Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.