However that may be, Mr. Hitchcock has proved quite conclusively3 that there is no deficit—or, at least, no valid4 reason for one under present conditions.
And here, again, I desire to say that our present Postmaster General is deserving the praise or commendation of every American citizen for having demonstrated, by a few economies here and a few betterments there in the operation of his department, that the service can be rendered, and rendered efficiently5, with an expenditure6 safely within the bounds of the department’s receipts or revenues.
Especially is Mr. Hitchcock deserving of commendation for this demonstration7, because in making it he has done what so many of his predecessors8 talked of as desirable, but failed to do.
But with full acknowledgment of the splendid effort Mr. Hitchcock has made in converting a postal9 deficit of $6,000,000 in 1909-10 into a surplus for the year 1910-11, I desire to discuss, briefly10, postal department deficits11 of the past—or the future—and the origin and cause of them.
In the future pages of this volume little if any reference will be made to our vigorous Postmaster General’s attempt to put onto the Senate course a rider that would run down certain periodicals which were to him and certain of his friends, as it would appear, of obstructive if not offensive character. It is possible, if, indeed, not probable, that I may, in this somewhat hurried discussion of our Postoffice Department deficits and their sources, cause and origin,[206] repeat something, in whole or in part, that I have said elsewhere in this volume.
The discussion of the postal deficits leads us into the Raider factor or feature of our general title—into a consideration of the political, partisan12 and business influences and interests which have for thirty-five or more years been conspicuously—yes, brazenly14—looting the revenues of the department. I shall not be able to advert15 to all such influences, interests and persons. Especially can I not mention some of the persons. Many of them have gone to “their reward”—or to their punishment—as the Almighty16 has seen fit to assign them. As a matter of venerable custom and of current conventional courtesy we must leave them to His justice—to our silence. One by one many of the dishonestly enriched from our postal revenues have dropped into “the dead past,” which Christ instructed should be left to “bury its dead.” In our treatment of this subject we shall obey the Master’s instruction—we shall discuss methods, practices, and acts, not men.
In turning to our subject directly, I desire to make a few positive statements or declarations.
1. The Postoffice Department is a public service department—a department intended to serve all the people all the time.
2. The people are paying, have paid, and are willing to pay, for their postal service.
3. The people do not care—never have cared—whether the expenditures17 exceed the receipts by $6,000,000 or $100,000,000, if they get the service for the money expended18.
In comment on the last, I wish here to ask if anyone has heard much loud noise from the people about the army and the navy expenditures—expenditures larger than that of any other nation on earth for similar purposes?
Yet, for twenty or more years, the people have paid the appropriations19 for—also met the “deficit” bills of—each of those departments without any noticeable “holler.”
But, again, it must be pertinently21 asked, what have the people received in return for their billions of expenditures for those two departments?
Yes, what? They have had the doubtful “glory” of having their army debauch23 some island possessions, maneuver24 for local entertainments and do some society stunts25 while on “post leave”—which[207] “leave”, for epauletted military officers, appears to have occupied most of their time.
And the people have put up, ungrumblingly, $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 or more (I forget the figures), for a navy—a navy carrying on its payrolls26 more “shore leave” men and clerks than it has service men. (At any rate that was the showing in a recent year). For this vast expenditure of their money the people got—got what?
Well, for their hundreds of millions expenditure on that navy of ours, the people, to date, have received in return newspaper reports of numerous magazine and gun explosions with, of course, a list of the killed and wounded, and reports of “blow-hole” or otherwise faulted armor plate, turrets27, etc., of raising “The Maine,” of shoaling this, that or the other battleship, or of “sparring” or “lightering” off, to the music that is made by a “blow-in” of fifty thousand to two or three hundred thousand more of their money.
Reader, if you read—if you have read—the “news”—the periodical literature—of those past twenty years, you will know that the people have received little or no returns for the vast expenditure of money—of their money—that their representatives (?) have made for the Navy Department.
Oh, yes, I remember that our army and navy fought to a “victorious” conclusion the “Spanish American” war.
No patriotic28 American citizen alive at the time that war occurred will ever forget it. He will ever remember Siboney, Camp Thomas, Camp Wycoff, and the cattle-ship transports for diseased and dying soldiers. He will also remember the “embalmed beef” and the “decayed tack” and other contracts and contractors29.
If the patriotic citizen has been an “old soldier,” or is familiar with the history of wars, he will also know that, if the whole land fighting of that Spanish American war was corralled into one action that action would be infinitely30 less sanguine31 than was the action at a number of “skirmishes” in our civil war—that, if the several naval32 actions of that war were merged33 into one, it would not equal, in either gore34 or naval glory, Farragut’s capture of Mobile, the action in Hampton Roads, nor even Perry’s scrimmage on Lake Erie in 1813.
What has all this to do with the postal department deficit, some one may ask? It has just this to do with it:
If a people stand unmurmuringly for the expenditure of billions[208] for a service that yields them no return, save a protection they have not needed and of doubtful security if needed, that people is not going to raise any noisy hubbub35 over a dinky deficit of a few millions a year for a service which should serve them every day of every year.
I have expanded a little, not disgressed, in writing to my statement numbered 3. I will now proceed with my premeditated statements. Some of them may be a little frigid36, but none of them are cold-storage. Some one may have told it all to you before, but that is his fault, not mine. He merely beat me to the facts.
4. As stated in a forward page of this volume, the people of this nation want and demand service of its Postoffice Department. They care not to the extent of a halloween pea-shooter whether the service is rendered at a deficit of six million or at a surplus of ten million, if service is rendered for the money expended.
5. The people of this country will object more strenuously38 against a surplus in their postal revenues—their service tax—than they ever have or will object to a deficit in the revenues of that service, if they get the service.
6. The Postoffice Department is not understood—is not even thought of by intelligent citizens—as a revenue-producing department. It is understood to be a service department, and the citizen—His Majesty39, the American Citizen—is always willing to pay for services rendered.
7. The Postoffice Department has not in the period named—no, not for thirty or thirty-five years—rendered the citizen the service for which he paid.
I mean by that, of course, that the citizen has been compelled to pay far more for a postal service than he should have paid for that service.
