Newspaper Page Text
4
THE ATLANTA SEMT-WEEKLY JOURNAL, ATLANTA, GA., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1913.
I
4
j
THE SEMI-WEEKLY JOURNAL
ATX.ANTA, GA., 5 NORTH FORSYTE ST.
Entered at the Atlanta Postoffice as Mail Matter of
the Second Class.
JAMES R. GRAY,
President and Editor.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE
Twelve months * 750
Six months 400
Three months 25c
The Semi-Weekly Journal is published on Tuesday
and Friday, and is mailed by the shortest routes for
early delivery.
It contains news from all over the world, brought
by special leased wires into our office. It has a staff
of distinguished contributors, with strong departments
of special value to the home and the farm.
Agents wanted at every postoifice. Liberal com*
• mission allowed. Outfit free. Write R. R. BKAD-
LEY, Circulation Manager.
The only traveling representatives we have are
J. A. Bryan, B. F. Bolton, C. C. Coyle, L. H. Kim-
Vough, W. W. Blackburn and J. W. Brooks. We will
be responsible only for money paid to the above named
traveling representatives.
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.
The label used for addressing your paper
shows the time your subscription expires. By
renewing at least two weeks before the date on
this label, you insure regular service.
In ordering paper changed, be sure to mention
you old, as well as your new address. If on a
route please give the route number.
We cannot enter subscriptions to begin with
back numbers. Remittances should be sent by
postal order or registered mail.
Address all orders and notices fo this de
partment to THE SEMI-WEEKLY JOURNAL,
Atlanta, Go.
The Question of Alaska.
The question of how best to develop and utilize
the natural resources of Alaska is one of the most
important issues now before Congress, important not
only to those sturdy Americans who are braving the
rigor and hardship of life in a pioneer land, but also
to the rank and file of citizens at home. This virgin
territory is national treasure; it is the property of
the people as a whole and as such no particular
groups or special interests should be allowed to
monopolize or impair its value. The prime essential
of any plan that may be adopted for Alaska’s future
must be a guarantee of the puhlio’s right against
private wrong.
There is little danger, however, that this need
will be overlooked or slighted by the present Con
gress. Thte issues around which the Ballinger con
troversy was waged have been settled. As a matter
of principle, it has been determined once and for all
that this great national storehouse shall not be turned
over to greedy syndicates for selfish exploitation. The
question now is rather one of policy, one of means
and methods; and error is more likely to arise in
failing to release Alaska’s resources for free initia
tive than in failing to protect them against monop
olistic schemes.
It cannot be insisted too strongly that conserva
tion means vastly more than mere preservation.
Forests and mines and water courses must be used
economically and for the common good but never
theless they must be used. The policy that would
lock them up for all time like a miser’s hoard is as
unwise and as extreme as that which would suffer
them to be pillaged by a.few piratical financiers.
The treasures of Alaska, as President Wilson declared
in his recent message, should be unlocked for the
fair enterprise of the thousands of Americans who
have settled amongrt them and for the prosperity of
the entire nation. “One key to these resources,” he
said, “is a system of railways. These, the Govern
ment itself should build and administer, and the ports
and terminals it should itself control in the interest
of all who wish to use them for the service and
development of the country and its people.”
The proposal that the United States build and
operate a railway system will doubtless provoke
sharp debate. This, we shall be told, is a new policy
for our Government. And so it is. But Alaska is a
new country, presenting new conditions and new
problems. If a Government-owned railroad is the one
safe, sure means of developing it resources and at
the same time safe-guarding them in the public’s be
half, the mere fact that it happens to be an innova
tion should not stand in the way of practical, ur
gently needed effort. The Kansas City Star aptly re
marks in this connection that “a Democratic nation
which has constructed the Panama canal, which has
made Havana, Colon and all the Canal zone and all
Porto Rico healthful and clean—that capable Democ
racy is not afraid of administering a pioneer system
of railways. 'It does not believe that to own a public
highway that has rails on it is any more dangerous
than to own a public highway that has ruts in It.”
There are, to be sure, many important details
that must be diligently considered in any plan to
build and operate a Government railroad in Alaska.
