dollars that, under the old practice, would be tied up in postoffices.

In his 1909-10 report, Mr. Hitchcock sets forth fifty “improvements” in methods of handling and conducting the business of the Postoffice Department—improvements made prior to June 30, 1910, mind you. Well, the foregoing quotation presents numbers 5 and 6 of the enumerated 50 “improvements” that were set up as having already been instituted—instituted prior to June 30, 1910. Beyond saying that the department has certainly had ample time to install and make operative the improvements in methods of handling its business and of accounting, which its published reports claim to have been made, comment is unnecessary. If the improvements, as twice claimed in the two annual reports from which I have quoted have been made, then, it is pertinent to ask: Why was over seven millions of 1909-10 expenditures carried to 1910-11 account?