8. Had that service been honestly, faithfully and efficiently rendered, the price the citizen has paid for it would have left no deficit for any year within the past thirty.
9. The only deficits in those thirty or thirty-five years have been the result of manipulated bookkeeping, of political trenching into the revenues of the department, of loose methods in its management, of disinterest in the enforcement of even loose methods, and of downright lootage and stealings.
“Rather harsh that, is it not?” asks one.
[209]
“Mere assertion,” says another
To the first I need only say that this is an age not congenial to milk-poultice talk. I have previously40 expressed my opinion on that point. If you have a thing to say, say it hard. The majority of people will then understand you. Those who do not understand you can continue their milk poultices—or believe and talk as they are told or are paid to believe and talk.
The latter—the reader who yodles that my preceding nine statements appear to be assertions only—can make a courteous41 and, possibly, a profitable use of an hour’s leisure in reading a few following pages, before he rusts42 into the belief that those nine “assertions” are groundless assertions.
In showing that there is no “deficit”—a shortage of receipts in the Postoffice Department over its legitimate43 expenditures—I shall not take my nine statements up seriatim, but present my reasons in a general way for having made such blunt declarations. I may go about that, too, in an awkward way, but the reader who follows me will get my reasons for making those nine declarations.
NO CREDIT ALLOWED FOR SERVICES RENDERED OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
If the department of public works in Chicago does a piece of bricklaying, concrete or other construction work for the police, fire, health or other department of the city government, or if it carts or hauls away some excavated44 material or razed45 debris46 for any of those other departments, the service rendered is made a charge by the department of public works against the department for which the service is rendered.
What is true in this instance in Chicago’s municipal government is true of every other city or incorporated town in this country that has its service departmentized.
If the County Commissioners47 of McCrackin county build a bridge or culvert for Ridgepole township in the county the cost of constructing that bridge or culvert (or a proportional share of it, if on a general highway), is made a charge against Ridgepole township.
If the transportation department of the United States Steel Corporation delivers the services of three steam tugs48 (services rated at $30.00 per day) to the corporation’s smelting49 or rail departments[210] there is a credit of $90.00 given to the transportation department, and a corresponding charge made against the department for which the service is rendered, for each day’s service rendered.
That states a recognized business rule and practice among both private and public corporations. Its valid and just purpose is to prevent the loading upon one department (any one department) the expenses created or incurred50 by another.
Is it not a valid, fair and just method of business?
If it is not, then the largest merchants, the most productive and profitable manufacturing establishments, transportation companies, banking51 and other mercantile, industrial and financial institutions have not discovered the fact.
If the owner of an Egyptian hen ranch52 had a shrinkage in his castor bean crop, he would not think of charging the cost or loss on those castor beans up to his hens, would he? Hens do not eat castor beans. That is useless—well—yes, of course. Well, hens do not eat castor beans, anyway. So my ill-chosen illustration, though may stand—stand anyway until someone finds a breed of hens which likes castor beans.
But, if the hens of that hen-rancher invaded his vegetable garden, scratched up his set onions and seeded radishes, pecked holes in three hundred heads of his “early” cabbage and otherwise damaged the fruits of his labor53, care and hopes—likewise disarranged his figures on prospective54 profits—if the hens did that, that hen-rancher would most certainly charge his loss to the hens, would he not?
That is, he would do so, if the hens had attended to their legitimate business as industriously55 as they looked after his vegetable garden and, by reason of that legitimate effort, showed a “profit balance.” The preceding is based, of course, on the assumption that the rancher has acumen56 enough to distinguish a hen from a rooster and a sunflower from a cauliflower. If he is so wised up, whether by experience and observation or by academic training, he will most certainly charge his loss on vegetables against those hens.
“What is the application of all this to the Postoffice Department deficits?” some one is justified57 in asking.
Well, my intended application of it is, first, to show a generally recognized and practical business method—a business method practiced by both public and private corporations and by individuals and[211] firms, from the hen-rancher to the department store. My second purpose is to show that this almost universally recognized business method has been and is totally ignored in conducting the vast service affairs of the Federal Postoffice Department.
FREE-IN-COUNTY MATTER.
The 1910 report of the Postoffice Department states that 55,639,177 pounds of second-class mail was carried and distributed free in the counties of these United States.
Of course, this 1910 gift to country publishers is the result of a moss-grown custom—a custom born of an ingrown desire common to crooked58 politicians—a desire to trade the general public service for private service. All the second, third and fourth class cities in the country, as well as a majority of our towns and larger incorporated villages, have their party newspaper or newspapers.
Comparatively speaking, few of them have any extensive telegraphic service, if any at all, in the gathering59 of news. Those which have not, capture the early morning editions—or the late evening editions of the day before—of two or more metropolitan60 papers, “crib” their “news” and deliberately61 run it, in many instances, as special wires to their own sheets. In some cases, which I have personally noticed, that practice was indulged when their own “newspaper” consisted of but two to four locally printed pages reinforced by a “patent inside.” Why should such newspapers (?) be given “free distribution” in the county of publication?
They contain little if any real news and less matter of any real informative62 or educational value. True, the most of them do publish a “local” column or half column of “news” for each or for several of the outlying villages in the county of publication. These “local news” columns inform the reader that “Mr. Benjamin Peewee circulated in Boneville on Wednesday last;” that “Mrs. Cornstalk and her daughter Lizzie are spending the week at the old homestead, just south of town,” that “Mr. Frank Suds shipped a fine load of hogs63 from Bensonville on Friday of this week,” etc., etc.
Most edifying64 “news” that, is it not? So didactic and brain-building, is it not?
Now, why should the Postoffice Department carry those millions of pounds of Reubenville sheets free?
[212]
The department report says it carried about 56,000,000 pounds of such “periodicals” free last year. The figures for this year (1910-11) will probably be around 60,000,000 pounds.
Why should the department give away $600,000 in revenues?
Besides that, the department does not know how much of this “free in county” matter it does carry and distribute. Of course, it may be able to make a more dependable guess at the total tonnage of such second-class matter than can I. However, any one who has been around the “county seat” or the “metropolis” of any of the “hill” or “back” counties during a county, state or national canvass65 for votes will know that the postmaster’s scales are often sadly out of balance when he weighs into circulation the local newspaper. In fact, it frequently happens that he does not weigh it at all—especially not, if it be an extra or extra large edition issued “for the good of the party”—and more especially not, if the edition is issued to serve his party.