There are risks involved which only keen foresight
can provide for; but these should not deter the nation
from meeting its responsibility and settling a ques
tion that can no longer be justly put aside. Secretary
Lane, of the Interior Department, who has given par
ticular thought to the Alaskan problem, has said:
“There is but one way to make any country
a real part of thj world and that i by the con
struction of railroads into its interior. This
has been the heart of England’s policy in Africa,
of Russia’s policy in western Asia and is the
prompting hope of the new movement in China.
Whoever owns the railroads of a country deter
mines very largely the future of that country,
the character of its population, the kind of in
dustries they will engage in and ultimately the
nature of the civilization they will enjoy. The
policy of governmental ownership of railroads in
Alaska seems to me to be the one that will make
most certainly for her lasting welfare. I am
convinced that we should think of Alaska not
only as a country of mines and fisheries but of
towns, farms, factories and mills, supporting mil
lions of people, the hardiest and most wholesome
of the legislation should be such as most surely
to bring about this possibility. There is less
hazard to Alaska’s future if the government of
the United States owns the railroads which will
make its fertile interior valleys accessible from
the coast.”
The Democratic administration is firmly commit-
fr-d to the development of this potentially rich terri
tory. Indeed, *11 parties are agreed that some de
finite plan of development should be speedly adopted
and put into operation. There is good reason, then,
to hope that in the present session of Congress this
long neglected but deeply important question will he
satisfactorily answered.
National Sentiment
For Good Roads.
The fact that expenditures for highway improve
ment in the United States have more than doubled
since 1904 bespeaks a remarkable awakening in this
important field of the country’s interests. Nine
years ago, according to a recent report from the
United States office of public roads, the funds spent
for this purpose amounted to seventy-nine million,
seven hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars,
dollars, while last year they aggregated more than
one hundred and sixty-four millions, an increase of
some eighty-four and a half million dollars. In
1904, the report shows further, there were thirteen
States that contributed two million, six hundred
and seven thousand dollars to road development; in
1912, there were thirty-five States that appropriated
for sqch work nearly one hundred and forty-four
millions.
It is thus evident that the progress of the good
roads idea is nation-wide, that it is growing not only
in financial support but also In popular favor, that
the people of all sections of the country are realizing
the tremendous gain from good roads and the tre
mendous loss from bad roads. This wonderful rec
ord of the past nine years carries a distinct sugges
tion and appeal to the federal government. It sets
forth a line of endeavor in which all States and all
citizens are commonly interested and which, there
fore, merits national aid.
Individual commonwealths are working earnestly
for the extension and betterment of their highways.
Some of them, perhaps, are able to meet these needs
out of their own resources; New York, for instance,
is now spending twenty-three million dollars for
such improvements. But the majority of States re
quire federal assistance and, what is more important
still, federal support and supervision are essential to
the development of a nation-wide system of rqads.
There are cheering indications that Congress will
soon measure up to its responsibility in this regard.
Within the past few years as many as forty different
bills providing, in one form or another, federal aid
for road building, have been introduced; but not
until recently have the advocates of this principle
been able to agree upon a definite, well-considered
measure. Such a bill, however, is now before the
Senate, having been introduced by Senator Smith,
of Georgia. There is reason to hope that it will
have the stanch support of the friends of good roads
in both Houses of Congress and Will be enacted.
All Mexico seems to be divided into two parts,
with Huerta gradually losing his.
Getting to the Facts.
Skeptical folk frequently ask, “What is the good
of the scientific or social researches for which the
government appropriates money and to which, in
some cases, the public is asked to contribute? Are
these investigations really worth the time and funds
they require? Do they lead to practical results or
merely bring forth a mass of futile theories?"
Such questions betray an ignorance oi the part
the true student has always played in human
progress. Civilization is built largely on the efforts
of men who have patiently sought knowledge in the
stars, in the soil, in crucible and microscope and in
the problems and dangers of their fellow men. De
velopment in agriculture, efficiency in manufacturing,
advances in medicine and surgery are all due largely
to the student; and the fact that the present age is
remarkable for rapid achievements of this character
must be ascribed mainly to organized research. Gov
ernment funds are never turned to better account
'and philanthropy never finds a more useful expres
sion than when they ate devoted to competent inves
tigation.
Here, for instance, is a report from the United
States Bureau of Mines which shows that in 1912 the
number of men killed in the coal mines of this
country was three hundred and ninety-five fewer than
in 1908, when Congress authorized the Geological Sur
vey to begin an inquiry into the causes of mine ex
plosions. In 1912 more laborers were employed in
co^l mines and more coal was brought forth than in
any preceding year, yet the list of fatalities was rela
tively shorter than It had ever been. This reduction
of the death rate was due undoubtedly to the work
of the Bureau of Mines, without whose investigation,
these gratifying results would probably never have
been accomplished. *
So with all enterprises designed for the thorough,
systematic study of scientific or social problems. The
chemist, the geologist, the entomologist are contin
ually opening the way for practical progress, and like
wise those institutions, such as the Associated Char
ities, which make a study of social needs, instead of
merely giving temporary relief to individual cases of
distress, are laying the foundation for real social
progress.
One of Shakespeare’s witty young women reminds
us that “If to do were as easy as to know ’twere
good to do, chapels had been churches and poor men’s
cottages princes’ palaces,” a very incisive observa
tion. Yet, intelligent action must, for the most part,
be based on adequate knowledge; certain it is that
facts are the trustiest tool of reform.
The Senate Down to Business.
At last the Senate is down to business on the
banking and currency bill.
Democratic leaders have inaugurated their pro
gram of thirteen-hour-a-day sessions from now until
the measure Is disposed of; a bold, rigorous plan hut
altogether businesslike and admirable. The country
will applaud this purpose to settle without further
delay an issue which, so long as it remains in sus
pense, will be disquieting to business but which, once
determined, will inspire all commerce and industry
with new vigor.
It is a hopeful circumstance that ten Republicans
joined the Democrats in voting for long daily ses
sions. The currency question is economic rather than
political in character, and it should be so treated. It
is not as was the tariff, a subject for party differ
ences; indeed, the reports of the Democratic and the
Republican branches of the Senate banking commit
tee were in accord on almost every vital point in the
administration measure. Republicans can consistent
ly join with Democrats in adjusting such breaks in
detail as still remain. Certainly, the pending hill
should be debated upon its merits, with no narrowly
partisan or obstructive tactics.
The Democrats, however, have a peculiar respon
sibility at this juncture. They are in control of the
government. It is tio them the country looks for re
sults. Failure to enact a satisfactory banking and
currency law with all reasonable speed and to end
thereby the feeling of uncertainty that now disturbs
business would he charged to the Democratic party.
The Senate Democrats have done well, therefore,
to take the situation firmly in hand and, by enforcing
hours which obstructionists cannot withstand, press
this great issue to settlement.
The Railroads'Appeal.
The eastern railroads have asked the Interstate
Commerce Commission to authorize an advance in
their freight rates, on the ground that thus only
will they be able to meet increased expenses and
serve the needs of th country’s growing traffic.
Their net income, they say, is lagging further and
further behind the cost of necessary improvements;
their securities are consequently more difficult to
market and their interests, in which those of com
merce and industry as a whole are vitally con
cerned, demand the relief and encouragement which
a nominal increase in freight charges would
assure.
If these assertions are true, if the railroads are
suffering loss and the public is threatened with in
adequate service under existing rates, then by all
means a reasonable increase ifi rates should bo.
granted. The Commission should make sure of the
premises but these once established, there should
be no hesitancy in dealing as justly and as prac
tically with the carriers as with the people. Rail
road regulation embraces a vast field of interests in
which carrier and shipper have common rights;
it is the Commission’s high duty to see that both
are fairly treated. It has so happened heretofore
that this duty lay chiefly in protecting the public
against arbitrary increases and discriminations,
and the importance of continued vigilance in this
regard cannot he stressed too strongly. But when
conditions arise that are unfair to the railroads
and unwholesome to the country’s prosperity, the
entire spirit of the law demands that in this, as
in other instances, relief be granted.
Indeed, we can conceive of no regulation worthy
the name that would deny a railroad its full op
portunity to honest success. The purpose of the re
forms that have been Instituted through State and
national governments has been, not to deprive the
railroads of their rights, but simply to purge them
of their wrongs, to bring them to a proper sense ot
their duty as public service enterprises, to make
them efficient instruments rather than selfish mas
ters of the country’s welfare. And just so soon as
the railroads recognize the public’s rights, the pub
lic will recognize the railroads’ rights.