“It goes free anyway, so what is the difference?” the postmaster may argue, and with fairly valid grounds for such argument. The department, acting66, pursuant of law, says “carry and distribute your local papers free inside your county.” So what difference does a few hundred or a few thousand pounds, more or less, make to the department?
Why, certainly, what difference can it make? It is all done for “the good of the party,” is it not?
This condition, governing, as I personally know it does govern, furnishes my chief reason for saying that the Postoffice Department does not know—does not know even approximately—the tonnage of the “free in county” matter it handles. It never has known and does not now know, within millions of pounds, the weight of such matter it carries and distributes.
Again, I ask, why is this vast burden thrown onto the department and the department getting not a cent of either pay or credit for carrying it? Is it because of a paternal67 feeling our federal government has for the poor, benighted68 farmers of the country? I can scarcely believe it is. The farmers of this country are neither poor nor are they benighted. If they were, free carriage and distribution to them of these local sheets has not enriched them to any appreciable69 extent, however much such free carriage and delivery may have added[213] to the bank accounts of the publishers of such periodical literature. Besides, ninety-five in every hundred farmers whose names are on the publishers’ subscription70 books pay their subscriptions71. They usually pay, too, a pretty stiff rate—$1.50 or $2.00 for a “weekly,” which gives them mostly borrowed news and much of it decidedly stale at that. If a beneficent government grants its “free in county” postal regulation with a view to dissipating the gloom which clogs72 the garrets of our “benighted farmers,” that government misses its purpose on two essential points. Our farmers, as previously intimated, are no more benighted than are the residents of our villages, towns and cities, and even if their ignorance was as dense73 as a “practical” politician’s conscience, the medium which the Government delivers to them, carriage free, seldom contributes much enlightenment.
No, it was not for either the enrichment or the enlightenment of the dear farmer that the present “free in county” postal regulation was made operative. It was to give some local party henchman a fairly profitable job as publisher of a county newspaper—a party newspaper—and to have, in him, a county “heeler” who would divide his time between building the party fences and telling the dear farmer how to vote.
It is due to the publishers of country newspapers to say, that hundreds of them have grown away from rigid37 party ties—have grown independent. It is also but just to say that as these publishers have grown independent of party domination, their newspapers have improved. We have now many most excellent country papers published in our “down state” cities and larger towns.
The points I desire to make, however, are, first, the “free in county” mail delivery regulation was originally adopted for partisan political purposes, not to serve the farmer residents of the counties, and, second, that such regulation is unjustly discriminating74 and is raiding the service earnings75 of the Postoffice Department to the extent of at least six hundred thousand dollars annually76. In my opinion such raiding will reach seven or eight hundred thousands a year.
FRANKED AND PENALTY MATTER.
Going back now to that generally recognized and practical business method referred to and which the government persistently[214] refuses or neglects to adopt in handling and directing the fiscal77 affairs of its Postoffice Department, we find another raid on that department’s revenues.
Third Assistant Postmaster General, James J. Britt, makes a sort of estimate of the amount of free second-class matter of Government origin the Postoffice Department transported and distributed during the fiscal year ended, June 30, 1910. Mr. Britt places the figure at 50,120,884 pounds.
Mr. Britt’s estimate is based on a six months’ weighing period in 1907 (the last half of that year.) It is reported as a “special weighing” and showed 26,578,047 pounds of “free in county” second-class matter and 23,941,782 pounds of free franked and penalty matter of the second-class. Mr. Britt then proceeds (page 335 of the department report for 1910), to arrive at his estimated tonnage of franked and penalty matter by assuming that the weight ratio of such second-class matter to “free in county” matter would be about the same for 1910. He says: “If, as it seems reasonable to believe, the relative proportions of this character of matter have remained the same,” there would result for the fiscal year 1909-10 the figures he gives for the franked and penalty tonnage, or 50,120,884 pounds.
Well, to The Man on the Ladder it does not seem “reasonable to believe” that such method of estimating is sound nor the tonnage result attained78 by it dependable. The year 1907 was a decidedly off-year in franked matter of the second-class. The then President kept most of the Senators and Congressmen guessing as to just what he intended to do in the matter of the presidential nomination79 of his party. In fact, he kept a goodly number of federal legislators guessing on that point until well along in 1908. The result of this condition of doubt was greatly to lessen80 the franked mailings and also reduced in material degree the mailing of departmental, or “penalty” matter of the second-class.
For this and several other reasons, the tonnage of franked and penalty matter reported as carried in the last half of 1907—even if the “special weighing” Mr. Britt mentions was accurate and dependable, which it was not and could not be, either then or now, under the lax methods by which such weighings were and are made—the reported weight of such franked and penalty matter carried in the last[215] half of 1907 furnishes no fair or safe basis upon which to predicate 1910 totals or to base a dependable estimate of them.
Another defective81 factor is used in Mr. Britt’s estimate—the reported total weight of “free in county” second-class matter as ascertained82 by special weighing in the last half of 1907. As previously stated in discussing the raid of six to eight hundred thousand dollars a year made upon the postal service revenues by this “free in county” matter, the department’s reported figures for it are little more than a robust84 guess at its tonnage, even now, and the figures given for 1907 are much less trustworthy than are the department’s estimates and guesses for the fiscal year ended in 1910. Whatever may be said of its faults and faulty purposes, it is but simple justice to say the present departmental administration has shown more judgment85 and activity and has put forth86 more strenuous effort to get to the bottom of things and at dependable facts in mail weights than has been shown by any of its recent predecessors.
Still, I repeat that its reported figures for the total tonnage of “free in county” for carriage and delivery of second-class mail matter are not sufficiently87 reliable to warrant their use as a basis for making a dependable estimate of the tonnage of another free division of second class mail. Especially unreliable are the figures reported as total tonnage of free-in-county-matter as a basis for estimating the tonnage of a division of the service so far removed from “free in county” as is that of free franked and penalty matter.