Back of all the reforms that have been urged
and effected in the field of transportation, partic
ularly within the past ten years, has been a con
sciousness, on the part of responsible thinkers at
least, that thrifty, efficient railroads are essential
to the nation’s development and prosperity. They
are essential to agriculture, to commerce and
manufacturing and to every sphere of constructive
enterprise. The nation could afford least of all
things to crush or handicap its railway activities.
The roads themselves were chiefly responsible for
whatever feeling of hostility or distrust toward
them the people entertained. It was watered stock,
excessive charges, discriminatory rates and an air
of churlish indifference to public appeals that an
gered the people. It was these vices, not the use
ful and legitimate side of the roads, that called
for rebuke and reform.
We may expert, therefore, that when the east
ern railroads come before the interstate Commerce
Commission with a plea for means to safeguard and
upbuild their rightful interests, the American peo
ple as well as the Commission will give them a
ready and considerate hearing. For, the public is
not so unmindful of its busitiess welfare as to be
grudge the railroads a rate increase, if that In
crease is really needed to save the carriers from
deterioration and to equip them for efficient service.
The roads have apparently made out a strong
case for their plea. If the conditions alleged are
confirmed, the rate advance asked is reasonable
and necessary. Should the Commission grant this
request, however, it should exercise every possi
ble precaution to keep the increased earnings from
being squandered or misdirected by adventurous
finance; every dollar of the increased earnings
should he spent for truly constructive purposes,
with the good of the public as well as the roads
always in view.
Furthermore, the Commission should sharply
distinguish between increased rates and discrimina
tory rates. Shippers will not complain of a slight
advance in freight charges, if those charges are
equably administered. The thing that really hurts
is discrimination, the practice of gross favoritism
among competing points, all of which are naturally
entitled to be placed on a common basis and
treated alike. This is the greatest evil against
which the Commission should guard, the most pro
lific source of injury and injustice.
The essence of the railroads’ appeal, however,
is worthy of full, generous consideration. They
should be permitted to earn upon their investment
a return that will be fair and that will enable them
to serve without handicap or delay the needs of
the country’s expanding traffic.
7he “Upper” and “Lower”
Chambers—No. 1
BY SAVOYARD
THE POSTAL SERVICE
III.—THE FUTURE PARCEL POST.
BY FREDFRIC J. HASKIN.
The Tariff as Viewed Abroad.
Pleasing confirmation of the friendship that has
always existed between France and the United States
is seen in the comment of the French foreign office
on the new tariff, an expression authorized by the
government and conveyed officially to the American
ambassador. “You know personally,” the statement
goes, “what is the feeling and responsible opinion in
this country towards yourself, your President and the
United States; nothing in the world can prevail
against it. As regards commercial interest, the new
tariff has not produced any ill effect on trade rela
tions between the United States and France. Al
though the United States sells much more to France
than it buys, the exportations from France to the
United States haye grown by nearly one hundred
per cent in the past five years and the imports by
sixty per cent. No market is more worthy of atten
tion from the United States than the French market,
and this,is reciprocal.”
This official judgment was expressed in view of
adverse criticism of the tariff on the part of partic
ular interests in both countries. It comes as a sharp
and sufficient rejoinder to those persons who, ignoring
facts and real conditions, -would mislead the public
into supposing that the revised tariff schedules are
commercially harmful.
The important circumstances of the nation’s for
eign trade were itever more wholesome or encourag
ing. Both exports and imports are steadily increas
ing. Our markets at home and abroad are planted
on sound and fertile economic ground. Our trade
relations with other countries ate undisturbed.
American commerce is striding vigorously forward;
and American industry, far from being hampered or
discouraged by the new tariff will gather fresh
strength and independence from the fairer and more
stimulating conditions which that tariff is bringing
to pass.
The census issued today shows that the south’s
population of cotton is still a healthy one.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
has no written constitution, yet of all the great na
tions, not by any means excepting our own grand and
glorious republic, it is the only one that is governed
by tits people. There have been a thousand definitions
of the “British constitution,” and the best one is this:
“The British constitution is the will of the house of
commons.”,/ Why? Because the house of commons re
flects the will of the people of the United Kingdom.
It was intended by the fathers that our house of
representatives should be in America what the house
of commons is in England. Where the purse is lodged
ought to be the seat of power. It is so in England, it
is not so with us. If I were tamerlane or this country
for one short quarter of ah hour, the first thing I
would do would be to so order it that a seat in the
house of representatives should be regarded as much
of a promotion by a senator as a seat in the senate
is now regarded as a promotion by a representative.
• * •
Sir Robert Walpole, who did so much to make the
British house of commons what it is, and what it has
been for centuries, “the first senate of the world,”
was “created” Earl of Orford; his rival in the com
mons, William Pultney, himself a very great parlia
mentary orator, a short time after was “created” Earl
of Bath! Neither wished to be made a lord, but the
whirligig of politics made them lords. Bitter political
enemies, each with personal animosity toward the oth
er, they met one day at a time when the coronet ot
each was *»ew, and Orford said to Bath, “My lord, you
discover that both of us have been kicked upstairs.”
Everybody recollects Sir Robert Walpole. Who re
members Lord Orford? Yet they were one. Every
student of parliamentary history can tell you of Wil
liam Pultney, the great orator and leader of the com
mons; but who cares for the Earl of Bath? Both Wal
pole and Pultney vegetated in the “uper chamber,” as
Joe Blackburn and Julius Caesar Burrows were flow
ers with fragrance, plants without fruits, in our “up
per chamber,” as the senate assumes to be. There are
exceptions . John Sharp Williams is a notable one, but
John Sharp is a thinker, a student, a statesman, ana
that is a bird in our political life nearly, bu/t not quite,
as rare as the phoenix. A man named Wilson—Wood-
row Wilson—now president of the United States, is the
head and front, the leader and the captain, of this leas
than the band of Gideon, on whom depends the victory
of our political Israel.
* • *
It was the English house of commons that made
possible our American republic. Had there been no
Hampden there would have been no Washington, had
there been no Burke there would have been no Jeffer
son, had there been no Fox there wotild have been no
Webster, had there been no Chatham there would have
been no Clay.
A great Englishman, himself the unrivaled parlia
mentary leader of his day, a man who gorged- England
with as much military glory as Marlborough had set
her at feast to, was one day present in the commons
when Lord Bolingbroke, then Mr. St. Jonns, made a
speech. It was an age before the sittings of either
house of parliament were public—every session execu
tive—and later William Pitt, subsequently Earl of
Chatham, said that ne would rather recall that speech
of Bolingbroke than to recover the lost books of the
Roman historian, Livy.
* * *
The late Marquis of Salisbury was a powerful
statesman with rich, red blood in his veins, a direct
lineal descendant of the old Burleigh who so faithfully
and so sagaciously served Queen Bess. He was a
younger son, without fortune, and eked out a rather
poor living by what I am doing now, with less return—
writing for the newspapers. Brought into the com
mons for his talents, he got no salary, as he was a
member of “the government.” He made a great repu
tation, not only as a debater, but as a “man of af
fairs,” as they say over there. He was headed straight
for the chancellorship of the exchequer, the leadership
of the commons, when one day his elder brother died
without a son to succeed him, and thus Robert Cecil
became Marquis of Salisbury, one of the noblest titles
of the British aristocracy and one of the vastest for
tunes of the British empire.
His wife, a beautiful, a brilliant, a noble woman,
herself a great politician, burst into tears at the news,
and exclaimed, “Bob will never amount to anything
now; they have made a lord of him and his career Id
the commons is ended forever.”
But “Bob” did amount to a heap. He succeeded to
the leadership of his party when it fell from the aged
hands of Disraeli, and with “Bob” for ruler England
continued secure in her place as head of the nations.
* * •
And Disraeli—after he was past three score and ten
years—accepted a place “upstairs,” as Lord Beacons-
field; and, by the way, do you remember his novel,
“Vivian Grey,” in which he introduces a Lord Beacons-
field who is a rather dull fellow?
Well, Disraeli later expressed regret that he had
fever elected to leave the commons for the lords, and
made explanation that he should not have done so had
he not believed that his great rival, Gladstone, would
immediately follow him to the “upper chamber.” But
Gladstone lived and died a commoner.
We need some Gladstones to put red blood in our
house of representatives.
ROOFS
By Dr. Frank Crane
Is it not a strange thing that more use has not
been made of roofs?