All that aside, however, the fact is the Postoffice Department should receive credit for every pound of franked or penalty matter it handles for the legislative88 and other departments of the government service.
Mr. Britt himself appears to recognize the force of that fact. On page 335 of the department report for 1910, he speaks as follows:
The public mind seems unusually acute on the subject of free mailing facilities, and there is much criticism in the public press of the continuance of the franking privilege and the use of the penalty envelope, the suggestion being often made that the same should be abolished and that this department should receive proper credit in accounting89 for matter now being carried free. It is therefore suggested that consideration be given to the desirability of eliminating the transportation of mail matter under frank or penalty clause, in order that the Postoffice Department may receive due and proper credit for the tremendous, and in some[216] part possibly unnecessary, services which it is performing free, to its apparent financial embarrassment90.
It is probably true that the use of the penalty envelope and the franking privilege is availed of with undue91 liberality, even if not actually abused, as is often alleged92; that is to say, the same care is not taken to confine the mailings of governmental and congressional matter to only that which is necessary as would undoubtedly93 be the case if there were a strict accountability for their use.
It will be noted94 that Mr. Britt in the foregoing covers other than second-class mail matter. Taking the figures of his estimate of the volume of free franked and penalty matter of the second-class (51,000,000 pounds in round numbers, which I believe is so conservative as to be far below the actual tonnage), then the various other departments of the government are raiding the revenues of the Postoffice Department to the extent of $510,000 for the carrying and handling of their second-class mail alone. That is, they are requiring the Postoffice Department to render to them without pay or credit over a half-million dollars’ worth of service a year. That is figured at the 2nd class rate of 1 cent a pound. If Mr. Britt’s own estimate, on another page of the same report, that it cost the Postoffice Department 9 cents a pound to transport and handle second-class mail, is correct, which as previously shown it is not, then other departments of the government would be raiding the postal service revenues—revenues which private individuals, firms, corporations and governments subordinate, now alone pay—to the extent of more than $4,500,000 a year.
It must be borne in mind by the reader, however, that Mr. Britt’s estimate of 51,000,000 pounds (a round figure) of second-class matter carried and handled free by his department for other departments of the federal government does not represent the total of service rendered those other departments for which the Postoffice Department received neither pay nor credit. Far from it.
Hundreds of tons—how many hundreds of tons, I do not know, nor have I been able to find an authority or record to inform myself—of letters and other sealed matter were carried and distributed by the Postoffice Department for other departments. For that service not a cent in pay or credit was received.
It must be remembered that the service rate for carrying and handling the class of matter (first-class) we are here speaking of is 2 cents per ounce or fraction thereof. That is, the rate is not less than[217] 32 cents a pound, not 1 cent a pound as is the rate on second class on which Mr. Britt gives his estimate of tonnage carried.
Why should not the Senate and the House, the Judicial95, War, Navy, Interior and other departments of the government be required to provide in their annual appropriation20 bills for paying for the first-class service furnished them by the Postoffice Department?
The postal service of the government is also rendered free to the several departments to handle all their third and fourth class mail matter. What the annual tonnage of these two classes aggregates96 I have been unable to learn. Whether or not the Postoffice Department keeps any records showing the aggregate97 mailings by the other departments, I do not know. I do know, however, that it gets neither pay nor credit for transporting and handling the third and fourth class matter put to mail by the other departments of the Federal Government. That the total weight mailed must run into many hundreds of tons yearly for each of the classes named there can be little grounds for doubt or question, records or no records.
The mailing rate on third-class is eight cents a pound. On fourth-class it is sixteen cents a pound. Those are the rates the people have to pay. That both rates are outrageously99 excessive is well known to every one who has made even a cursory100 study of the cost of transporting and handling government mails, and the irony101 of it all is the stock arguments put up by postoffice and other federal officials to justify102 such outrageous98 rates.
“The rates are necessary to make the Postoffice Department self-supporting—to avoid a deficit,” or statements of similar washed out force and import. And that in face of the fact that the government permits its departments, bureaus, divisions, “commissions,” etc., to raid the postal revenues by loading upon the postal service the cost of transporting and distributing thousands of tons of mail matter for which it gets not a cent of pay or credit.
Nice business methods or practice that, is it not?
Beautiful “argument,” this prattle103 about deficits in the postal revenues, is it not?
Why, it is humorous enough to make empty headed fools laugh and sensible men use language which postal regulations bar from the mails.
Think of the tons upon tons of official reports, of the bound[218] volumes of the Congressional Record, of copies of the Supreme104 Courts rulings and other printed books and pamphlets distributed by the Departments of War, Navy, Agriculture, Interior and others.
All these fall into the third-class, or 8-cent-a-pound rate.
Think of the tons upon tons of seeds—farm, garden and flower—sent by Congressmen to their constituents105—to thousands of constituents who do not need the seeds, in fact, who can make no possible use of them; of the tons upon tons of clothing, suitings, household bric-a-brac, etc., franked by Senators and Congressmen to their homes, to their wives, children, sweethearts or friends.
Investigations106 in the past have shown that hundreds of typewriters, office desks, even articles of household furniture, were sent home under frank.
It was also shown in several instances, if I remember rightly, that some of the typewriters, etc., were never franked back to government possession. However that may be, all such mailings are of the fourth class and fall into the 16-cent a pound rate for carriage and handling.
Let us here foot up the amount of the raidings on the postal funds, so far as we have gone.
First,—There is the free-in-county second-class—$600,000 to $800,000.
Second,—There is the free second-class franked and penalty matter. Third Assistant Postmaster General Britt “estimates” it at $510,000, figured at the present one-cent rate. I have shown the weakness of Mr. Britt’s basis of estimate. In my judgment the tonnage of franked and penalty second-class mail is nearer 75,000,000 pounds than his estimate of 51,000,000 pounds. But to take Mr. Britt’s figures, there is another raid of $510,000 on the service revenues of the Postoffice Department.
Next, we have the free first, third and fourth class matter which the postal service handles under franking or penalty regulations.
How much does this raid total? How much has and does this raid contribute toward the creation of that “deficit” which has so long, so continuously and so brazenly been used to bubble the people in politico-postal oratory107 and writing?