The other day from a high window in a skyscraper
I looked out over the city. Beneath me were innumer
able roofs. Most uf them were flat and hence usable.
My friend the statistician has computed and declares
that there are exactly three grillion square feet of
this space, all exactly waste.
By the consulting of moving picture shows of
scenes in old Babylon and Nineveh we discover that
people aforetimed used to do considerable loafing and
visiting upon their housetops. There was their sitting
room, as it were. From thence also, as the conquering
hero marched along, they would occasionally drop a
brick or a jug on his head, showing that housetops had
their use in war as well as in peace.
In American cities roofs are neglected, except in
the instance of occasional hotel roof garaens.
And now from Washington comes a welcome sug
gestion. There it is proposed to make a PLAY
GROUND about 6,000 feet square upon th€ roof of the
new addition to St. Patrick's school.
If the city will not or cannot provide adequate
groupd space in which cmldren may play, why not
confiscate the vast roof space of apartment houses,
schools, office buildings, and the like, fence them prop
erly, and tuwi the laughter of the city’s cnndren up to
the face of God?
We must have children. Children must have a
place to play. This place ought to be outdoors. There
are not enough parks, school yards, and other ground
plots. To play in the streets is dangerous and brings
every day its toll of accidents and deaths from street
cars, motors and trucks. Hence, why not give the
babies the roofs?
Would it not pay any municipality to employ play
ground superintendents each to have his separate roof-
herd of children, and to teach them to play?
The idea is probably impracticable. Did you ever
find a great, big smashing, adorable idea that some
body did not come along and pish-tush and pooh-pooh
it to death?
And, for that matter, why do we not gardenize
the roofs of our flat-buildings and use them for
breathing spaces In summer for the familes? There
is a great population that cannot go to tne country
side, but must remain and work in the city during
^the heated season. Why not have roof gardens every
where, where the mete could gather and complain of
their wages, and the women could meet and, as Arte-
mus Ward said, “abooze the neighbors,” and everybody
be happy?
As was pointed out in yesterday’s article, when
congress came to create a parcel post service it
thought it better to create a service limited in its na
ture rather than in the extent of the territory cov
ered, and so framed the law making the system na
tion-wide but of limited scope, vesting in the post
master general the power to extend the character of
the service as he might see fit, with the approval of
the interstate commerce commission. it gave him
practically unlimited control over it, as to rates, zones
and nature of the service rendered, subject only to
the veto power cf the interstate commerce commis
sion—thus making him practically legislator and ad*
ministrator all in one.
. . .
When Albert S. Burleson became postmaster gen
eral he already had the idea that he ought to make
the most of the power vested in him with respect to
the parcel post, and interpreted the law as Intend
ing that he should develop it just as far as was con
sistent with safe methods and just as rapidly as this
could be done—tso rapidly, indeed, that it did not wish
to have him wait for its sanction in the direction of
extending the service.
• • •
With that view of the law, the postmaster general
is proceeding with its execution today. Assuming that
congress wants him to limit his activites only by the
needs of the people and the stipulation that the par
cel post system b self-supporting, he intends to feel
his way forward step by step in his efforts to make
the service as wide and as useful as this stipulation
will ermit. And in that he is certain to have the
co-operation of the interstate \ commerce commission.
That body takes the same view of tne law, feeling
that if congress intended to impose any other restric
tions upon the /extension of the service it either
would have laid down the limit in terms, or else would
have reserved the right of providing these extensions.
• • •
Nor is it likely that the interests of any other trans
portation agency will be considered in the matter. If
it develops that a parcel post limit of a hundred
pounds can be worked in a way that will make it selij-
supporting, the fact that it might put the express com
panies out of business is not likely to keep the in*
terstate commerce commission from giving its assert
to the proposition if the postmaster general thinks
conditions ripe for such an extension of the se.*vioe.
As a matter of fact, some of the higher officials of
that body believe that such an extension will be forth
coming in due time, and one of them unofficially, ex
pressed the opinion that it would practically drive
the express companies out of the retail freight-carry
ing field. It was his belief that the express compa
nies would not live in the face of such competition,
unless they could find some new world of transporta
tion to conquer.