The reader must keep in mind that we are here asking about the thirty-two, the eight and the sixteen cents a pound classes of mail. To what extent have the various departments of the government[219] raided the postal funds by taxing the postal service with their over-load of the character indicated? That they have taxed the Postoffice Department’s revenues by demanding of that department its highest class and highest rated service in unlimited108 degree, and that, too, without one cent of compensation, pay or credit, is a fact which no informed man will attempt to controvert109.
But what did such service (and abuse of service) cost the Postoffice Department? To what extent did and does this “frank and penalty” privilege in first, third and fourth class use of the mails loot or raid the postal revenues?
Is it to the extent of three, two or one million dollars? Is it lower than the lowest or higher than the highest figures just named?
I do not know—do you? Have you, the reader, been able to ascertain83 from the records of the Postoffice Department, or elsewhere, any figures or data that enables you to make even a “frazzled” guess at the approximate cost to the postal department of this unjust—this politically and governmentally crooked burden put upon it?
I have hunted and have found nothing but talk, and a few figures scattered110 here and there and gathered from—well, the Lord may know where. But the Lord has failed to inform me. So I am in ignorance—am benighted, just like our “poor farmers,” both as to the source of the figures I have seen and as to their force and value in reaching a fair conclusion as to the aggregate amount of postal revenues the departmental raiders have been and are carrying off. If any reader knows or can dig up the facts, he will confer a great favor by handing the information to The Man on the Ladder. Not only that, but I am confident that the people of this country will give such reader a niche111, if needed not a conspicuous13 position, in their Hall of Fame, if he will give them even a dependable approximation of the extent to which the postal service revenues are raided—looted—by federal department abuses—their service and their money, for the departments pay not one dollar for the thousands of tons of mail matter of the various classes which the Postoffice Department transports and handles for them.
So far or so long has this departmental—bureaucratic, that is what it is—practice of raiding the postal revenues by loading its service continued, that the Postoffice Department has been and is looting itself by the same practice.
[220]
This volume is written during what is known as the “weighing period” in the postal service, the weighing being done to establish a basis for four years on which the railroads transporting the federal mails shall be paid. In other words, as basis for a “railway-mail-pay” rate, which rate will govern railway contracts for carrying the mails for a period of four years.
During the current weighing period I have, at various times, both during the day and at night, watched the weighing for varying intervals112 of from an hour to two hours. Among the revenue raids observed during those hours of leisure (?), I shall here mention a few. As the present Postmaster General treats all departmental, or “penalty,” matter as “franked” matter (See page 11 of the Postoffice Department report of 1910), I shall, in the brief mention of personally observed facts at several railway stations in Chicago do likewise.
(1) Three carloads of Senate speeches, franked to Chicago in bulk, the bulk then broken and the speeches remailed, under frank, to individual addresses.
I do not know the tonnage of those three cars. Local newspaper reports stated that there were 3,000,000 copies of one of the speeches. I take it that sixty tons is a low figure for the three carloads. The actual weight was probably nearer ninety tons. But leave it at sixty, the remailing in piece at bulk destination makes the weight 120 tons on which the Post office Department had to pay transportation, on sixty tons of which it also had to stand the expense of piece handling.
(2) Another carload of Senatorial vocal113 effort passed through Chicago to a destination far west. I do not know, but presume it was in bulk, and on arrival, bulk was broken and the matter returned to mail for piece distribution.
The reader must not overlook the fact that the character of matter carried in those four carloads was third-class—was eight-cent-a-pound matter. There were eighty tons or more of it in bulk and its remailing in piece would make it 160 tons.
If a manufacturer, merchant or other business man put to mail 160 tons of third-class matter he would contribute to the postal service revenue just $25,600.
(3) Three crates115 of fruit went into a mail car at one time, two cases of canned goods at another and a crate114 of tomatoes at another,[221] without passing over the weighing scale. A drum of coffee, fifty to eighty pounds in weight, went to mail at another time, and a large sack of sawdust at another.
Both of the last mentioned went over the weighing scale before they went to the mail car.
I am speaking only of what casual or chance notice brought to my attention in three railway stations in Chicago. If similar or corresponding abuses were indulged at other stations here, as it is a legitimate inference they were, it is also a legitimate inference that similar abuses were, and are, practiced throughout the country, especially in cities of the first, second and third classes—in cities and towns on which has been conferred the distinguished116 honor of having their mail handled under the watchful117 eye and supervising care of a “Presidential Postmaster,” that is, by a postmaster appointed by the President for partisan reasons and prospective uses.
Again going back to our mutton, I repeat the question, “What is the extent of this ‘franking’ and ‘penalty’ raid upon the revenues of the Postoffice Department?” I have cited three local instances merely to give a “hunch”—to blaze a line along which thoughtful people may safely think, and think to some fairly satisfying conclusion. I do not know the extent of the lootage of postal revenues by the uses and abuses of those “frank” and “penalty” regulations. You do not know, and the present Postmaster General admits he does not know, nor has he any means or method of ascertaining118.
On page 11 of the report of the Postoffice Department for the fiscal year 1909-1910, Mr. Hitchcock very frankly119 states the fact and gives his personal opinion of the extent of the franking raid upon the service of his department. He also suggests a partial remedy which also I shall quote because it is a good suggestion, on right lines, and for making it Mr. Hitchcock deserves the thanks of a people over-burdened by the abuses his suggestion would, I believe, correct in material degree. At any rate, the suggestion is on right lines. Following is what he says:
The unrestricted manner in which the franking privilege is now being used by the several federal services and by Congress has laid it open to serious abuses—a fact clearly established through investigations recently instituted by the department. While it has been impossible without a better control of franking to determine the exact expense to the government of this practice, there can be no doubt that it annually reaches into the millions. It is believed that many abuses[222] of the franking system could be prevented, and consequently a marked economy effected, by supplying through the agencies of the postal service special official envelopes and stamps for the free mail of the government, all such envelopes and stamps to be issued on requisition to the various branches of the federal service requiring them, and such records to be kept of official stamp supplies as will enable the Post office Department to maintain a proper postage account covering the entire volume of free government mail.
“There can be no doubt that it annually reaches into the millions,” says Mr. Hitchcock of the cost to his department of transporting and handling the government free mail matter—frank and penalty matter. It should also be noted that he says that “the unrestricted manner in which the franking privilege is now being used by the several federal services and by Congress, has laid it open to serious abuses.”
Not only are the foregoing statements of our Postmaster General true, but with equal truth he could have said that the abuses of the postal service practiced by other federal departments have encouraged—have coached, so to speak,—the Postoffice Department into abusing itself.
Those crates of fruit and cases of canned goods which I saw loaded into mail cars were probably for some postmaster who conducted a grocery or fruit stand, as a “side” to his official duties. Or they may have gone to some “friend” or “good fellow” along the line, or to some one who stood for a “split” of the express charges on such a shipment.
The drum of coffee and sack of sawdust may have had consignees of similar character. But their shipment as mail matter showed another abuse of the postal service by the Postoffice Department itself, or by employes of that department. They were weighed into rail transportation at a time when the average weight of mail carried during a period of three or six months would govern the rate of pay the transporting railroad would receive for carrying the mails during a period of four years.
The same might be said of the four carloads of Senatorial eloquence120 referred to on a previous page. Those cars were franked through during the weighing period in the postal service. There is this difference, however, between those four cars of franked eloquence and the drum of coffee and sack of sawdust. The former was an abuse of the postal service and a raid upon its revenues by permission, if not[223] by authority, of the postal statutes121. The latter was an abuse of the postal service and raid upon its revenues by employes of the Postoffice Department itself.
But the point we are after is the extent of federal departmental raid upon the postal revenues. How much is it? I have confessed my ignorance of the sum such raid will total. Our Postmaster General has (see last preceding quotation), confessed his ignorance of the total. He says there can be “no doubt that it annually reaches into many millions.”
I have no other evidence or authority at hand save the testimony122 of William A. Glasgow, Jr., before the Penrose-Overstreet Commission in 1906. Mr. Glasgow represented the Periodical Publishers’ Association. In presenting the case for that association—strong, reputable body, representing vast business and public service (educational, social, fraternal and trade interests)—Mr. Glasgow used the following language:
You may take the revenues of the Postoffice Department and give away $19,000,000 per annum in the franking privilege to other departments of government and then give away $28,000,000 per annum in the beneficent advantages of rural free delivery, and then lose millions in unequal and exorbitant123 transportation charges, certainly $5,000,000, and thus create an apparent and artificial deficit and use that as a basis for further taxation124 upon those who read magazines, but no one will be deceived by such an excuse and no wise Congress will be moved by considerations so transparent125 or necessities so unreal.—Page 544 Penrose-Overstreet Report (Hearings), 1906-7.
If Mr. Glasgow were speaking in 1911, I have no doubt he would have raised his figure of $19,000,000 to twenty or more millions as a nearer approximate of the total of federal departmental raids upon the earnings or revenues of the Postoffice Department.
Do not misunderstand me.
All legitimate departmental service should be rendered by the Postoffice Department, but that department should receive credit for such service rendered.
The departmental “abuses” of the postal service are steals. They should not be tolerated. If extra-departmental service is rendered (as is well known it is), it should be paid for just the same—and at the same service rates—that Jim Jones, Susie Bowers126 and Widow Finerty are compelled to pay for similar service.
Now, we have raidings on the postoffice revenues by the government[224] departments themselves, including free in county, and by the Postoffice Department’s looseness of methods in handling its own business, of somewheres around $22,000,000 a year, not counting the stuffing of weights during the “weighing period”, which goes to swell127 the railway mail pay rates for mail carrying railroads for a period of four years.
As to the last, I wish to say that Mr. Hitchcock, the present Postmaster General, has done more to correct such weighing frauds than has any of his predecessors within the range of my study of the question. Yet it lingers—hangs on to an extent which should put some subordinate postoffice officials and railway officials in restraint—put them out of range of opportunity for such looting.
In the face of an annual raid of $22,000,000, what is the use of all this prattle—prattle extending over years—about deficits in the postal service? Will some one kindly128 rise in the front pews of the postal department or in the sanctum of its beneficiaries and tell us?
There is no deficit in the postoffice service revenues. The people pay and have paid for more service than is rendered—for more service than they have received or do receive.
“But what difference to the people does it make whether they pay for carrying the departmental mail out of the postal revenues or have each department pay for its own mail carriage and handling?” is a common answering interrogative argument (?) to my immediately preceding charge that the various government departments raid the postal revenues to the extent of “many millions,” as Mr. Hitchcock has put it. “The people have to pay for it anyway, do they not?”
Just so, and what difference does it make? Well, here are a few points of difference which might be seen and comprehended without jarring any fairly normal intellect off its pedestal:
1. To have the departments pay or give credit to the Postoffice Department for the service it renders to them is an honest and approved method in any other business. The present method not only violates sound business principles but is dishonest as well—dishonest because it throws the burden of those “many millions” for mail haulage and handling of franked and penalty matter upon the postal rate papers, and not upon all the people of the country as it should.
2. If the free congressional and departmental matter now costs,[225] say $20,000,000 a year for mail haulage and handling, then the government is practicing a policy which both originates and distributes revenue without appropriation. In other words, the general government in such practice usurps129 the function of originating revenue which function, under the Constitution, is vested in the Lower House of Congress.
Next, the general government distributes that $20,000,000 (or its equivalent in service, which amounts to the same thing), to the several departments, or lets each department raid that service as it pleases. It does this in flat violation130 of another section or clause of the Federal Constitution which provides that the cost of maintenance and operation, including any contemplated131 construction and permanent betterments, shall be provided for in an annual appropriation bill.
3. The recommended method would greatly lessen the “abuses” of the postal service by government departments and officials of which Mr. Hitchcock speaks. On the other hand, the method of the present and the past invites such abuses. Abuses grow but do not improve with age. Each year the abuses of which Mr. Hitchcock speaks in his 1910 report have grown until abuses is scarcely a fitting designation for them. These abuses of the postal service have grown, and grown in such a stealthy, porch-climbing way, that they amount to a colossal132 steal every year.