• • •
And that there is such a world for them was his
opinion. “I believe,” said he, “that this new field
will be the field of city delivery. Here in Washing
ton, for example, we have an interminable duplication
of delivery service. The department stores, the gro
cers, the dairymen, every class of business people,
have their own transportation facilities. Now, if you
were to elimniate all these but two or three, it would
be possible for these two or three delivery houses to
give rates for delivering local parcels so low that the
individual concern could not afford to perform his own
delivery service, and yet even at these low rates the
express companies could make barrels of money. You
sfte this already in filoston, where the local express
delivery system -has been developed.”
• • •
It is a safe prediction that the postmaster general
is not going to let any tender consideration for the
express companies stand in the way of extending the
parcel post system. He feels that the two transpor
tation systems are fair competitors, and that the only|
issue is to be the survival of the fittest. the ex
press companies can render a service to the people
more cheaply or more expeditiously than the parcel
post, Postmaster General Burleson will be glad to huve I
them do so. What he wants Is not primarily the ag
grandizement of the postal service in the line of hand
ling the package delivery business of the people, but
rather that they shall have their parcels transported
as cheaply, as expeaitlously, and as efficiently as that
service can be rendered. He would ask nothing in the
way of a government monopoly of the parcel carrying
business except as that monopoly can be gained by
rendering the people a more efficient service than any
other agency can. Postmaster General Burleson says:
“We simply extend it just as far as they will sup
port it, just as far as their ne-eds call for its extension.
We are going to move step by step, never overreach
ing ourselves, nor yet so slowly as to fail to improve
the service and extend it just as rapidly as condi
tions will allow.
“The next step wt will take,” he continued, “will
be that of reforming the zone rates beyond the sec
ond zone just as we have for the first and second
zones, increasing tie weight limit to twenty pounds
when we do, so that the limit may te uniform for all j
the zones and the rates made to correspond. Then,
when that improvement has taken firm hold and
proved itself in practice, we will take the next step,
again increasing the limit apa decreasing the rate, if
conditions warrant. And we will thus move on, step
by step, until the end to which we are aiming—a hun
dred-pound limit—is reached. We are going to be sure
we are right at every step before we take it, but this
desire for conservation is not going to prevent our
attaining the ultimate limit just as soon as conditions
warrant.”
• • •
With this, then, as the ultimate object of the pres
ent postal administration, tne urban consumer can
feel that the day is not far distant when he can write
his declaration of independence from the exactions of
the series of middlemen who stand between him ahd
the rural producer. Then he can have his big hamper
\?ith its several compartments for the accommodation
of all the comipoditles of his market basket—-here one
for a ham, here another for some fresh meat, here
one for several dozen eggs, and others for a peck of
string beans, a dozen ears of corn, some peas, jellies
and preserves, and everything else necessary for a
week’s rations.
And what the housewife would have! She could al
low the farmer 10 per cent more than market price for
his commodities than the country huckster could pay
him, and yet she would reduce her grocery bill by at
least 25 per cent. Here are a few illustrations from
a page of experience of a Washington man who lives
in an apartment and who is part owner of a farm 160
miles away: When he was selling his apples at $1 a
barrel on the farm his grocer was charging 60 cents
a peck for some not so good; when the farm price of
young hens was 12 cents, his grocer was charging 22;
when the farm price of eggs was 37 cents, the city
price Was 55; a young hog butchered and, cured at the
farm cost him 11 cents a pound, while the corner gro
cery was charging 25 cents a pound for sausage, 18
cents for chops, 15 cents for lard, and other prices in
proportion, while hams of that quality simply were
not on sale at all in the city markets.
• a •
The inevitable result of perfected parcel post will
be that there will have to be a rearrangement of the
affairs of the middlemen if they desire to escape the
pinch that such a service will undoubtedly bring down
upon them. With the better prices for farm produce
that will be commanded by the farmer sjs a result, and
with the opening up of the market for commodities
that can be profitably grown on farms remote from
present markets, the farrr er will be able to make a
better living and many preservtday middlemen will be
come producers rather than parasites on the body eco
nomic. Others will be content with the smaller profits
than the keen competition of the parcel post market
hamper will bring in/to existence. Some will beoome
country produce gatherers, collecting the produce of
farmers who do not care to do a retail business, and
shipping direct to the consumer; in other words, they
will move tbeir stores to the country where the pro
duce is grown, where low rents and low expenses are
encountered, and there do a grocery business with
their old customers by mail.