4. When they hear so much yodling about “deficits” in the Postoffice Department, millions of our people are led to believe that such deficits are created by an excess of cost over receipts in carrying the letters, postal and postcards, the newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, the books and merchandise, which the people themselves entrust133 to the mails for delivery. They hear that the postal service “should be self-supporting,” that “each division of the service should be self-sustaining” and then they are called on for higher service rates to meet “deficits.”
Why should this great government of ours permit its officials longer to gold-brick the people with such ping-pong talk? Why not tell the people the truth, or at least give them an open, honest opportunity to learn the truth?
The annual federal appropriation bills informs them at least of the “estimated” expenditures for the year for other departments.[226] Why not give them an honest estimate of what it costs the Postoffice Department to render a service which should serve them?
Other easily comprehended differences between the present method of loading all governmental mail service upon the Postoffice Department without pay or credit for the vast service rendered and a method which would give that department such credit could readily be mentioned. However, the four points of difference between the two methods above cited, and the advantages which would accrue134 both to the service and the people by adopting an approved, honest business method instead of the present unfair, foolish and dishonest one, are sufficient, I think, to convince the reader that there are differences between these right and wrong ways of handling the nation’s postal service—its governmental mail matter—that are of vital importance—differences which on the one hand invite raidings, waste and lootage of the postoffice revenues and on the other would make for economies in the service and for business care and honesty in the use and expenditures of those revenues.
EXPRESS COMPANIES CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL TRAFFIC.
But, says another apologist for the loose, wasteful135 methods of the Postoffice Department in handling both its service and its revenues, “The postal service was originally instituted for handling the government mail only.”
That be as it may, though I doubt the sweeping136 assertion of the statement made, just as I doubt the integrity and truthfulness137 of purpose of the person making it. It came to my notice as part of an argument (?) in defense138 of the outrageous railway mail pay and mail-car rental139 charges which mail carrying railroads have been permitted to collect from the postal revenues paid by the people. But whether or not the postal service was originally intended to be merely a dispatch service for transmission of government orders, documents, etc., can stand as no valid reason now for the Federal Government’s permitting its several departments to use and abuse the vast system for intercommunication among the people which it has permitted to be built up, and for the building of which it has taxed (by way of postal charges) those who made use of the system—taxed them excessively, if indeed not somewhat unscrupulously—whether or not, not, I say, the government originally intended the mail service to be[227] an exclusive service for use of the government only has no present bearing. If such was the original intention, the foolishness of it must soon have become apparent, for we find that federal laws were enacted140 to establish a general postal service for all the people. Not only were laws enacted for the establishment and regulation of a mail service, but by the law of 1845 it was clearly intended to make such service a government monopoly. Section 181 of the federal statutes reads as follows:
Whoever shall establish any private express for the conveyance141 of letters or packets, or in any manner cause or provide for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town or place between which the mail is regularly carried, or whoever shall aid or assist therein, shall be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned142 not more than six months, or both.
The foregoing makes it quite evident that, as early as 1845 at least, this government of ours did not intend or design the service on mail routes then existing, nor on routes to be established, was to confine itself to the carriage and handling of government matter only. The establishment of rail post routes and the greater facility and speed with which such routes would handle the people’s mails—“the letters, packages and parcels of people residing along such mail routes”—was one of the stock arguments of the Illinois Central Railroad promoters in 1849-50—an argument designed to justify before the people a grant of land to the chartered company so large as to make the grant a colossal steal. The same or similar argument was turned loose and persuasively143 paraded in the oratorical144 procession which preceded the vast federal land grants, or land steals, in connection with the building of transcontinental or Pacific rail lines.
Enough has been said to show quite conclusively that whatever may or may not have been the “intention” of the government at the first establishment of a mail service—a service then wholly by water transportation, by runners and by a “Pony Post” and mail coach—a decision was very soon reached to make the postal service a public one—a service for all our people—and to give the government a monopoly of that service.
No one reading the section of the Revised Statutes of the United States above quoted will attempt to controvert the statement last made.
Then, it may be asked again, and justly, too, why does the[228] government continue to permit its various departments to over-load and to loot the postal service, the revenues for maintaining which the people—the mail-using portion of the people—alone contribute?
It also may be justly asked, why does the government permit its postoffice and other officials to scream at the people about “deficits,” when they have already paid far more than the service—their service—costs the government?
Other equally pertinent22 questions might be asked, but I shall forbear. I have shown, I believe, that the raids upon the postoffice revenues by free-in-county matter and by government itself would more than meet any “deficit” yodled about in recent years.
That is what I started to demonstrate in this chapter. But there are other raids and raiders upon the revenues of the Postoffice Department to which I must advert. I purposed in writing to this phase of our general subject, to make official prattle about postal service “deficits” look and sound foolish.
I believe I have already done that, but in justice to the subject and to the postal ratepayers, at least three other raiders must have their cloaks slit145.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
deficit
|
|
| n.亏空，亏损；赤字，逆差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
strenuous
|
|
| adj.奋发的，使劲的；紧张的；热烈的，狂热的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
predecessors
|
|
| n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 )；前辈；（被取代的）原有事物；前身 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
postal
|
|
| adj.邮政的，邮局的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
deficits
|
|
| n.不足额( deficit的名词复数 )；赤字；亏空；亏损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
brazenly
|
|
| adv.厚颜无耻地；厚脸皮地肆无忌惮地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
advert
|
|
| vi.注意，留意，言及；n.广告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
expenditures
|
|
| n.花费( expenditure的名词复数 )；使用；（尤指金钱的）支出额；（精力、时间、材料等的）耗费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
expended
|
|
| v.花费( expend的过去式和过去分词 )；使用（钱等）做某事；用光；耗尽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
appropriations
|
|
| n.挪用（appropriation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
pertinently
|
|
| 适切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
pertinent
|
|
| adj.恰当的；贴切的；中肯的；有关的；相干的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
debauch
|
|
| v.使堕落，放纵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
maneuver
|
|
| n.策略[pl.]演习；v.(巧妙)控制；用策略 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
stunts
|
|
| n.惊人的表演( stunt的名词复数 )；（广告中）引人注目的花招；愚蠢行为；危险举动v.阻碍…发育[生长]，抑制，妨碍( stunt的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
payrolls
|
|
| n.（公司员工的）工资名单( payroll的名词复数 )；（公司的）工资总支出，工薪总额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
turrets
|
|
| （六角）转台( turret的名词复数 )； （战舰和坦克等上的）转动炮塔； （摄影机等上的）镜头转台； （旧时攻城用的）塔车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
contractors
|
|
| n.（建筑、监造中的）承包人( contractor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
sanguine
|
|
| adj.充满希望的，乐观的，血红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
naval
|
|
| adj.海军的，军舰的，船的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
merged
|
|
| （使）混合( merge的过去式和过去分词 )； 相融； 融入； 渐渐消失在某物中 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
gore
|
|
| n.凝血，血污；v.（动物）用角撞伤，用牙刺破；缝以补裆；顶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
hubbub
|
|
| n.嘈杂；骚乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
frigid
|
|
| adj.寒冷的，凛冽的；冷淡的；拘禁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
strenuously
|
|
| adv.奋发地，费力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
rusts
|
|
| n.铁锈( rust的名词复数 )；（植物的）锈病，锈菌v.（使）生锈( rust的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
excavated
|
|
| v.挖掘( excavate的过去式和过去分词 )；开凿；挖出；发掘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
razed
|
|
| v.彻底摧毁，将…夷为平地( raze的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
debris
|
|
| n.瓦砾堆，废墟，碎片 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
commissioners
|
|
| n.专员( commissioner的名词复数 )；长官；委员；政府部门的长官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
tugs
|
|
| n.猛拉( tug的名词复数 )；猛拖；拖船v.用力拉，使劲拉，猛扯( tug的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
smelting
|
|
| n.熔炼v.熔炼，提炼（矿石）( smelt的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
banking
|
|
| n.银行业，银行学，金融业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
ranch
|
|
| n.大牧场，大农场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
prospective
|
|
| adj.预期的，未来的，前瞻性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
industriously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
acumen
|
|
| n.敏锐，聪明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
crooked
|
|
| adj.弯曲的；不诚实的，狡猾的，不正当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
gathering
|
|
| n.集会，聚会，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
metropolitan
|
|
| adj.大城市的，大都会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
informative
|
|
| adj.提供资料的，增进知识的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
hogs
|
|
| n.（尤指喂肥供食用的）猪( hog的名词复数 )；（供食用的）阉公猪；彻底地做某事；自私的或贪婪的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
edifying
|
|
| adj.有教训意味的，教训性的，有益的v.开导，启发( edify的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
canvass
|
|
| v.招徕顾客，兜售；游说；详细检查，讨论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
paternal
|
|
| adj.父亲的，像父亲的，父系的，父方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
benighted
|
|
| adj.蒙昧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
appreciable
|
|
| adj.明显的，可见的，可估量的，可觉察的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
subscription
|
|
| n.预订，预订费，亲笔签名，调配法，下标（处方） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
subscriptions
|
|
| n.（报刊等的）订阅费( subscription的名词复数 )；捐款；（俱乐部的）会员费；捐助 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
clogs
|
|
| 木屐； 木底鞋，木屐( clog的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
dense
|
|
| a.密集的，稠密的，浓密的；密度大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
discriminating
|
|
| a.有辨别能力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
earnings
|
|
| n.工资收人；利润，利益，所得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
nomination
|
|
| n.提名，任命，提名权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
lessen
|
|
| vt.减少，减轻；缩小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
ascertain
|
|
| vt.发现，确定，查明，弄清 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
robust
|
|
| adj.强壮的，强健的，粗野的，需要体力的，浓的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
accounting
|
|
| n.会计，会计学，借贷对照表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
embarrassment
|
|
| n.尴尬；使人为难的人(事物)；障碍；窘迫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
undue
|
|
| adj.过分的；不适当的；未到期的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
aggregates
|
|
| 数( aggregate的名词复数 )； 总计； 骨料； 集料（可成混凝土或修路等用的） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
outrageously
|
|
| 凶残地； 肆无忌惮地； 令人不能容忍地； 不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
cursory
|
|
| adj.粗略的；草率的；匆促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
prattle
|
|
| n.闲谈；v.（小孩般）天真无邪地说话；发出连续而无意义的声音 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
constituents
|
|
| n.选民( constituent的名词复数 )；成分；构成部分；要素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
investigations
|
|
| （正式的）调查( investigation的名词复数 )； 侦查； 科学研究； 学术研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
oratory
|
|
| n.演讲术；词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
controvert
|
|
| v.否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
niche
|
|
| n.壁龛；合适的职务(环境、位置等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
intervals
|
|
| n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 )；间隔时间；[数学]区间；（戏剧、电影或音乐会的）幕间休息 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
vocal
|
|
| adj.直言不讳的；嗓音的；n.[pl.]声乐节目 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
crate
|
|
| vt.(up)把…装入箱中；n.板条箱，装货箱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
crates
|
|
| n. 板条箱, 篓子, 旧汽车 vt. 装进纸条箱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
watchful
|
|
| adj.注意的，警惕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
ascertaining
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
exorbitant
|
|
| adj.过分的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
transparent
|
|
| adj.明显的，无疑的；透明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
bowers
|
|
| n.（女子的）卧室( bower的名词复数 )；船首锚；阴凉处；鞠躬的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
swell
|
|
| vi.膨胀，肿胀；增长，增强 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
usurps
|
|
| 篡夺，霸占( usurp的第三人称单数 )； 盗用； 篡夺，篡权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
contemplated
|
|
| adj. 预期的 动词contemplate的过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
colossal
|
|
| adj.异常的，庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
entrust
|
|
| v.信赖，信托，交托 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
accrue
|
|
| v.(利息等)增大，增多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
wasteful
|
|
| adj.（造成）浪费的，挥霍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
truthfulness
|
|
| n. 符合实际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
rental
|
|
| n.租赁，出租，出租业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
conveyance
|
|
| n.(不动产等的)转让，让与；转让证书；传送；运送；表达；（正）运输工具 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
persuasively
|
|
| adv.口才好地；令人信服地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
oratorical
|
|
| adj.演说的，雄辩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
slit
|
|
| n.狭长的切口；裂缝；vt.切开，撕裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |