Now for these facts:
1. There are about 250,000 miles of railroad in this country—more than the aggregate4 mileage5 of all the other nations of earth.
2. The capitalization of the railroads of these United States is now, according to Poor’s Manual of Railroads, the universally recognized authority, about $18,800,000,000—Eighteen billion eight hundred million dollars!
3. That capitalization is admittedly twice the value of all the tangible6 values—trackage, rolling stock, terminals, shops and other—owned by the roads. In many instances the capitalization of a road is easily three times the value of its tangible property.
4. Most of these railroads were built with borrowed money, covered by bond issues, and the payment of the bonds met from the earnings7 of the roads, or by new issues of bonds, payment of which has been, or it is intended will be, met from earnings. In view of this method of financing construction and equipment, it is well known in informed circles that the present capitalization of these railroads is ten or twelve times the actual cash ever invested in them—that is, cash other than that collected from the people for freight, passenger, and other service rendered—rendered at rates unscrupulously excessive. Some of the best informed people have gone so far[307] as to say that all of the stock and a considerable part of the bond capitalization of the nation’s railroads is water.
5. There are a number of express companies in this country. The express business of the country, however, is controlled by six companies—the “Big Six.”
6. The express transportation (land) is wholly by railroads. The railroad companies, and men owning large or controlling interest in railroads, own a large majority of the “Big Six” stock capitalization.
7. For most of the express company stock owned by railroads, no cash consideration whatsoever8 was given. For the stock, a railroad company gave to some express company a monopoly of the express business on its line or system of lines of road.
8. The express companies, in addition to any stock bonus they may have given for the monopoly of the express business on a rail line or system of lines, pay to the railroads on which they operate forty to fifty-eight per cent of the gross receipts from the express business handled.
9. The railroads furnish cars free to the express companies. They also furnish depot9 accommodations and facilities for storing and handling express shipments. In some instances, as much as 90 per cent of the handling of express shipping10 is done by railroad employes.
10. There are thirty-seven directors in the controlling express companies. Of these, thirty-two are also directors in some one or more railroad companies or are large owners of railroad stocks and bonds.
11. Practically no cash investment whatsoever was ever made in establishing or organizing an express company, nor in equipment to conduct its business. Every dollar of value there is in equipment and other tangible assets of the express companies today—and hundreds of millions besides—has come from the people—has been taken from the people for handling their express business at rates ranging from two to five times the actual cost of handling.
12. The controlling express companies—“associations” some of them are called—pay 8 to 12 per cent dividends12 yearly on their stock capitalization, which stock has but a fraction of substantial values back of it, and all those real values have come from earnings.[308] 13. In addition to the regular annual dividends paid, these express companies, every few years, “cut a melon”—pay stockholders a substantial “extra” dividend11. One company (Wells, Fargo & Co.), with a stock capital of $5,000,000 in 1872—and no one knowing what tangible assets that five millions represented—increased it to $8,000,000 in 1893. That added $3,000,000 was issued to the union Pacific Railroad for a contract which gave the express company a monopoly of the express business on the union Pacific rail system. On that eight millions the express company paid annual dividends ranging from 6 to 9 per cent from 1893 to 1901. From 1902 to 1907 it paid 9 per cent annually14, since which date its annual dividend rate has been 10 per cent.
In addition to these substantial yearly dividends on $8,000,000 of stock, which cost its holders13 little or nothing, this company cut a huge “melon” in 1910. This melon was an extra dividend to its stockholders of 100 per cent in cash ($8,000,000) and a stock dividend of 200 per cent—a total of 300 per cent as an extra dividend—thus raising its stock capitalization from $8,000,000 to $24,000,000.
On this twenty-four millions of stock the company has continued to pay 10 per cent annually.
The net earnings of the company for 1910 and 1911 were about 20 per cent on its $24,000,000 of stock.
14. There are no express companies in European countries. The heavier express shipments here are there handled—and satisfactorily handled—by the railroads direct. All the lighter15 express shipments are there handled by the parcels post.
15. The parcels post service of European countries is entirely16 satisfactory to the people, is cheaper than the pretense17 of a parcels post service which has victimized the people of this country for a half-century and far cheaper than the rates we have been forced to pay for express service.
16. As it was originally designed, and so provided by law, that our government should have a monopoly in the carriage and delivery of packages and parcels, the express companies in this country—all of them—have been and are engaged in an outlawed18 traffic. They are criminals.
17. Our government, in all its branches—legislative19, executive and judicial20—has been party to this outlawry21. It not only has[309] protected these express and railway raiders while they robbed us, but it has permitted itself to be robbed by them.
The seventeen statements of fact should be sufficient for a starter—a starter for arriving at a safe, sound conclusion as to how and why a comparatively few folks get fabulously22 rich so quickly and so easily while so many millions of other folks, though lavish23 in industry and self-denying in expenditure24, rise only to modest means or remain poor.
We shall now take up a discussion of the parcels post—as it has served us, and as it has served other peoples and should be made to serve us.
The first thing that is noticed in taking a ladder-top view of this Parcels post question is the immense amount of public bubbling talk and writing and money that is being expended25 upon, about and around it.
Is it the people? No. That is easily to be seen. The people are being written and talked to. The people are saying little, write less and are not putting up the money to bubble themselves in the anti-parcels post campaign.
Is the general government putting up the oil and fuel to run this anti-parcels post bunk-shooting game?
Well, the government for years has made little noticeable effort to give the people better and cheaper parcels accommodation in its mail service. That is, the executive arm of the national government has done so. The legislative arm of the national government has uniformly, though never unanimously, opposed any and every measure intended to increase the service value of parcel mail-carriage to the people.
“Why have U. S. congressmen and senators opposed?”
They have opposed, because the party caucuses26 of the House and the Senate have been and are dominated and controlled by men who were and are opposed to such legislation.
Still, the government, executive or legislative, has probably spent no money and has certainly made little noise to defeat the establishment of a better and cheaper parcels post service.
Now, if it is not the people themselves nor the people’s government who are making all the parcels post noise, buying newspaper space and putting up money to steer27 country merchants and others[310] into organizing and petitioning against increased parcel facilities in the mails—if it is not the people trying to bubble themselves nor the government trying to bubble the people, I wonder who it is? Who is putting up for the fuel and oil to run this anti-parcels post opinion-molding sulky-rake, which has been so vigorously, so industriously28 and so designedly dragged over the mental hay-fields of the American hoi polloi during recent years? What’s the answer?
Unless, of course, one has taken on an over-load of this anti-parcels post tonnage, thereby29 giving his feelings a chance to hip-lock or strangle-hold his intelligence, he’ll not need to browse30 around long for an answer.
You have a boy working at Blue Island or Elgin, Illinois. Mother in Chicago wants to send him a Christmas present. If it weighs no more than four pounds she can send it by mail, paying one cent an ounce. If she wants to feel sure that her boy gets it, she can “register” the parcel, paying ten cents more.
If the parcel weighs the fraction of an ounce more than four pounds, mother cannot send it to her boy through the mail service at all. If the parcel weighs exactly four pounds, then our Uncle Samuel will deliver it at Blue Island or at Elgin when mother puts up sixty-four cents—seventy-four, if mother wants to feel sure that her boy gets it and for that reason has the parcel “registered.”
That is one case—one statement of fact.
Andrew Carnegie at Skibo Castle, Scotland, desires to send a four-pound Christmas present to some son of Norval or “blow-hole” friend in Los Angeles, California, or Mrs. John Bull, at Manchester, England, has a yearning—and the price—to send a present of corresponding weight to her daughter Margaret, who is happily, likewise richly, married and who lives in a beautiful suburb of San Francisco. Well, “Andy” and Mrs. John Bull can send their four-pound presents—to be more exact, they can send even if the parcels weight up to eleven pounds each—can have those four-pound parcels carried by rail to some steamship31 port, carried across the Atlantic ocean, put into our mail cars, carried with our own mail across the entire country and delivered by American carriers to the remotest suburb of Los Angeles or San Francisco for forty-eight cents—three-fourths the price mother has to pay to get her four-pound present to her boy at Blue Island or Elgin!
[311]
That is another case—another statement of fact.
For many years the United States government has carried parcels of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, weighing up to 220 pounds, to any point in the country reached by its mail service, broke the package and delivered each separate piece to individual addresses in postoffice boxes or by carrier for one cent a pound.
Yet it persists in charging mother sixteen cents a pound to send her present to her boy at Elgin or Blue Island and compels her to keep its weight down to four pounds.
That is another case—another statement of fact.
For many years, the government has carried by mail, not hundreds, but thousands of tons of parcels free. Every United States Senator, every Congressman32, every department head, every division head, every first, second, third or fourth “assistant” department or division head, every political “fence” builder, whatever his position in the government’s official service, uses his franking privilege.
Not only that. Most of them abuse it.
Not only that. Most of those who abuse it do not confine the abuse to franking public documents to “friends at home” and speeches—most of which were never made or were made or written by somebody else—to “my constituents33.” Oh, no! That government “frank,” so it has been credibly34 asserted, has been used to carry easy chairs, side boards, couches and other household goods which have been “bought cheap”—some of it too cheap to carry a price tag—and which “can be used at home.” Typewriters, filing cases, office desks, frequently acquired by a process of benevolent35 appropriation36, have reached home without carriage charge.
That is another case—another statement of fact.
But why continue? I could go on for a page or two with statements of fact, all evidencing this other FACT.
Mother—your mother, my mother—the great tax-paying body of our people—is wronged, is victimized, by our postal37 service and regulations.
That is my opinion. That opinion is based upon a “broad, general and comprehensive view”—a ladder-top view—“of the whole question in its various and varying details,” as one anti-parcels post spouter38 has spouted39.
I have presented but four statements of fact. A score of others[312] will readily appear to any reader who does his own thinking. But take any one of the four above given and study its significance for just one minute.
Have you done so? “Yes?” Well, then you see the joke—or the “joker”—in the anti-parcels post talk and literature, do you not? You will also be able to make a close guess as to who are financially backing the public-bubbling opposition40 to any legislation for the improvement of our parcels post service. If you cannot, I advise you to go to some jokesmith and have the gaskets and packings on your think-tank tightened41 up.
John Wanamaker was a great merchant. He was a brainy business man and, to a large extent, did his own thinking. He was, for a term of years, Postmaster General of the United States. Mr. Wanamaker was likewise a man of broad, comprehensive and comprehending humor. He could crack or take a joke. In either event, the kernel42 was separated from the shell quickly. Here is one of Mr. Wanamaker’s jokes:
Years ago, when Mr. Wanamaker was Postmaster General, John Brisbane Walker asked him why the American people stood for the existing parcels post outrage43. Mr. Walker believed the American people were quick, judgmental thinkers and swift in remedial action when thought reached the conclusion that the thinker was being victimized.
Mr. Walker was right—is right. American people do think. The trouble is that too many of us are coupled into train with the wrong kind of thinkers. We are switched or shunted onto any side-track or yarding the engineer, the conductor or the traffic manager desires. We simply think we think, while really we are merely following a steer. But I digress.
To Mr. Walker’s question, Mr. Wanamaker made this reply:
“It is true that parcels could be carried at about one-twelfth their present cost by the Postoffice Department, but you do not seem to be aware that there are four insuperable obstacles to carrying parcels by the United States Postoffice Department. The first of these is the Adams Express Company; the second is the American Express Company; the third is the Wells-Fargo Express Company; and the fourth, the Southern Express Company.”
Of course there are several more “insuperable obstacles” to an improvement in our parcels post service. There is the previously45[313] mentioned “big six” obstacles with the railroads, now as when Mr. Wanamaker spoke46, owning or controlling them all.
The reader may know—no need of guessing—that those insuperable obstacles are stoking the engines which are “yarding” public opinion—and much honest, but superficial or careless, private opinion—where it will yield unearned revenues to the stokers. Any man who argues against cheapening our parcels post rates is merely a hired angler for suckers or a sharer in the spoils which railroad and express raiders are looting from the people.
I recently heard one of those patriotic48 hired “cappers” talk to his job. Among his forceful points were the following:
“The big express companies employ nearly 100,000 men.
“Their payroll49 (officials included), is nearly $50,000,000 a year.
“Roosevelt added 99,000 names to the federal pay roll during his seven years in office.
“There are about 70,000 postoffices in the United States and an improved parcels post service would require an additional clerk in each. Therefore 70,000 more tax-eaters would be added to the federal payrolls50.
“There was a deficit51 of $6,000,000 piled up in the Postoffice Department last year. To what appalling52 figures would that deficit mount if a parcels post were established?”
Now, I want to ask a few questions.
First, those 100,000 men employed by the big express companies and who are paid the colossal53 sum of $50,000,000 in salaries. The express companies neither employ so many men nor pay so much money. But if they did, that is an average of but $500 a year to each employe. Do you think those 100,000 express men would lose any killing54 amount in annual salary if the government took the whole bunch of them bodily over and put them into a parcels post service?
So much for those alleged55 100,000 express company employes, concerning whose interests and welfare the anti-parcel post bunk-shooter appears to have had a pain in his lap or bunions on his mind.
Now, how about the 90,000,000 or more people who make up the rest of us folks in these United States? How would we come out in the ledger56 account if a good, efficient and cheap parcels post service was put into operation and the “big express companies” put out of business?
[314]
It is quite impossible to figure it out to the cent. The public reports of those big express companies, likewise their system of double cross bookkeeping, prevent us getting nearer than about eight blocks of their “inside information.” But some of the governing facts we know and others must necessarily follow in any process or method of reasoning recognized outside the harmless ward57 of a crazy house.
The stock of express companies is owned largely by a comparatively few people—a thousand, possibly five hundred, persons own 90 per cent of this stock. No one at all familiar with express company tangibles59, unless he is exercising a loose-screwed veracity60, will estimate their aggregate tangible values above twenty or twenty-five millions. More than that. The present tangible values in these companies are, as previously stated, almost wholly investments from earnings. So largely, in fact, is that true that six million dollars is a liberal estimate for the actual cash capital at any time invested in actual operation.
These companies paid their owners two to three and a half, or more, millions a year in dividends.
Since 1907, the Adams company has paid $480,000 a year on $12,000,000 of bonds. Those twelve million of 4 per cent bonds were given to the stockholders. Not one cent of actual cash was given in consideration.
What has that to do with the parcels post question? Simply this:
When the government installs a parcels post service that accepts, carries and delivers packages weighing from twelve to twenty or more pounds these looting express and railroad raiders will go out of business.
SUBSIDY61 RAIDERS.
Everybody who has studied the question at all knows that all alleged deficits62 in the postal service are the malformed progeny63 of an illegal union between crooked64 public officials and criminal violators of the law enacted65 to establish and govern the carriage and delivery of mail matter in these United States. So noticeable has been the closed eyes and “rear view” of government officials while the railroad and express raiders raided and walked off with their loot that petty thieves began to shin up the posts of the Postoffice Department directly or sneak66 in by way of Congressional legislation.
[315]
“What were they after?” Why, they wanted a “subsidy” for carrying foreign or ocean mails, or they wanted a “pork” contract—one of those contracts which renders little service for much money.
Did you ever hear of Tahiti? No. It is not a breakfast food nor a sure cure for cancers. It is an island. “Where?” Ask the Almighty67. I don’t know, and I am doubtful whether the Almighty knows or cares. I know it is an island somewhere, because a few years ago the postal department entered into a contract with some “tramp” steamer flying a rag, which close inspection69 might discover had once been the American flag.
The Postoffice Department paid that tramp $45,000 for carrying our mails to Tahiti—a service that another vessel70 in the Tahiti trade offered to render for $3,500.
Can there be any legitimate71 surprise or wonder at a “deficit” resulting from such business methods?
But that, of course, was “a few years ago.” Yet, stay! On page 264 of the 1910 report of the Postoffice Department, I find that the Oceanic Line—a line of United States register—carried to and from Tahiti and the Marquesas Islands 7,622 pounds of letters and 159,483 pounds of prints. This was carried under a “contract” and the Oceanic people were paid $46,398 for the service—for carrying about 88 tons of mail matter.
Looks like a good “deficit” producer, does it not?
But there is another queer thing about this Tahiti mail contract. Note (1) on page 263, to which the report refers readers, says steamers of United States register not under contract are paid 80 cents a pound for carrying letters and 8 cents a pound for carrying prints. Figuring up the Oceanic’s service at those rates gives as result only $18,856.24.
So it can readily be seen there is something in a “contract”—some contracts, anyway.
On the same page (264), I find that another ship, one of the union Line and under foreign register, touches at Tahiti in making New Zealand. It carried 2,713,850 grams (about 5,970 pounds) of letters and 58,926,887 grams (about 129,639 pounds) of prints—within 16 tons the weight the Oceanic people carried—and received only $7,781.54 for the service. These vessels72 of foreign register are paid about 35 cents a pound for letter weights and 4? cents for print weight.
[316]
Figuring up the weights hurriedly at the named rates, I find that the union folks were entitled to $7,923.40, or some $142 more than was paid them. The Oceanic folks, you will remember, were paid $46,398 when at open carriage rates of pay to vessels of United States register they earned only $18,856.24.
Looks a little off color, does it not? But we must remember that Tahiti is an island. Must be an island of vast importance. It requires the shipment of 88 tons of mail matter in a year—a whole year—and our government pays $46,398 haulage on it. Something over 79 of those 88 tons of mail was printed weight, too.
What great printers and publishers those Tahitians and Marquesans must be! Or was that print stuff of United States origin? Catalogues and franked and penalty matter, I wonder?
At any rate there is the “contract” in 1910 as an evidence that some one here is doing, or has done, a little turn toward “burning” postal revenues and helping73, in a small way, to keep a postal “deficit” in evidence. A deficit, you know, shows that the revenues of the department are too low, too small, to permit the establishment of an efficient, cheap parcels post, or so the railroad and express raiders would have us think.
The important point, however, is: Are we fools enough to think it? If so, how long shall we continue to be fools enough to think it? If not, is it not about time that we created a disturbance—that we raise some dust—in efforts to let these raiders and their cappers know we are not fools? Why should we continue to act foolish if we are not fools? Please rise, Mr. Sensible Citizen, and answer.
As before said, no one expects nor desires the government to make money out of their mail service. People have, however, a right to expect—and to demand—that their regularly chosen representatives and other government officials prevent a lot of raiders, or any one else for that matter, from making more than a fair, legitimate profit on what they do for or contribute to that service.
There has been much talk the last three or four years about the economies effected by the Postoffice Department in the execution of the work it was established to do. How much of this talk is grounded on fact and how much of it is mere44 political gargle and party and administration “fan”-talk I shall not here attempt to say. Time has[317] not permitted me to look into these averred74 economies carefully and thoroughly75 enough to warrant positive statements from me anent them here. I am inclined to believe, however, that the present Postmaster General, Mr. Hitchcock, and his immediate predecessors76, Mr. Meyer and Mr. Cortelyou, have really accomplished77 a little in the right direction—a little, where the Lord knows we should know there was much to accomplish. But, as stated, my favorable opinion is not based on what I have dug up myself about these economies alleged to have been effected in the recently passed years. If they have been effected, their accomplishment78 only goes to prove that advocates of a cheap parcels post in this country have been right in their facts and arguments, and also that their exposures and severe condemnation79 of the waste, extravagance, grafting81 and stealing in the postal service were timely and well deserved.
Something, however, has, I think, been done. The exposure of criminal crookedness82, grafting, waste and thievery which existed in the department—with administrative83 employes, officers, Congressmen and Senators, either directly or collusively connected with it—was bound to wipe some leaking joints84 in the service. The exposures uncovered so much porch-climbing and so much nastiness that most decent citizens were holding their noses and thinking of buying a gun. Something had to be done. The noise and injured-innocence “holler,” which railroad and express company raiders are vocalizing and printing, is pretty good evidence not only that some little has been done to them, but also that they fear more is going to be done to jam the gear or otherwise interfere86 with the smooth running of some one or more of their high-speed, noiseless-action cream separators. And more will be done if the people keep on the mat and keep swinging for the jaw87 and plexus. But it is not all done yet. The raiders may be squealing88 and squirming a little. They always do when a little hurt. But they are still busy—still actively89 after the cream. They may spar a little for time, but they will use the time actively in figuring out a new entrance into the people’s milk house.
And these raiders will find a way to get in, too, if the people pull up the blankets and let themselves be talked and foozled to sleep.
TOUTING90 FOR “FAST MAIL.”
There appears to be much talk about “fast mail” service. Of[318] course if the railways are already running at a destructive loss on mail weight and space-rental91 pay—which they are not—why they will want more pay if they furnish a fast mail service. The postal authorities (official) seem to think that a “fast mail” is a thing altogether lovely and much to be desired. The railroad carriers are of like mind, but—well, such service costs more money. They want more money. A fast mail is just the thing the people want and need! It will push the corn crop ahead and keep the frost off the peaches!
For these and other equally easy reasons it is sought to steer the people into making a scream for a “fast mail” service. They want and need their mail in a hurry. The quicker the better. In fact, from the way some people are already talking, it would appear they want their mail delivered about twenty-four hours before it starts in their direction.
If the cream-skimming raiders and their “public servant” assistants can only get the people to talking for a “fast mail” service, why a fast mail we will have, and we will pay the raiders for furnishing it.
How will we pay them?
Oh, that is easy. Bonuses and subsidies92 are popular fashions in federal legislative society. Likewise they appear to be popular in postoffice circles. They are seasonable the year around and are cut to fit any figure. They don’t stand the wash very well, but—well, don’t wash them. The raiders and their official valets always keep them brushed up and vacuum cleaned. Just pay for them is all the people have to do.
I recall a serviceable subsidized fast mail gown which was handed to a railroad between Kansas City, Mo., and Newton, Kan., some years since. It was neatly93 boxed and delivered by the handlers of postoffice appropriations94. It was worth $25,000 a year to the road that got it.
“Of what use was it to the people?”
None whatever. The fast train it was made to drape was put on the line named for the sole service and benefit of two Kansas City newspapers. It swished those papers (their midnight editions), into Western Kansas, Oklahoma and Northern Texas ahead of the appearance of local morning issues.
I recall another “fast mail” bonus. It was $190,000 and went[319] to the Southern Railway for a fast train out of New York for New Orleans. It left New York about 4 a. m. and carried little or no mail for delivery north of Charlotte, N. C.
It arrived in New Orleans, if I remember rightly, along about 2 a. m. the next day—too late for delivery of any mail before the opening of the day’s business—9 or 10 o’clock in the morning.
But the regular mail train, as was shown in the debate in the Senate, left New York at about 2. a. m. and arrived in New Orleans about 4:30 a. m.—two hours after the so-called “fast mail”—in ample time for deliveries when the business of the city opened.
Fine business that, is it not? Well, yes, for the Southern Railway.
The reader, however, should be able to recognize it as a regular 60 H. P., six-cylinder, rubber-tired “deficit” producer. Especially will he so recognize it if he thinks of it in connection with this other fact:
That same year, the Southern Railway was paid, in addition to the $190,000 “fast mail” subsidy mentioned, over one million dollars at the regular weight rates for hauling the mails!
There are numerous others of equal beauty and effectiveness in design. As previously stated, however, subsidies and bonuses are all carefully designed and cut to fit any figure. All we wise, “easy” people need do is to make a little noise for a “fast mail” service and Congress will hand it out.
The railroad raiders can easily justify95 their demands for subsidies for a fast mail service with people who have given little or no study to this mail-carrying question. Our Postoffice Department furnishes the raiders about all the argument that is needed. One of the raiders has been quoted as saying: “We could carry the mails at one-half cent per ton mile, if the Postoffice Department would allow us to handle it in our own way.”
There you are. The department will not let these raiders help the people save their own money. Very generous. Much like a burglar calling on you the day before in order to tell you how to prevent him from cracking your safe.
But the beauty of that railroader’s statement lies in the fact that it states a fact; not one of these glittering, rhetorical facts, but a real de facto fact.
The rules and regulations of the Postoffice Department for the[320] carriage of mails in postoffice cars are such as furnish ample grounds and warrant for the railway official’s statement.
Postoffice cars are from 40 to 50 or more feet in length and weigh, empty, from 50,000 to 110,000 pounds. The department then has fixtures96 and handling equipment put in. This equipment occupies about two-thirds of the floor space of the car, and, with the four to twelve railway mail clerks also put into it, weighs from 10 to 15 or more tons. The railroad is paid for carrying all this bulky, space-occupying equipment at the regular mail-weight pay rates.
And how much real mail does the department get into these postoffice cars?
Well, some years since Professor Adams, after a most careful and extended investigation97, placed the average weight of mail actually carried at two tons. He pointed98 out, however, that the mail load could easily go to three and a half tons and referred to the Pennsylvania road which, in its special mail trains, loaded as high as six tons. He also stated that if the load were increased to five tons, the cost of carriage would be reduced more than one-half, and he made it very clear that his figures were easily inside the service possibilities.
In view of such evidence and testimony99 from Professor Adams, and of other men to much the same effect, the department may possibly have increased the mail load since 1907 to three or maybe to three and a half tons.
Even so, it is still evident that the railroad must haul from 70,000 to 140,000 pounds of car and equipment to carry 6,000 to 7,000 pounds of mail; thirty-five to seventy tons of dead load to carry three to three and a half tons of live—of service—load. Do not forget that, so far as the railroads pay is concerned, the equipment is live weight—paid weight. So, the railroads get paid for a load of fifteen to eighteen and a half tons, while they carry only three to three and a half tons of mail—for carrying, according to Professor Adams’s figures in 1907, only two tons of mail.
As a deficit-producer that should rank high. As an evidence that our Postoffice Department is run on economic lines, that mail car tonnage load is nearly conclusive100 enough to convince the residents of almost any harmless ward.
Speaking seriously, the department’s methods of mail-loading the postoffice car—methods which put from two to three and a half[321] tons into cars that should carry six to ten tons—furnishes the carriage-raiders an excellent basis for their talks to the people to the effect that the roads are not getting sufficient pay for carrying the mails now, and if they (the people) want better or faster service the roads must be paid more money, either as bonuses or subsidies. In fact, the railroad people have been holding up this nonsensical—or collusive—practice of the department for years as basis for their demands for more pay for hauling the government mails. As proof of this statement, take the testimony of Mr. Julius Kruttschnitt before the Wolcott Commission, I think it was. Mr. Kruttschnitt was then (1901) Fourth Vice-President of the Southern Pacific. In reply to the Commission’s inquiry101 as to whether or not the mails could be profitably carried over the New Orleans-San Francisco routes at a half cent a pound ($10.00 per ton or for $100 to $200 per car if reasonably loaded), Mr. Kruttschnitt is reported to have answered in part that “at half a cent a pound the mileage rate for 442 miles is 2.3 cents. Statement G,” he continued, “shows that to carry one ton of mail we carry nineteen tons of dead weight, so that for hauling twenty tons we get 2 cents or a little over one-tenth of a cent a gross ton mile.”
All very forceful and conclusive, if it were true, which it is not. It is true, however, that Mr. Kruttschnitt was making good argumentative use of the ridiculously low loading of cars under the regulations of the department. That is all. If the postoffice car used on Mr. Kruttschnitt’s road was a 50-foot car and weighed, say, 100,000 pounds, that and the railway mail clerks constituted the only “dead” weight hauled.
His road got paid for hauling the tons of ridiculously heavy mail-handling equipment and fixtures in that car—got paid for hauling them both ways, at the regular mail-weight rates. His road also received over $8,000 a year rental, or “space pay,” whichever the rail-raiders desire to call it, for the use of that car for mail haulage.
So, it is really not so bad as Mr. Kruttschnitt apparently102 would have it appear. In fact, one does not have to look into the matter very closely to see that the Southern Pacific had what might be called a “good thing” in its mail carrying contract.
But what are the railroads really paid for hauling mail tonnage as compared with the rates they receive for hauling other tonnage?
[322]
In writing to this phase of the question at the time of the pendency of the Fitzgerald and another bill,—the former requiring that periodical publishers pay $160 and the latter that they pay $80 per ton for mail carriage of their publication—Mr. Atkinson said:
Let it not be forgotten, that publishers pay the government $20 per ton for their papers; doesn’t it seem enough, when the government is so generous toward the railroads that it pays for transporting 1,000 pounds of leather, locks, etc., for every 100 pounds of letters?
…
It is no unusual thing for the railroads to haul live hogs103 from Chicago to Philadelphia, a very inconvenient104 as well as unpleasant kind of freight. The hogs have to be fed and watered on the way, they cannot be stacked one upon another, so require much space. What do the railroads charge for this service? Is it $160 per ton? No. Is it $80 per ton? No. Is it $20 per ton? No. They do it for $6 per ton, and are glad of the job.
Professor Parsons wrote a volume a few years ago entitled “The Railways, The Trusts and The People.” Professor Parsons looked into this ton-mile rate of pay for rail haulage most carefully and gave the results of his investigations105 in his book, from which I take the tabulated106 rates following.
In passing, I may say that the professor is recognized by everybody as a most dependable authority—that is, everybody save the railroad and express raiders and their hired men. They have written and talked at great length to “refute” him, which thoughtful and disinterested107 people take as mighty68 strong evidence that Professor Parsons presented the truth and the facts, or so nearly the truth and facts that his statements made the “authorized,” rake-off patriots108 turn loose on him their high-powered, chain-tired public bubblers.
Following are the figures which the Professor published as showing the average ton mile rates the railroads then received for carrying different kinds of shipments:
Rate per ton mile, cents.
For carrying express generally 3 to 6
For carrying excess baggage 5 to 6
For carrying commutation passengers 6
For carrying dairy freight, as low as 1
For carrying ordinary freight in 1. c. 1 2
For carrying imported goods, N. O. to S. F. 8
For carrying average of all freight 78
For carrying the mails (Adams estimate) 12.5
For carrying the mails (Postoffice Department estimate) 27
[323]
THE PARCELS POST.
The Postmaster General in his reports for 1908-9 and 1909-10 recommends a trial or “test” of a parcels post service on several rural routes “to be selected by the Postmaster General.”
The Congress now in session is giving, or will give, this recommendation serious consideration, it is presumed. Especially will it be given such serious consideration when the 1911-12 bill, making appropriations for the postal service, is under fire and is being “savagely attached by its friends.”
It may be depended upon that the express and railroad gentlemen now shearing109 a rich fleece from your Uncle’s postal fold will not have any fair tests made of a parcels post service so long as they can prevent it, and they appear to have numerous representatives in both houses of Congress who can be influenced to prevent it, if their past talk and votes may be taken as indicating what they are there for.
Of course, the chief clack of the enemy’s hired men is “lack of funds.” Yet they go on appropriating millions to people who do not earn it—to pay for services not rendered.
The same kippered tongue lashed110 the “rural delivery” service the same way. In the end, the people won. But they won, in the bill as originally passed, a rural delivery of the “test” variety. “Why?” Well, a properly equipped and serviceable rural delivery would be a step towards a serviceable parcels post and the raiders do not want the people to have such a parcels post.
As samples of the sort of “friendly feeling” manifest in Congress toward a parcels post and of the profound wisdom carried by some of its alleged friends, I desire to make a quotation111 or two.
When the measure was first up (1908), Representative Lever of South Carolina introduced the four counties “experimental test” amendment113 in the House. Following is his opening:
Every farmer here present knows of his own experience how much time is taken in extra trips to town and city.
Now, that is real fetching. Especially before so vast a gathering114 of farmers as heard it!
But a Missouri “farmer” present wanted to be shown. So he fired a question at Mr. Lever. The farmer from Missouri wears the[324] name of Caulfield. He likewise wears an abiding115 distrust of the parcels post. Following is his question:
Is it not a fact that the great mail order houses of the country are the ones who are really in favor of the parcels post?
There is real intellectual magneto and lamp equipment for you. Note, too, the shrewdness of this Missouri “farmer” in wording his question—the mail order houses may not be the only ones who favor the parcels post, but they are about the only ones who “really favor” it!
Well, there are over 40,000,000 residents of the country—villages and towns in this country—among them, too, are twenty millions of real farmers. These are pretty firmly of opinion that they “are really in favor of the parcels post.” There are, also, not less than 30,000,000 more residents of incorporated cities, small and large, who at least think they favor a parcels post service which will permit “mother” to send a pair of pants to her boy ten miles away as cheaply as the laird of Skibo Castle, Scotland, can send two pairs of kilts to a son of his friend’s Aunt Billy who lives in Los Angeles, California.
Of course, the people may only think they think and are sitting up nights with the windows open and their ears spread to hear their representatives tell ’em they are wrong. If so, Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Lever will probably hear from them. It takes the people some time to recognize or properly to appreciate how wise some of their representatives are—what a vast amount of charges-prepaid wisdom they have. But the people finally catch on and then—well, then there will not be so many “farmers” of the Mr. Lever variety in Congress.
But I want to give Mr. Lever another show. He’s entitled to it “under the rules.” He should have several of them—not to show his profound knowledge of the value and dangers of an efficient, cheap parcels post, but to show that a man need not spend a cent in Congress to advertise the fact that he is a “practical politician.” All he needs do is make a few hired or ignorant remarks on some subject about which the people of the country have been thinking.
Here is Mr. Lever’s answer to Mr. Caulfield’s question, as previously quoted:
The wisdom of discriminating116 in favor of the local merchant must be apparent to any one who regards, for a moment, the danger involved in a system (parcels post) which would inevitably117 centralize the commerce of the country.
[325]
Now, candidly118, how could a “friend” of a parcels post service show his friendship more nicely than that? Especially if he is a “farmer?” Or even if he is not, and merely desires the farmers to think he is their friend?
Why, Mr. Lever has Mr. Caulfield shoved clear over the ropes in that answer. Mr. Caulfield, of Missouri, may have full magneto and lamp equipment, but Mr. Lever, when it comes to a friendly, high-speed spurt119 for a parcels post service, shows all the latest improvements. No, sirs, Mr. Lever is not merely a last year’s model. He’s bang up-to-date—axles, drawn120 steel; forged crank shaft121 with eight cams integral; continuous bearings and bearings all ground; two water-cooled, four-cylinder motors with sliding gear; “built-in” steel frame, and running on a “wheel-base” of 106 inches. Mr. Lever shows all the other “latest,” necessarily belonging to the “best seller” class among late models.
However, I have probably mentioned enough to make it clear to my readers, if not to his constituents, that Mr. Lever is fully equipped to act the part of the farmer’s “friend,” a friend of the parcels post, or of any other old thing. Some may think he carries a little too much weight for a good hill-climber. It should be remembered, however, that some sorts of “friends” do not climb hills. They skip around the hills and get what they are after while we are climbing. When farmers and others of our producing classes wise-up to the brand of vocal85 friendship I am “insinuatin’ about,” such representatives as Mr. Lever will last about as long as it would take a one-armed, wooden-legged man to fall off the top of the Flat Iron Building flag pole.
PARCELS POST “TESTS.”
It may as well be said here as elsewhere that such “tests” of the feasibility and desirability of a good parcels post service as Mr. Hitchcock proposes to make are but procrastinating122 foolery. Great Britain and every continental123 country of Europe has an efficient parcels post service in operation.
Postmaster Generals and railroad and express company raiders know that. The countries indicated have made all the “tests” we need have of people-serving parcels post, and every one of them derive124 more or less revenue from that service, there being no deficits.
[326]
Postmaster Generals and our railroad and express company raiders know all that. So, also, do our Senators and Congressmen know that. Even alleged “farmer” Congressmen know it.
Our public servants know even more than that. They know that under the International Postal union agreements our government has entered into, our postal service today handles these foreign countries’ parcels, of either United States or of foreign origin, weighing up to eleven pounds. They also know our own postal service now won’t permit our own people to send by mail, packages weighing more than four pounds. They also know that for carrying a four-pound parcel by his own mail service the American must pay 64 cents if the parcel is for delivery in any of the foreign countries covered by Postal union agreement,[17] but if sent by some one in any of those countries for delivery in this, the sender may make up a parcel weighing as much as eleven pounds and for its delivery will have to pay only 48 cents.
I say that our mail carriers and public officials know these things. The facts as stated must be known of the Postal union agreements. On request, the Postoffice Department does not hesitate to give this information to anyone. The following is a paragraph taken from a department communication. It was sent in response to a request made by Mr. Alfred L. Sewell, who wrote a most informative125 communication that appeared in the Chicago Daily News of date November 6, 1911. I take the quotation from Mr. Sewell’s article.
Mailable merchandise may be sent by parcels post to Bahamas, Barbadoes, Brazil, Bermuda, Bolivia, Danish West Indies (St. Croix, St. John, St. Thomas), Colombia, Ecuador, British Guiana, Costa Rica, Guatemala, British Honduras, Republic of Honduras, Haiti, Jamaica (including Turk islands and Caracas), Leeward126 Islands, Windward Islands, Mexico, Newfoundland, Nicaragua, Peru, Salvador, Trinidad, Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, in the western hemisphere, and to Australia, Japan and Hongkong in the east, and to Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden in Europe. The postage rate is uniform at 12 cents a pound, or fraction of a pound. A parcel must not weigh more than eleven pounds, nor measure more than three feet and six inches in length, or six feet in length and girth combined.
Then why prattle127 about a “test” as to the desirability and practicability of a good, cheap parcels post service in this country; one that will serve our own people?
[327]
Especially why prattle about such a parcels post service on a few selected rural routes? It is not only foolishly silly, but it looks suggestively wrong—as if there was some ulterior motive128 back of any suggestion of such a test. “Why?”
Well, if such test is made under regulations suggested by the Postmaster General, the only parcels that service, or “test” service, is designed to carry, are such as originate on a selected rural route and are for delivery on the same route or on a route immediately connected with it. That is, as I understand Mr. Hitchcock’s recommended regulations, any farmer or villager along the selected “test” rural route may send a package (weight and rate of carriage yet to be decided129 upon) to any other farmer or villager on the same route or connected route, or to a resident of the town or city at which such route originates or starts.
If such a farce130 can be seriously thought of as a “test” of what use and economic value a nation-wide parcels post service would be to our people, even to the people residing on the test routes, it will take some graduate of a foolery school or foreman in a joke foundry to so think of it.
Let’s see. A farmer may send a jar of butter, box of eggs, crate131 of fruit or vegetables, etc., to the village storekeeper and get his pay for the consignment132, “in trade” usually. By writing the storekeeper an order, postal card or letter, the farmer may get on the next round of the carrier what he desires. That is, he will get what he has asked for if the storekeeper has it in stock. The farmer, or the farmer’s wife, may do the same thing in the event that the consignment of their products, presuming that the “regulations” will permit the carrier to handle perishable133 goods, goes no farther away than the county seat or other town or city from which the rural route starts. They can also send such parcels to any railroad station on the route for shipment to any more distant point. In such case, however, the farmer must pay an express carriage charge from the local railroad station to the destination of his shipment.
But enough of this local application of the proposed “test” regulations. It will readily be seen that if the farmer or villager on a selected test route desires to send a parcel, not above the regulation weight—whatever that may be—to any point not on the same route, he will have an express charge to pay—whatever that charge may be.[328] And if he orders something, inside the regulation weight, from some factory or city not on his carrier’s route, he must also pay an express charge for its carriage to his local railroad station. If he wants the article or goods delivered at his home by the rural carrier, he must pay an additional charge—the postal carriage charge, whatever that may be.
As a “test” of the service value of a parcels post, could anything be more absurd? If so, it would be difficult to frame it up. Such a “test,” however, will still leave the raiding express companies in position to hold up the selected “home circle,” rural-route residents on all shipments, which go to or come from any city or point outside the home circle—and that is about what, if not just what, the proposed “test” is designed or intended to do, or so it appears from the ladder top.
In this connection it should be noted134 that the rural-route delivery enactment135, or the department regulations under which it was to be applied136, carried an express protecting “joker.” If not, why was the rural route carrier required to furnish a cart or other carrying vehicle of only twenty-five pounds capacity? Was it valid137 for ulterior reasons which named so small a weight? Would it have cost the government any more money for rural carrier service if a maximum weight of 500, or even of 1,000 pounds, had been named for the carrying vehicle?
The reader may answer. To The Man on the Ladder, though, that 25-pound requirement looks to be of doubtful mail-service value, if, indeed, not suspiciously queer.
It was carefully figured in 1900 that our rural, or non-railroad, communities alone lost $90,000,000 a year in excessive express charges and delays in delivery by reason of the criminal apathy138 of their government in the matter of furnishing even a reasonably adequate domestic parcels post service, such, for instance, as that furnished by the German government. The German government carries an 11-pound package anywhere in the German empire or in Austria-Hungary for 12 cents.
To aid the reader, I give, following, a table covering the data essential to a fair understanding both of the excessive pay for a service which our government should render for a tenth of the money and, also, of why our express service is inconvenient—is wasteful139 and expensive—by reason of the distance the express offices are from[329] the people ordering. This last is clearly shown by comparing their number with the larger number of postoffices in the several states named.
THE WORM UNCOVERED.
STATE. No. of express offices. No. of postoffices. Average express charge. Amount saved by parcel post at 12c. English merchants’ advantage at 48c. German merchants’ advantage at 58c. Mexican merchants’ advantage at 66c.
Alabama 334 2,445 $1.33 $1.21 $0.85 $0.75 $0.67
Arizona 41 202 3.89 3.77 3.41 3.31 3.23
Arkansas 262 1,880 1.66 1.54 1.18 1.08 1.00
California 586 1,659 3.16 3.04 2.68 2.58 2.50
Connecticut 108 511 .61 .49 .13 .03
Georgia 451 2,657 1.33 1.21 .85 .75 .67
Illinois 1,495 2,622 1.09 .97 .61 .51 .43
Kentucky 471 2,892 1.22 1.10 .74 .64 .56
Maine 248 1,254 .61 .49 .13 .03
Michigan 737 2,161 1.22 1.10 .74 .64 .56
New York 1,309 3,735 .61 .49 .13 .03
Ohio 1,362 3,398 1.09 .97 .61 .51 .43
Oklahoma 30 576 2.10 2.07 1.62 1.52 1.53
Pennsylvania 919 5,206 .61 .49 .13 .03
Rhode Island 90 153 .61 .49 .13 .03
South Dakota 229 639 2.67 2.55 2.19 2.09 2.01
Texas 662 2,968 2.19 2.07 1.61 1.61 1.53
Virginia 263 3,468 1.22 1.10 .74 .64 .56
Whole country 20,155 60,000
Had I the space at command I would print the figures for the whole United States. However, it will be seen that the states I have taken are fairly representative of the whole country—the populous140 with the sparsely141 settled.
The figures as to number of express and postoffices are from the United States census142 for 1900.[18] The estimates are made on the parcel weight of 11 pounds. Eleven pounds is the English domestic parcels weight that is carried anywhere in the United Kingdom for 24 cents or, by international postal agreement, to any point in this country for 48 cents. In passing, it might be noted that for the year 1900 the[330] British postoffice turned into its national treasury143 over $18,000,000 profit. It might also be well to notice that English merchants imported nearly five and a half million dollars value by parcels post and exported nearly twenty and a half million dollars of value by means of the same service.
But to get back to our 11-pound parcel.
Germany carries it anywhere in her empire or in Austria-Hungary for 12 cents.
Switzerland carries it for eight cents, and several other countries are now trying to reach the German weight-rate for domestic delivery.
So we will take as our package of eleven pounds and figure its delivery at any postoffice in the United States for twelve cents.
One more point about this table.
The reader must keep in mind that we now deliver packages up to eleven pounds from any person—merchant, manufacturer or other—living in England, Germany or Mexico. It is delivered for the English shipper (by our mails) to any United States postoffice for 48 cents; for the German shipper for 58 cents or for the Mexican shipper for 66 cents.
The three right-hand columns of the table show how much cheaper the English, German or Mexican merchant, or other shipper, can have his eleven pounds of merchandise carried to Rabbit Hash, Ky., Springtown, Mo., Gold Button, Cal.—to any postoffice in the United States—than the New York merchant can send his 11-pound parcel to the express office “nearest” the customer ordering.
The express charges given are the carefully figured averages for the states named for carriage from New York City. The third column gives the average express charge (at rates ruling in 1900) from New York City to the states named. The fourth column gives the savings144 to the purchaser—the merchant or the consumer—if the 11-pound parcel were carried, as it should be carried, in the mails for 12 cents. The first two columns give the number of express offices and postoffices in the several states named and are intended as conclusive proof that millions of our people are much nearer to a postoffice than to an express office.
With this preliminary, let us now comment on the table. Don’t side-step it because it’s figures—unless, of course, you’re some hired man of the express or railroad companies.
[331]
The total of express companies in the footing is that given in the census report for 1900. There are probably several hundred more now. The corresponding total given for the number of postoffices is correct for July 1, 1910. There are fewer postoffices now than in 1900, the establishment of rural route delivery having reduced the number greatly. The reader must keep in mind that the figures named in headings of the three right-hand columns cover a “delivery” charge in addition to the home-rate mailing rate for the countries named. This delivery charge was covered in the international agreements.
If the reader will study that table a little he will learn several things.
If we have one hundred millions of people in this country, there is an express office for about each 5,000 of them, while there is a postoffice for about each 1,666 of them.
There is an express office to about every 175 square miles of our territory, while there is a postoffice for about each 60 square miles of our territory.
The reader will have no trouble to see by the table that, if he ordered an 11-pound lot of hose and shirts or phonograph records, photograph films or other goods from New York City for delivery in Chicago, he would get the goods by a properly served parcels post for just 97 cents less carriage charge than he now pays the express companies. If he live in Los Angeles, Cal., he would get the goods from New York for $3.04 less. Even if he lived in Buffalo145, N. Y., he would get those eleven pounds of goods from the metropolis146 of his state for 48 cents less than he now pays the express companies.
Be sure, however, to notice those three right-hand columns.
You will observe that the Right Honorable John Bovine147, an exporting merchant of London—or a manufacturer, if you please, of Manchester or Leeds, England—can send that 11-pound package to you in Chicago, Hot Springs, Fargo or elsewhere in the United States—send it by mail, which no American merchant or manufacturer can do—at from 90 cents to $3.00 less carriage cost than the New York merchant can send it to you by express—the only means our present laws and methods permit him to use.
Baron148 Von Stopper, an exporter of Berlin, likewise has a large advantage over the New York merchant in supplying your parcel demands. Even Senor Greaser of the City of Mexico, can ship—by[332] mail—eleven pounds of kippered tamales or sombreros to any point in the country, save ten states within short-haul range of New York City, and have an edge of 30 cents to $3.23 over his New York City competitor in supplying your parcel order wants.
Great, is it not? Fine system, is it not, to “protect home industries?” To build up “foreign trade?”
But, it is not quite so bad as it looks for the very reason that our “postal agreements” recognize the “tariff149 wall” that is built around certain “infants” in this country. Your goods from England, Germany or Mexico must be of our “free list” kind, otherwise they must pay a rake-off to the government. As that is pretty stiff, you don’t order many parcels from abroad. You buy home products—thus paying the tariff rake-off to the protected “infant” instead of the Government.
Does it not appear that we American citizens are an easily “worked” bunch?
In connection with the tabulation150 just presented, should be noted the fact that millions of our people live in non-railroad communities—live, often, many miles from any express office, while a postoffice may be near. If these people have pressing need for any article of merchandise weighing over four pounds it cannot reach them, under existing law, by mail. They must order it sent by express and make the long drive to the nearest express office to get it.
The article may be one needed for the health of the family or it may be a rod, a gear wheel or other part of some machine that has broken in a critical hour of need—any one of a hundred needs, delay in supplying which costs money.
It was carefully figured in 1900 that our rural, non-railroad communities alone lost $90,000,000 a year in excessive express charges and delays in delivery by reason of the peculiar151 if not studied apathy of their government in the matter of furnishing even a reasonably adequate domestic parcels post service.
The hypothetical rate (1 cent a pound or $20.00 per ton), for parcels carriage and delivery by post is low—maybe a little too low. If so, it is only a very little, if it is figured to have the rate cover only the actual cost of the service. A nation-wide parcels post service, if properly organized and directed, would, it must be remembered, handle all the short as well as the long haul business. It would not,[333] as now, permit a collusive raiding arrangement between the railroads and the express companies by which the latter get most of the short-haul shipments and leave most of the long-haul parcels to be handled by the mail service.
I see by a local press item, that the Senate Committee on Postoffices and Postroads is going to propose in the bill it is drafting that parcels of eleven pounds in weight be carried by the mail service for 50 cents—10 cents for the first pound and 4 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof, up to the maximum of 11 pounds. Of course, a rate of 50 cents for the carriage of 11-pound parcels would be a great betterment over the present rate and weight regulations. But a rate of 50 cents for an 11-pound package is away too high, figuring on short and long haul parcels, unless it is intended to make the service a revenue producer, which it should not be. The committee, I gather from the news item, has recognized the fact that a 50-cent rate is too high on short-haul matter and are considering the recommendation of a lower rate for it—a distance scale or schedule of rates. It is to be hoped that, if the proposed bill becomes law, it will carry such a provision.
It is said the committee decided upon the weight and rate limits after an “exhaustive investigation of all the parcels post systems of the world,” and it was pointed out that this investigation disclosed the fact that only “five powers” reported deficits in their postal services in 1909—Luxemburg, Chili152, Greece, Mexico and Austria—the deficits ranging from $7,437 in Luxemburg to $1,693,157 in Austria. Of these, it will be noted, all save Austria are small or only partially153 developed countries. None of them have rail or other transportation facilities at all comparable to those of this country. Yet our government, with its excessive parcels rate and ridiculously low maximum weight limit on parcels reported a deficit of $17,441,719.82 in its postal revenues for 1908-9, and $6,000,000 in 1910.
Whatever the action that may be taken by the present or a future Congress looking to the betterment and to a cheapening of the nation’s parcels post service, one thing must be done if such action be made effective—if it yield the results it is alleged are expected of it. Such action must carry provisions that will effectively break up the present collusive understandings and arrangements between the railroads and the express company interests, which arrangement[334] has for years been raiding the postal revenues on the one hand and, by greatly excessive rail and express rates for carrying parcel freight, has been looting the people on the other.
This can be—and should be—done. There are two actions which may be taken by the government, either of which I believe would accomplish that most desirable and necessary result.
On previous pages (pages 227 and 228), will be found quoted a section of the law of 1845—a law for the establishing and regulation of the government mail service. On the pages 256-257 will be found a most instructive discussion of the law by Mr. Allan L. Benson. Turn back and read those pages. Mr. Benson is always worth a second reading.
That it was the intention of the legislators of that time to make the carriage, handling and delivery of letters and “packets” (small parcels or packages of any sort of mailable matter), a government monopoly, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That the express companies have operated and are operating in violation154 of Section 181 of that law, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That Section 181 of the enactment of 1845 is good, sound law today, there can be no valid reason to doubt. That the express companies have operated, and continue to operate, in violation of that law—in open defiance155 of it—and are therefore engaged in a criminal traffic, there can be no valid reason to doubt.
True, they have a very peculiar court decision to protect them in their violation of that law. I call it a “peculiar” decision. A more fitting term might be used in describing that court decision, and the use of such a term would be fully justified156.
One of the two actions which Congress might take would be to amend112 Section 181 of its Revised Statutes157 so that even a yokel158, as well as a Federal Judge, may clearly see that the carriage of packages and parcels, as well as of “packets,” which do not exceed the maximum regulation weight and are of mailable class and kind, is “intended” to be the exclusive privilege of the government.
Such an amendment to the law would force the express companies out of business.
The other action which could be effectively taken would be to make the parcels post rate so low and the maximum weight of parcels so liberally high that the railroads and express raiders would quit of[335] their own accord, which they would do as soon as their present tonnage of loot is seriously cut down. Nothing would cut into that lootage deeper or quicker than would a service rated and weighted parcels post.
I have been severe in my strictures and condemnation of the express and railway raiders. In evidence that my condemnation is deserved I desire to quote two or three people—people who have made a careful, painstaking159 study of the game these raiders have played, and yet play, and of the practices and tricks which make it a “sure thing” for the high-finance gentlemen who play it.
Mr. Albert W. Atwood wrote a series of three most informative articles for the American Magazine under the caption160, “The Great Express Monopoly.” They appeared in the American in its issues for February, March and April, 1911. I trust the publishers will not take unkindly my quoting Mr. Atwood. He presents some facts which so conclusively162 evidence several points that I cannot resist the appeal they make for quotation.
In evidencing the fact that the railroads own and control the express companies and also showing how that ownership and control was obtained and is maintained, Mr. Atwood writes as follows:
It has frequently been asserted by merchants and shippers that the stock issues of the express companies are merely a device to make possible the exaction163 of unreasonable164 charges. Perhaps the most direct case in point is that of the Pacific Express Company, organized in 1879 to do business on the union Pacific and Gould Railroads. Before the Indiana Railroad Commission John A. Brewster, auditor165 of the company, recently testified that there were twelve stockholders and $6,000,000 of stock. On pages 784-785 of the record there appears this colloquy166:
Q. What did you do with that stock, Mr. Witness?
A. The capital stock was given to the Wabash, union Pacific, and Missouri Pacific for the rights, franchises167.
Q. For what rights?
A. Franchises and rights to do business.
Q. We begin to understand it; it wasn’t understood before that; nothing was received by the Pacific Express Company for the issue of this $6,000,000 of stock? Do these railroad companies own the stock?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. These twelve stockholders are the railroads. The railroads get these 6 per cent dividends on the stock?
A. Yes, sir.
Before another State Railroad Commission an officer of the company stated that[336] so far as he knew and so far as the records show no cash was received for the $6,000,000 stock. The Illinois Railroad and Warehouse168 Commission has decided this stock was issued in fact and in law without consideration. Ostensibly the stock was issued by the express company in exchange for the right to do business over the lines of the railroads, but all the express companies pay a fixed169 percentage of their gross receipts, ranging from 40 to 57? per cent, to the railroads over which they operate.
On the question as to whether express companies operate at a profit or not, Mr. Atwood writes as follows of this same Pacific organization:
Whatever legal view we may take of this curious stock issue, there is no room for doubting that it has served as a device for the extortion of money from the shipping public, for express charges are made high enough to more than pay dividends on the stock. Starting in business with no capital except such as may have been temporarily loaned to it by the railroads in control, the Pacific Express Company has paid dividends of $8,334,000 in twenty years and in addition has been paying to the railroads, which owned all its stock, about 50 per cent of its gross receipts of more than $7,000,000 a year. A large block of the stock recently changed hands at $200 a share, and yet we have seen how it was issued without consideration in cash or property. Indeed it is said the company operated for eight years before the stock was issued at all.
In speaking to the same point as applied to the United States Express Company, Mr. Atwood calls attention to the fact that 55 per cent of its “stockholders” have entered suit to wind up the company’s affairs on charges of mismanagement by its dominating officers. Mr. Atwood further writes:
Although the gravest of charges of mismanagement and waste of assets have repeatedly been made against the directors of the United States Express Company, a profit of almost 15 per cent was earned by the company on the capital invested in the express business in the year 1909. This profit would have been still greater had general trade been normal, and had there not been a hiatus between the loss of one large contract and the securing of another. That the stockholders have not received all the profits proves nothing. Millions have gone into unnecessary real estate investment and large salaries have been paid, but earnings on the capital actually invested have clearly shown that even under a management whose good faith and ability is being challenged in the courts there is an ample return.
As long ago as 1875 a writer in Harper’s Magazine said the express business had already created fifty millionaires, a statement which does not tax the credulity of anyone who casts a glance at the dividend record of these companies. To use the calmly judicial words of the Census Bureau: “In no other business is it probable that so little money, comparatively, is invested where the gross receipts are so large.” We have seen that new capital is not a necessity of the express[337] business. Unlike the railroads, new security issues to raise capital are never sold to the investing public.
The cappers for railroad and express interests, keep the atmosphere agitated170 with talk about the “uncertainty and irregularity” of the quantity of express matter to be carried, “the excessive taxes paid,” etc. In answer to such bubble, Mr. Atwood has this to say:
While this may be theoretically true, the experience of years has shown that the patronage171 of these companies has been fairly regular, remunerative172 and growing. Not only will a study of the gross receipts prove this contention173, but further confirmation174 will be found in the remarkable175 series of excessive dividends. “We do not feel that any extravagant176 return should be permitted upon the business of these companies,” said the Interstate Commerce Commission in Kinde v. Adams et al., “for it involves none of the elements which entitle an investment to a high return.”
When the Adams Express Company enriched its shareholders177 with a 200 per cent extra dividend in 1907, stress was laid upon the increase in taxation178 throughout the country. How ridiculous this is can be seen from the fact that the Adams Company paid only $145,184 in taxes in the entire fiscal179 year of 1909, and $202,234 in 1910, although its extra dividend alone amounted to $24,000,000. Profits on stock and bond speculation180 amounted to $418,979 in the year 1909, and $1,943,889 in 1910. The American Express Company, with its huge resources, paid but $283,951 in taxes in 1909. In the same year the volume of its banking181 business alone amounted to more than $250,000,000. In at least one important state, the express companies paid no taxes until a few years ago and in Indiana the companies had the audacity182 to tell the Tax Commissioner183 that they had little or no tangible property in that state. When Congress voted to put a tax of two cents on every express transaction to raise revenue for the Spanish War the companies made the shipper pay, and when the shippers objected fought the case to the highest courts.
At this point the question naturally arises as to how the express companies have been able to carry on for so many years such a perfect system of extracting money from the public without being seriously molested185. The answer involves a knowledge of the relations existing between the railroads and the express companies, and a knowledge of the complete monopoly which exists in the express business—a monopoly made possible only because of these very relations.
In Pearson’s Magazine appeared two forcefully written articles by Mr. Allen L. Benson on the parcels post. The articles appeared in Pearson’s in February and March, 1911. In his February opening and closing Mr. Benson says some things to us and says them with a kindly161 bluntness which we should appreciate:
Is it a pleasure to you to be treated as if you were a fool? Do you never tire of acting184 like an organ-grinder’s begging monkey?
These questions are put to you in good faith. I have no desire to insult[338] you. I know you are not a fool. I know you don’t like to beg. Yet here you are again, with your little red cap on and your little tin cup out, begging for a parcels post. Begging from those whom you should order. And the gentlemen from whom you beg treat you as if you were a fool.
Perhaps you believe these statements are not so. I shall soon show you that they are so. But before we go down this interesting parcels-post road, let us hang a lantern to the wagon-tongue. You will understand the scenery better if you see it by the light of this particular lantern. Here it is:
Bad government is largely made possible by the mistaken opinions held toward each other by the governing classes and the governed. By “governing classes” I don’t mean Presidents and Congresses. I mean the great capitalist interests that make Presidents and Congresses. The governing classes underestimate the intelligence of the people. That is why the governing classes are always in process of yielding something to the people. Depending upon the stupidity of the people, gross wrongs are inflicted186 that are righted only under force, inch by inch.
The people, on the other hand, have too exalted187 an opinion of both the intelligence and the patriotism188 of those who control the government. They have no good opinion of the patriotic impulses of the great capitalists, but they fail to note that the great capitalists are the National government. Mr. Morgan in Wall street they recognize. But Mr. Morgan in Washington, disguised as Uncle Sam, they do not recognize. Therefore they behold189 him with a certain veneration190. They have been taught, since childhood, to look up to Uncle Sam as to a father. He is the government in breeches. The people do not always agree with the men who govern them, but they always agree with the government. The grand old government of the United States looks good to them. It looks good to them because it seems to embody191 the power, the will and the virtue192 of the people.
All of which is not true. No government is much better than the men who control it. If the men who control it are bad, the government is bad. If a few control it, the rest do not control it. If a few use it to get more than belongs to them, the rest cannot use it to get what belongs to them. If a few control the government to rob the rest of the people, the government is not the friend, but the enemy, of the rest of the people.
The United States government is and long has been controlled by a few rich men. These men have used and are using the government to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the people. I do not mean so say that the government never performs an act that is of service to all of the people, but I do mean to say that when there is a conflict between the interests of the few who control the government and the interests of the rest of the people, the government is almost certain to take the side of the few as against the many.…
The little guiding group of rich who tell you that a high tariff helps you is the same little guiding group that tells you a parcels post would hurt you.
…
Is it a pleasure to you always to be treated as if you were a fool? Do you[339] never tire of paying 16 cents a pound on mail packages limited to four pounds, when there is hardly a little South American republic or fourth-class European state that will not carry at least eleven-pound packages for a cent a pound or less?
Think of it—we have entered into agreements with forty-three nations that have the parcels post to receive and deliver their parcels when directed to any person in this country; we are permitting the Philippine Government to establish a parcels post; we have agreed to receive in this country big packages at low rates for delivery abroad; but we ourselves have no such rights among ourselves. We must not only pay tribute to the express companies, but we must believe that it is good for us to do so.
If the American people only knew their power; if they only knew their power! If they would tear off their party labels and vote as they talk at home among their neighbors, they could push this country half a century ahead at the next election. Everybody knows something is wrong, but almost everybody votes the thoughts of those who make the wrong.
Shall we never vote for ourselves?
The italics in the last paragraph quoted are mine. So, too, are the sentiments of that paragraph—both the expressed and the implied. That is I believe in them—I believe in them hard and stubbornly. If my readers will think hard about them for a few minutes, I feel confident they will conclude that it is about time for them, for all of us, to act on Mr. Benson’s advice—tear off our party labels and begin “to vote for ourselves.”
In support of his charges of bad faith on the part of the government in giving the people a serviceable parcels post, Mr. Benson’s remarks are most illuminating193. He makes reference to a public or semi-public document of the government, written by one Mr. Turner and proceeds as follows:
“‘This will open a great business for American retail194 merchants,’ wrote Mr. Turner. ‘Brazil can be flooded with catalogues. This information, in advance, will enable those desiring to go after business to prepare for it.’
“Mind you, these are only occasional sentences from his enthusiastic article. He dwelt at length upon the eagerness of the Brazilians to buy such articles as we make. He even became specific and enumerated195 some of the articles that could be advantageously sent by parcels post. ‘This opens up great possibilities for the retail shoe houses,’ he said, for instance, ‘as elegant shoes are worn.’ Also, there was a great market for gloves, embroideries197, ribbons, silks, stockings, and underclothing.
“Here, then, we have the spectacle of the United States Government making statements to business men through a publication that the common people never read, that are directly opposed to the statements that are made to the people of the United States in congressional debates and other publications.
“Now, ask yourself these questions:
[340]
“Would the establishment of a parcels post by Brazil, which we have permitted to extend to this country, open any markets for Americans in Brazil if parcels-post rates did not permit American merchants to deliver their goods in Brazil at reduced cost?
“Again: If a parcels-post in Brazil will enable American merchants to lay down their goods in Brazil at reduced cost, why wouldn’t a parcels post in the United States enable American merchants to lay down their goods in the United States at reduced cost?
“Furthermore: If reduced carrying charges would enable American merchants to capture Brazilian trade by reducing selling prices, why wouldn’t reduced carrying charges tend toward lower selling prices in the United States?
“Finally: Is there any reason on earth why the United States Government, which is opposed to a parcels post in this country, through an official publication, welcomes a parcels post in Brazil—is there any reason except the one fact that there are no American express companies in Brazil?
“Figure it out for yourself. I have figured it out for myself. As I figure it out, the United States Government is treating us as if we were a little weak in the head; as if we are just foolish enough so that it was safe to print, in a semi-public official publication, an acknowledgment that all of its excuses for not giving us a parcels post are really impudent198 lies.…
“‘Should the mail trade have a government subsidy?’ asked one gentleman who represented an association of jobbing firms. Let us see how much honesty there is in this question. A subsidy implies the payment of money, either for nothing, or for something that is not immediately received in return. That is what these same rich gentlemen mean by subsidy when they ask you to subsidize American ships. What element of subsidy would there be in a parcels post that enabled the government to derive a great profit from the mail-order business? We have all the machinery199 for handling ‘packets’—costly postoffice buildings, cars, letter carriers, rural mail carriers. Why not use them? Why not let the rural mail carrier, whose average load is now 25 pounds, carry 500 pounds at a cent a pound? The postoffice department would earn $40,000,000 more a year if the rural wagons200 were loaded to the 500-pound limit.
“‘The fact is,’ said the same jobber201 gentleman, ‘that the United States Government cannot carry merchandise by parcels post without having to meet an enormous annual deficit for conducting the service.’ The fact is that the fact isn’t. What brazen202 effrontery203 to declare that the government would lose money carrying packages at a cent a pound, when the German government makes money by carrying packages at a little more than half a cent a pound! It is true that German rates are based upon distance, but it is also true that Germany, without any mail monopoly, competes with all comers and beats them out with low tariffs204. The German government can compete with the German express companies because the German parcels post will accept packages up to a weight limit of 1103??? pounds, while our Government turns over to the express companies everything that weighs more than four pounds.
“Furthermore, if the carrying of packages is such a hazardous205 business that[341] our Government should not dare to attempt it, how comes it that the express companies have become rich at it? The combined capital of the express companies is a little in excess of $48,000,000. For years, the big stockholders in express companies have been apoplectic206 with wealth. All of this money came from somewhere. All of this money came from those who consumed products sent by express. Only a few weeks ago the Interstate Commerce Commission brought out the fact that the Adams Express Company’s business in New England yielded a profit, in 1909, of 45 per cent, upon the investment. Yet, there was nothing brought out in the proceedings207 to show, that the Adams Express Company was gouging208 New England any harder than it was the rest of the country, or that the other express companies were not doing to the rest of the country approximately what the Adams was doing to New England. If you had the Government’s equipment for handling express matter, would you feel particularly frightened at a proposition to give you a monopoly of the ‘packet’ business at an average rate almost twice that of the German Government’s average rate?”
Knowing that my readers have not wearied of Mr. Benson, I shall presume to take further liberties with his articles on our subject. His handling of the point I have raised—railroad control of the express companies—is so informative and so able that I would do neither my readers nor my subject justice were I not to quote him and do it right here:
The railroads have become the express companies, not in legal fiction, but in transportational fact. The railroads largely own the express companies, entirely control the express companies, and, to all intents and purposes, are the express companies. We, the highly intelligent American people, simply don’t know these facts. Never has it seemed to occur to us that, since Benjamin Harrison was President and John Wanamaker was in his cabinet, the express grafters may have devised improved ways of working the express graft80. Therefore, in this parcels post matter, we don’t know who is pushing the knife that we feel between our ribs209. We accuse the express companies. A man who was being murdered might as well accuse the shadow of his murderer.
Perhaps the facts that follow will show you who are behind the shadows of the express companies. I quote from Senate Document No. 278, Sixtieth Congress:
Stock held by railways in express companies $20,668,000
Railway securities owned by express companies 34,542,950
Holdings of express companies in the stock of other express companies 11,618,125
Since this article was written (Mr. Benson adds in a footnote) the Interstate Commerce Commission has issued a report in which railroad holdings in express stock are given at $14,124,000. The same report says the “total book value of property and equipment of 13 express companies is $22,313,575.53.” The figures furnished by the express companies are evidently somewhat bewildering to the commission, which, having found the total value of the express companies’[342] assets to be $186,221,380.54, remarks: “It is evident that the capital stock of these companies bears no relation to the amount invested in the express business.” On the face of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s report, the railroads have disposed of more than $6,000,000 worth of express stock since the United States Senate investigated the matter during the life of the Sixtieth Congress. Yet there is no mention of such a transaction, and it seems exceedingly unlikely that the railroads have suddenly reversed their policies and become sellers instead of buyers of express stock. What seems more likely is that both the railroads and the express companies are continuing the policy to use figures to conceal210 facts. Gentlemen who can give $186,000,000 worth of assets a “book value” of $22,000,000 might have no difficulty in compelling figures to turn flip-flaps upon almost any occasion.
Please notice that railroad companies—not railroad men, railroad companies—own more than $20,000,000 of stock in express companies. The express companies are capitalized at only $48,000,000. Railroad companies therefore own almost half of the stock of the express companies. Railroad men like Mr. Gould, the Vanderbilts and Mr. Morgan also own stock in express companies. Railroad men presumably do not vote their private holdings of express stock in opposition to the manner in which they vote the express stock owned by the railways they control. But, even if railway men owned no express stock, the ownership by railways of a solid block of more than $20,000,000 of express stock would enable the railways to control the express companies. Mr. Morgan controls many corporations in which he holds only a minority interest. It is the way of big men to control more than they own.
…
Let us assume that you attach no significance to the ownership by the railways of almost half of the stock of the express companies. You don’t believe the railroads would take the trouble to get control of $3,500,000 more stock and thus control the companies. You want to be shown.
All right. You don’t mind using your common sense? Good.
Wouldn’t railroad companies be incorporated fools if they didn’t control the express companies? Couldn’t the railroad companies, if they cared to, control the express companies, even though the railroad companies owned not a share of stock in any of the express companies? What is an express company?
An express company is a corporation that is engaged in transportation. Not a single express company owns a foot of railway track, a locomotive, a roundhouse or a water tank. Not a single express company employs an engineer, a fireman, a train dispatcher, or a section hand. Not a single express company could carry a bar of soap from New York to Albany without using all of the mentioned instruments of transportation, besides many others. In other words, an express company is an institution engaged in transportation without owning any of the means of transportation. It exists only by sufferance. So long as railroad companies are willing to haul the cars of an express company, the express company may do business—but no longer. An express company, if ill-treated, has no other place to go. It cannot hire a department store company to[343] haul its cars, nor a dry-goods firm, nor a manufacturer of hats. An express company must go to railroads for its transportation facilities, accept the best terms it can get, or go out of business.
Is it not so? How comes it, then, that you never hear of rows between express companies and railroad companies? How comes it that the same railroads that are always trying to squeeze you on freight rates apparently never try to squeeze the express companies on rates for hauling cars? The express companies are exceedingly fat birds. They are absolutely in the power of the railroad companies. If you owned the only vacant house in the world and a wanderer must rent from you or die in the street, you would not have him more completely in your power than the railroad companies have the express companies.
Yet the railroad companies are frying the express companies to a frazzle. The New York Central Railroad Company takes 40 per cent of the gross receipts of the express company that operates over its lines. But the frying is entirely friendly, and therefore the express companies do not cry out against it. A station agent does not complain because the railroad company for which he works takes from him the money for the tickets he has sold. He expects to give up the money. The officers of express companies expect to give up the money they take in. That is what they are there for. If they were otherwise disposed they would not be there. The $20,000,000 block of express stock held by railroads would keep them out. Can you imagine an express company giving 40 per cent of its gross receipts to a railway company if the directors of the express company were not controlled by the railway company?
Please get the full meaning of that New York Central arrangement. It is not a mere matter of 40 per cent. It is a matter of 40 per cent of the gross receipts and then perhaps 50 per cent of what is left. In other words, the railroad company first takes, as a carrier, four-tenths of the express company’s receipts. As a stockholder in the express company, the railroad next takes almost half of the net profits.
…
In both surveying the Canadian express situation and giving the order to reduce rates, Judge Mabee, chairman of the commission, said:
“Cut short of all the trimmings, the situation is that the shipper by express makes a contract with the railway company through the express company. The whole business could go just as it now does without the existence of any express company at all by simply substituting railway employees and letting the railways take the whole of the toll211 in the first instance.”
As showing how freight tariffs are manipulated by the railroads to force the people to make light shipments by express and pay the looting rates the express companies charge, the following by Mr. Benson should be read:
In what essential particular does the conduct of the American express business differ from the conduct of the Canadian express business? The Canadian[344] express companies collect money from the public and hand it over to the railroads. What do our express companies do?
At this point, some gentlemen may be moved to ask. Why is an express company? At first glance, it does seem rather strange that the railroads should bother to do business through express companies if the railroads not only haul the express cars, but get the money the public pays. Yet there is nothing strange about it, as we shall see when we consider what the express business is.
Part of the express business is an effort to commit a crime for pay. The rest of the express business is an effort to perform a service at an exorbitant212 rate of compensation. In other words, part of the express business is the carrying of “packets” that should be sent only by mail, and the carrying of which by a private person or corporation is a crime, and the rest of the business is the carrying of light freight that should go by fast freight at a rate much below the express rate.
The express business, like every other business that has thriven, was based upon a public need. The public need was for a fast freight service for light freight. The railroad managers of forty years ago were not disposed to give the service, but they were willing to haul cars for an express company that wanted to carry fast freight at a high rate.
In this small, timid way the express business began. The crime of carrying mail in competition with the government had never been considered. When shippers offered mailable packages for transmission, they were accepted, but postage stamps were affixed213 to comply with the law. Even the volume of light freight was relatively214 small. The railroads themselves kept all of the light freight traffic they could. It was not until the railroads invested heavily in and obtained control of the express companies that deliberate efforts were made to compel the public to send light freight by express.
Let me explain precisely215 what I mean by this. The minimum freight rate from Chicago to North Platte, Neb., is $1.10. Whether a package weighs five pounds or 100 pounds, the charge is the same.
Suppose you want to send a ten-pound package. A dollar and ten cents seems an exorbitant charge, especially when the fact is considered that a ten-pound package, sent by freight, probably would not reach its destination in less than ten days. You look up express rates and find that you can send the package for 55 cents, with a certainty of delivery within forty-eight hours. Of course you send the package by express.
What has happened? Apparently, the express company has saved you 55 cents. Actually, the railroad company has clubbed you into the clutches of the express company. The railroad company never expected you to pay $1.10 for the transmission of a ten-pound package. In the good old days when the express companies were not owned by the railroad companies, and the railroad companies were not controlled by a little group of men in Wall Street, the freight rates for ten-pound and hundred-pound packages were not the same. The railroads wanted to carry small packages and made rates that brought them in. But the[345] express companies showed the possibility of collecting a higher rate for quick delivery. For this reason, a certain amount of business naturally came to the express companies. But after the railroads obtained control of the express companies, resort was had to artificial means to drive business over to the high-priced express companies. The freight rate for 100 pounds was established as the minimum rate for all lighter packages. No one is expected to pay this exorbitant rate, but it is there for everyone to look at.
Slow freight delivery is also apparently employed by the railroads to compel the public to ship by express. If one have a full hundred pounds to send a short distance, he will find the minimum freight rate lower than the express rate. But he will also have reason to believe that freight trains are drawn by snails216. The Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central recently struggled ten days to bring a hundred-pound package forty miles to me. An express company would have performed the same service over-night. If the railroads had wanted the business, they would have required no more than two days.
Now, I have quoted extendedly from both Mr. Atwood and Mr. Benson. I have done so, because they wrote not only what I have quoted but much more that I would like to quote, and each of them has handled his subjects pointedly217 and forcefully conclusive. The call for “copy” by my publisher, will, I trust, argue my excuse with the publishers of Pearson’s and The American magazines for having drawn so largely upon their columns without first asking and securing their permission to do so.
But it seems to me I can hear some barker for the interests barking “Yellow writers! Yellow magazines!”
A few years since, the fling of that appellation218 “yellow” may have had some influence—probably did have some influence among the thoughtless. But millions of the then indifferent and thoughtless people have become serious and thoughtful recently. To such there is no opprobrium219 in the word “yellow” as the barkers fling it at newspapers and magazines which attack and tell the truth about the interests for which the barkers bark. In fact, the word has become an appellation of honor rather than of discredit—of repute rather than of disrepute.
Here is another quotation—two of them. They are from an article in Pearson’s Magazine, February, 1912, issue. Get the magazine and read the whole article. The article is captioned220 “The Railroad Game.” It will richly compensate221 you:
I chanced to meet a man who is now president of one of the great Western railroad systems. He chided me good-naturedly about my antagonism222 to the[346] railroads. Finally he said: … “You are too big a man to be fighting the railroads. Come get into the game with us. It isn’t how much money we make, but how much we can conceal that counts in the railroad business.”
…
These figures do not take into consideration at all the operations of the numerous express companies which impose upon the people a burden approximating $125,000,000 a year while their actual investment for all purposes does not exceed $6,000,000 a year. These companies all earn prodigiously223. All pay big dividends. All have big surplus funds, and frequently have big melon cuttings. In one of these a few years ago $24,000,000 were distributed among the stockholders of a single company. And after all, these companies amount in actual service to the people to no more than a parcels post which the government should have established long ago. With government control of the railroads this pernicious form of extortion would end. In European countries express companies do not exist. There the parcels post is supreme224, satisfactory to the people and remunerative to the governments.
Of course, the writer of the above when he mentions $6,000,000 as the “actual investment for all purposes” means all the actual investment for all express service purposes. In that statement he is entirely correct.
But who is the writer? Well, the man who made the statements just quoted is Mr. O. C. Barber, the American “Match King.” Certainly no one—not even the most courageous225 and venturesome hired liar58 of the raiding combinations—will call Mr. Barber “yellow.”
“Why?” Well, Mr. Barber has a lot of real long-headed and hard-headed sense. He also has money. He has a whole lot of money. That makes Mr. Barber a “strong” man, as Mr. Benson puts it, in the calculating eyes and minds of public bubblers. Not only has Mr. Barber money, but, as Pearson’s editor points out, “he is a man of affairs.” He has been a man of affairs for fifty years. He is an officer or director in companies which have a capital of fifty million dollars. Their combined freight shipments are from 150,000 to 200,000 cars per year, and go to all parts of the world.
No, there is nothing of the yapped “yellow” about Mr. Barber. When the barkers bark of him, the trajectory226 of their language will carry it scarcely beyond the walls or to the banqueters. In most cases the barker’s voice, when adversely227 criticising Mr. Barber, will take that humble228, pendant expression so universally characteristic of the tail of a scared dog.
Mr. Barber is “strong.” If you don’t know it get the February,[347] 1912, Pearson’s and read his article on “The Railroad Game.” You will know it then.
The clackers who clack for those who profit by the outrageous229 parcels post service in this country now, will tell you, of course, that Germany, France and some other countries can “afford” to give their citizens lower postal carriage rates, “because the governments own the railroads and have their mails carried free.”
It is sufficient to say in answer to such clack that if we can have a cheap, efficient parcels post service only by owning the railroads, then let us own them.
Why not? A good, cheap parcels post service is worth it—worth it to you, to me, to every man, woman and child of the country, both to those living and to the generations yet unborn.
Yes, sirs, such a parcels post service is worth more to our people than our railroads cost to build, or would cost to rebuild or to buy. Why do I say that? I say it because it is a fact—a fact that needs but a line or two to evidence.
1. Such a parcels post service would save our people more than $300,000,000 every year.
2. At 2 per cent (a rate at which the government can borrow all the money it wants), three hundred million dollars would pay the interest on $15,000,000,000.
3. Fifteen billions of dollars is more than either the “book” or the “market” value of all the railroads in this country—“water” included. It is more than twice their tangible, or construction, value.
So, if we can have cheap, reliable parcels post service only when the “government own the railroads,” then let’s get busy.
One of the much worn objections to a cheap parcels post service is that it cannot be established and profitably operated, as it has been in those countries which own the mail-carrying roads and pay much lower salaries to the operators of the service.
In reply, I will say that in neither Great Britain, nor in any country of continental Europe are all the rail-mail roads owned by the government. But those countries do control all their railroads—and that is exactly what this government must soon do or the railroads will control it.
To tell how these governments got control and keep control of their railroads is another story. In fact, it is a story for each of the[348] countries. Suffice it to say here that they do control them. One element of that control compels the railroads to carry a large portion of the mails free of charge.
In Great Britain, all regular trains carry at least one mail car free, or at a mere nominal230 charge, and the trunk line roads are required to turn out extra mail trains of ten cars each on demand of the postoffice authorities. For such a train the road can charge no more for the run than the average cost of an average passenger train.
France guarantees and, I believe, pays the interest on a 70,000,000 franc railway bond issues. That is equivalent to $14,000,000. At 3 per cent the interest amounts to $420,000 a year. For that sum the railroads carry all the regular mails free—carry them under government direction and stipulation231. Last year we paid our railroads $49,330,638.24 for carrying our mails. The French roads also carry the officials, the soldiery, and all military supplies free.
That, in brief, is about what the French government compels the railroads of France to do.
And those roads are all paying fair returns on the money invested in them!
It was only a few brief years since the railroads of the German Empire were all in the hands of private owners—of “frenzied232 financiers” who robbed both the government and the people in outrageous mail, freight and passenger rates. Germans will not stand for such conditions long. The people shouted aloud their grievances233 and demanded redress—demanded a remedy.
The German government heard and heeded234 the demands of its people. It usually does. When it started to give its people relief it was met on every hand with just the same sort of talk as has been heard in this country for a quarter of a century.
“You can’t cut down the rates, for the roads are now earning barely enough to pay fair interest on the investment.”
“You can’t trespass235 upon the ‘sacred rights’ of property.”
“You can’t think of taking such action! Why, it would create a financial upheaval—a panic—causing widespread disaster and bankrupting the railway companies.”
“You cannot possibly be so inconsiderate as to endanger the savings of the hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans236 who have invested in our stocks and bonds”—and a lot more of like junk.
[349]
But the Chancellor237 of the Exchequer238 was a clear-headed, clean-minded old German, with the rugged239 honesty for which his race is justly noted. Well, this Chancellor listened with courteous240 dignity to all their “you can’t do this,” “You can’t do that,” etc., until it was made quite clear to his mind that frenzied financiers and railroad grafters in his country were dictating241 as to the powers and policies of his government.
What happened then? Why, as Creelman put in writing of the incident, when this grand old Von heard enough of those “you can’ts” to make their object and purpose clear to him, he jumped to his feet and turned loose a few yards of forceful German language which, translated, summarized and anglicized, would sound something like this:
“I can’t! Well, you just watch me!”
“Did he give ’em anything worth looking at?” Oh, but didn’t he? The honest old Von sat quietly into their own game, played with their own marked cards and “beat ’em to a frazzle,” as our strenuous242 ex-President would put it. Did he buy up the roads, paying for all the aqua pura they had tanked up?
Well, hardly! It was control Von wanted, and ownership was neither immediately nor particularly sought, beyond the point necessary to that control.
As I remember the story, he quietly put some agents on the floor of the Berlin stock bourse and before the gentlemen who had handed him that miscellaneous assortment243 of “can’ts” knew what had happened, Von had control of one or two of the German trunk lines. Then the way he made those friends of the “poor widows and orphans” see things was profoundly and, for a few weeks, almost exclusively awful. He did not buy the road for his government. He merely bought control.
His government having control, he next slashed244 all the silk and frills out of rail rates on the road or roads controlled.
“What was the result?” Why, the “can’t” venders were on their knees to him in six months. In a year the German government controlled its railroads and there was not a railway patriot47 in the Empire who was not busy telling the Chancellor how many more things he could do, if he wanted to and, in fact, urging him to do some of them.
[350]
And the “widows and orphans,” or other legitimate investors245 in the securities of the German roads, lost not one cent of earned income in the passing of control from private to government hands. As a result, the German government is making money from its owned railroads. The net revenues of the German Government from its railroads is now annually about $250,000,000. From 1887 to 1906, the roads paid into the government’s exchequer about $1,400,000,000. It has saved money from its controlled roads and is furnishing its people a cheap and most serviceable parcels post. So much for the cheap foreign mail-carriage and the way the “cheap foreigners” got it.
Now, as to salaries paid. Mail carriers and clerks in this country are paid something under $1,000 a year. Railway mail clerks are paid an average of $1,165—and the latter work only one-half the time for full pay. I have no information at hand as to the pay of mail carriers and clerks in foreign countries, but I have the figures for the pay of railway mail clerks in Great Britain, Germany and France. So, we will make comparison of the pay in that class of service. They stand as follows:
Per Year.
In the United States $1,165
In Great Britain 780
In Germany 515
In France 610
There, now, you see the shocking disparity in the very worst and all of its enormity—the way it is usually presented by “farmers” in Congress who are cultivating express company crops. But let us look into those figures a little further.
Information carefully collected and collated246, both by official and private agents, among the former being the Department of Commerce and Labor247 of our own government, has conclusively shown that living in England and in the countries of Continental Europe is from thirty to forty per cent cheaper than in this country.
Let us take 30 per cent—the lowest reported estimate of the difference in the cost of living—subsistence, clothing, housing, schooling248, amusements, etc.—and see how the figures look in comparison as to pay of railway mail clerks:
Per Year.
In the United States $1,165.00
In Great Britain 1,114.30
In Germany 734.30
In France 871.43
[351]
The enormity of the difference, you will observe, is not so shockingly enormous as it appears in heeler’s figures first shown. But even the last set of figures does not afford a just comparison. Here is why:
The English railway clerk is allowed $160 a year as “travel pay.” The German rail man is provided free a house that is worth an annual rental of $135 in Germany. Here, it would rent for from $240 to $360. In addition to his “salary” the French railway mail clerk is allowed $180 “travel pay” and is also provided free with a house of a rental value of $80 per year—a house that would rent here at from $160 to $300 per year. Making these little additions to the actual service pay of those “cheap foreigners,” let’s see how they compare with our “high salaried” railway mail clerks. We will figure the “travel pay” allowances at its purchasing power in buying a living and for the rent allowances we will add the lowest equivalent given above of corresponding housing in this country.
On that basis the stack-up is as follows:
Per Year.
In the United States $1,165.00
In Great Britain 1,344.30
In Germany 974.30
In France 1,288.57
Those “cheap foreigners,” who are efficiently249 operating a cheap parcels post, you see, come out of the wash in pretty fair shape after all, when compared with our “high salaried” postal service men.
But even the last table does not present the whole truth as to the lie so often yapped about by the tools of the private interests in this country that are opposing the betterment and cheapening of our parcels post service.
The railway mail clerks of England, Germany and France not only get full pay while laid up from temporary injury, the same as do our rail postal men, but their governments pay those “cheap foreigners” a pension when they get old or are permanently250 injured—pay it for the remaining years those “cheap” mail handlers live!
Among the most brazen, yet most frequently used, objections to a cheap and serviceable parcels post is that it would “benefit but very few people in the country’s vast population,” or other vocalized breath of similar purport251 and purpose.
[352]
Objectors who use this argument belong to one of two classes: They are either fools or think you are, or they are men whose sense of the right and wrong of things, commonly designated as conscience, got lost in their transit252 from diapers to dress suits.
The “argument” is not worth a line of consideration were it not so frequently used by objectors of the two classes just indicated. A man—a full-sized man—who can give it more than a smile ought to hire a janitor253 and a couple of scrub women to clean up his garret and dust off its furnishings.
But, seriously speaking, let’s think a moment about “the few” people who would be benefited by a cheap parcels post service.
There are 95,000,000 or more folks in this country.
There are about 36,000,000 of that number engaged in farming, farm labor, stock-raising and other agricultural occupations, counting the dependent families.
Counting the dependent families. Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?
Counting wives and babies, there are somewhere around 22,000,000 of our folks engaged in the mechanical trades and manufacturing.
Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?
Among our folks are, counting families as before, not less than 16,000,000 domestic servants, saloon, hotel and restaurant people, policemen, firemen, soldiers, sailors and laborers254 “not elsewhere specified255.”
Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?
Next, we have around 12,000,000 of bookkeepers, clerks, agents, operators, teamsters, etc., “engaged in trade and transportation,” again counting “the little ones at home” but not counting the “retail merchants” nor the railway manipulators.
Those “few” would be benefited, would they not?
Next, we may enumerate196 among our people, doctors, lawyers, teachers and other professional folks, counting their folks at home the same as before, some 7,000,000.
Those “few” would be benefited, would they not.
Next we have—
But we have already found about ninety-one millions of the “few people” among our folks who would be benefited by a cheap, serviceable[353] parcels post. That leaves somewheres around four millions to be accounted for.
Again, including dependent families not less than 3,000,000 of that number can be classed as retail merchants. Half of that 3,000,000 are merchants, dealers256, manufacturers, etc., in the “larger cities,” whom even the opponents of the parcels post have agreed would be benefited by its service. At any rate it has been demonstrated by organizations of merchants in the large cities that parcel deliveries within a radius257 of thirty or forty miles of their stores, which had cost from eight to fifty cents, can be made at an average cost not exceeding four cents.
That leaves the country merchants, the jobbers258, the railroad and express company raiders and their hired opinion molders to account for. Of these, the country merchant is by far the most numerous, likewise the most deserving of consideration.
On a previous page I made it fairly clear, I think, that a good, cheap parcels post service would be of great service to him. He has the respect and the confidence of his customers. He knows the worth of goods. He can sell the goods—any line or make—at the advertised or catalogued price and still make a good profit, as I have previously shown.
The parcels carriage charge, either by mail or express, is now so high he is compelled to order in quantities to keep “laid-down-prices” low enough to meet competition. A cheap parcels post service would put him in position to meet the competition of the larger merchants of the cities. A line of samples, showing the latest patterns, makes and grades, could take the place of fully half the shelf stock he now carries, aside from the staples259. He could take the order of his customer and have the goods delivered by parcels post either to his store or, if in a rural delivery district, to the home of his customer for a few cents—have it delivered as cheaply as the big city merchant, manufacturer or mail order house can have it delivered.
Do not overlook that last point, Mr. Country Merchant, when hired yappers are coaching you to oppose a good parcels post service. The government will not pay “rebates” nor allow “differentials” in its parcels carriage. You can put your packages through the mails at as low a charge as that paid by a merchant with millions of capital invested in stocks of goods.
[354]
Of all the objections now urged against a domestic parcels post in this country, the dangers lurking260 in the mail order house is the most industriously worked. “It would be a fine thing for the eastern merchant to have a parcels post system whereby he could supply the people throughout the country,” said a Mr. Louis M. Boswell, a few years since when speaking to the National Association of Merchants and Travelers, convened261 in Chicago.
And who, pray you, is or was Mr. Boswell? Why, Mr. Boswell was one of the main cogs at that time, in the Western freight traffic wheels. Mr. Boswell talked for his personal interests, and for those interests only. To make his anti-parcels post talk catch his auditors—the Western merchants—he even told the truth about the express companies.
Freight should be transported as such by railroads in freight cars, and not by the government in mail cars.… I have long regarded the express companies as unnecessary middlemen.… Millions of dollars would be saved annually to the public if the express companies were done away with, and I do not believe the revenues of the railroads would be decreased.
“And what are you on earth for,” wrote a self-serving trade journal editor in 1900, “if not to look after your own interests? A parcels post … will knock your business silly. You are the one entitled to the trade in your town and neighborhood.”
I present the above quotations262 as fair samples of the “argument”—its method and its source—against a domestic parcels post. Let it be noticed that these two quoted statements—as is the case with most of the other promotion263 talk against a parcels post—is talked or addressed to country, village, town and one-night-stand city merchants.
The mail order houses “will knock your business silly!”
Now, of course, it must be admitted that, in this day of super-heated service of self, a man’s personal interests must receive his first consideration. But I cannot for the life of me see why these “Western merchants and travelers” take the talk handed them by “traffic” cappers, express company agents and space muddlers—take it in such large slugs—and apparently overlook the fact that these talking and writing bubblers are serving special interests. Can you understand it, Mr. “Storekeeper” of Rubenville? Or you, Mr. “Merchant” of Swelltown? Or you Mr. “Shipper” of Cornshock or Feedersville?
Mr. Benson in his March article in Pearson’s, says something anent the great hue264 and cry which the raiders, aided in this particular[355] case by merchandise jobbers and some of the larger department store retailers265, are trying to raise among country merchants and rural residents about what a great “menace and danger” the mail order houses would be if a cheap, serviceable parcels post was put into operation. I hope my readers will carefully peruse266 what he has said. Here it is in part only:
The railroads, in fighting the parcels post through the country merchants, are playing the old game. The old game is to work upon the fears of a minority, create what appears to be a difference of opinion among the people, and thus give Congress an opportunity to say that as sentiment seems to be divided, it would perhaps be better to do nothing until the public can thrash the matter out and discover what it wants. In the present instance we see great firms like Marshall Field & Company combined in an organization to spread among country merchants fear of a parcels post. Such an association was recently formed in Chicago with a membership of 300.…
There is only one country merchant, perhaps, to every 500 country customers, and the country customers are all in favor of a parcels post. All other things being equal, Congress always moves in the direction of the greatest number of votes. But in this matter, as in many others, things are not equal. Great financial interests and a few country merchants are regarded by Congress as a majority.…
“At any rate, I cannot forget that while Marshall Field & Company cry out against a parcels post, because it would build up the mail order houses, that they themselves do a large mail order business.
“This action on their part may seem like patriotism of the highest sort—but it isn’t. The mail order houses don’t care a rap about a parcels post. They are not against it, but they are not for it. My authority for this statement is Mr. Julius Rosenwald, President of Sears, Roebuck & Company of Chicago, the largest mail order house in the world. I approached him upon the subject, believing that he would grow enthusiastic, but he didn’t. He said he had never signed a petition for a parcels post, or otherwise interested himself in the matter, and never should do so. He didn’t tell me why, but I found out why and will tell you.
“The minimum freight rates of the railroads literally267 drive country customers into the mail order houses. A farmer’s wife, we will say, has a present need for two or three articles that she can buy from a mail order house for less than her local merchant can afford to sell them to her. But the articles weigh only fifteen pounds, the express charge would annihilate268 her saving, and the minimum freight rate,[356] for which she might as well have 100 pounds shipped to her, is just as high as the express rate. But she still wants the two or three articles and she wants to buy them from the mail order house. So what does this thrifty270 woman do? First, she increases her order by putting down a few articles that she will need perhaps three months later. Then she canvasses271 her neighbors for orders until she gets enough to make 100 pounds, and divides the freight charges pro3 rata. The result is that the mail order house gets an order for 100 pounds of goods instead of an order for the fifteen pounds that would have been bought if a parcels post like the English or the German had enabled the farmer’s wife to order only what she first meant to buy. Incidentally, the country merchant in her vicinity is not helped thereby.
“If you have any doubt about the truth of this statement, send a petition for a parcels post to Mr. Julius Rosenwald, President of Sears, Roebuck & Company, Chicago, and see how quickly he will not sign it. You will not be able to get him to lift a finger to help you. He is sending out fifty-eight loaded freight cars each day, comparatively little express matter, doing a business of $63,000,000 a year, and is quite satisfied with such transportation facilities as exist.
“But don’t blame the mail order men because they don’t help you. Help yourself. First, help yourself by getting it clearly in your mind who in this matter is the chief offender272. Your government is the chief offender. So far as postal matters are concerned, your government is protecting the interests that are robbing you. Your government goes even to the extent of submitting to robbery at the hands of the interests that rob you. I refer to the continuing scandal of exorbitant mail contracts.”…
Now, I desire to talk somewhat directly to the rural and village storekeeper and of storekeeping.
The manufacturer, wholesaler273 or jobber always sells the retail merchant—the quantity buyer—cheaper than they will sell in broken lots to the consumer. They will always sell to you cheaper than they will sell to your customer, will they not?
You have an “edge” of 20 to 40 per cent., have you not? But to hold that “edge” now, you must order in quantities which anticipate the demands of your custom, must you not? You must “stock up,” must you not? If you miss your guess, and underbuy the demands of your trade, you must, later, “sort up,” must you not? If you sort-up,[357] you do it at “broken-lot” rates and pay excessive carriage charges for delivery to your place of business, do you not? If, on the other hand, you overbuy the demands of your trade, your shelves are soon full of “shelf-worns,” are they not? These shelf-worns you must unload, must you not? To do that, you offer “bargains,” do you not? Unloading “bargains” loses your “edge”—your profits—does it not?
But still another point in your present and compelled method of business. Your customer is never so well pleased with your sacrifice “bargains” as he or she is with the fresh, up-to-date article, which you sell at a profit. Is that not so?
Now, let us see how a cheap parcels post would “knock your business silly.” Let’s put the rate, say at 5 cents for parcels up to one pound, 8 cents to two pounds, 10 cents to three pounds, 12 cents to four pounds, and so shading up in weight to twenty-five pounds, at one cent a pound. I present this scale of weights and prices merely to illustrate274. I have given them no particular thought or consideration—that is, I do not present them as a recommended basis for a parcels carriage system. I believe, however, that the government can carry and deliver parcels at about the rates named and not create any larger “deficits” than the postal service now shows.
That aside, let us see how you, Mr. Retail Country Merchant, would come out in the deal:
First: You would not have to “stock up” beyond the known demands of your customers. Your “shelf-capital,” then, would need not, necessarily, be more than half what is now is.
Second: You could serve your customers fresh goods of latest pattern and at less cost, and still serve them at a profit, instead of working off shelf-worn “bargains” on them at a loss.
Third: Mrs. Lucy Smith sees a Sereno Payne imported glove, advertised by an “eastern merchant” or some distant “mail order house.” It is the “very latest” and guaranteed to be the very best “kid” ever built—from a premature275 calf276. Or Uncle Joe wants a mop rag-holder for Martha. It, too, is advertised by some distant manufacturer, merchant or mail-order bogey277 man. Say the advertised price of each is $1.00. Each, of course, weighs less than one pound.
Now, if Mrs. Smith or Uncle Joe orders direct, the article costs them, postage added at our hypothetical rate, $1.05. Of course,[358] they will have inquired of you before they ordered—to see if you have it in stock—will they not? Well, you haven’t it in stock—and you can’t work off on them “something just as good.” Mrs. Smith just must have those particular gloves, and no other mop-holder will satisfy Uncle Joe. Now what do you do?
Do you tear off a yard or two of tirade278 about mail order houses that are “knocking your business silly” and about manufacturers who are “flooding the country with fake goods?” If you do, you ought to quit business and go put your head in pickle279 or take the “cure.” But you won’t tirade. No sir, nary tirade from you! You will be onto your job in a minute. And why?
Well, first, you know that you can get those gloves or that mop-holder for 20 to 40 per cent less than the rate advertised for Mrs. Smith and Uncle Joe. You can have either sent by mail and deliver it to Mrs. Smith or Uncle Joe at the advertised rate, pay the parcels charge yourself and still make 10 to 20 cents on the deal. If the gloves or the mop-holder strikes you as a probable “seller,” you can order a half dozen or a dozen pairs of the gloves, or three or four mop-holders, and still keep your parcel inside the one or two pound rate.
One other point in closing:
Well, it may be of no use—of no service value to the reader who asks the question. He may be a man who has reached his limit of endurance—who has given up all hope of improving or correcting legalized injustices281 which rob him to enrich others. If so, he has my sympathy. Or he may be a man who has “set into the game” and lost, or one who is hired as a capper, steerer or “look out” for its operators. I cannot say. If the former, he still has my sympathy; if the latter, my contempt.
I am fully convinced that the outrages282 permitted by the municipal, state and national governments of this country in rendering283 public service to its people have discouraged thousands of its best citizens—best in manhood I mean, of course. The beneficiaries of the outrages I speak of are, usually, rated as “best” at the bank, in the society columns and in court proceedings. Even our divorce court records give the latter conspicuous284 precedence.
“Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey285,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.”
No truer thought as to the politics and policy of government was[359] ever written than that. When wealth accumulates by legalizing the spoliation and exploitation of the great body of a nation’s people for the benefit of a few, the decay of its manhood is all the more rapid. When any considerable body of a nation’s citizens begins to ask, “What is the use?”—that nation has reached the danger line—has started down the decline.
Now, I undertake to say that no observing man of average intelligence can be found in this country today who will not give it as his honest opinion—unless, of course, he is hired to say otherwise—that not only thousands but millions of our people—of its industrial, productive manhood and womanhood—are asking, “What is the use” of arguing and struggling against the oppressive conditions which the laws and our administrative and judicial officers force upon us? What is the use of “knocking” the men who get the “graft,” the rake-off or the loot?
“Their big bunch of money,” says one writer, “makes so much noise, no one hears our knocks.” “Everybody is out for the stuff,” says another. “It is their representatives not ours who make the laws and it is their judges not ours who adjudicate them.” “Industry, thrift269, brains and even honesty have ceased to count anywhere, save on their payrolls. Money alone counts.”
“Stop knocking, my son,” has become common in paternal286 counsel. “Sit into the game and get money. Of course, ‘get it honestly if you can, but get it.’”
“And if I fail,” asks the boy.
“Well, my son, unless you are careful to salt away in some place secure from assessors and raiders as well as from thieves, the chips I have raked in, your best course is to get on the payroll of the gamesters.”
A recent reading says, in effect, that there are dropped into the life of every man moments in which “he has the chance to act the hypocrite or to act the scoundrel.” But when aided and abetted287 by the law, such “chances” are not merely for the moment. They extend through days and years, and those so aided and abetted usually take both chances—act both the hypocrite and the scoundrel, and to the time limit of their protected opportunity.
But that is neither all nor the worst of it.
This legalized hypocrisy288 and scoundrelism is now widely known[360] to the honest, productive citizenship289 of the country, and it is daily becoming better known. What is the result? Simply this:
The law and government administrators290 are, in permitting such injustices, not only creating class distinction by the enrichment of a few of our citizens and holding the millions to the subsistence level—hundreds of thousands of them to the “bread-line”—not only that, but legalized and protected injustice280 is dignifying291 hypocrisy and scoundrelism. It is sapping the moral foundations of a worthy292 manhood as well as robbing it of its material wealth and earnings.
But what has this sermonizing to do with the parcels post question, some one asks? It has this to do with it!
Of the numerous array of law enriched hypocrites and scoundrels in this country, nowhere can be found more of them to the lineal or square rod than can be counted in the ranks of the favored beneficiaries of existing postal laws and regulations—in the ranks of the opponents to cheapening and bettering the parcels carriage service.
The End
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
pro
|
|
| n.赞成，赞成的意见，赞成者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
mileage
|
|
| n.里程，英里数；好处，利润 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
tangible
|
|
| adj.有形的，可触摸的，确凿的，实际的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
earnings
|
|
| n.工资收人；利润，利益，所得 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
whatsoever
|
|
| adv.（用于否定句中以加强语气）任何；pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
depot
|
|
| n.仓库，储藏处；公共汽车站；火车站 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
shipping
|
|
| n.船运（发货，运输，乘船） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
dividend
|
|
| n.红利，股息；回报，效益 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
dividends
|
|
| 红利( dividend的名词复数 )； 股息； 被除数； （足球彩票的）彩金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
holders
|
|
| 支持物( holder的名词复数 )； 持有者； （支票等）持有人； 支托（或握持）…之物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
annually
|
|
| adv.一年一次，每年 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
lighter
|
|
| n.打火机，点火器；驳船；v.用驳船运送；light的比较级 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
pretense
|
|
| n.矫饰，做作，借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
outlawed
|
|
| 宣布…为不合法（outlaw的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
outlawry
|
|
| 宣布非法，非法化，放逐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
22
fabulously
|
|
| 难以置信地，惊人地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
lavish
|
|
| adj.无节制的；浪费的；vt.慷慨地给予，挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
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： |
|
|
|
|
26
caucuses
|
|
| n.（政党决定政策或推举竞选人的）核心成员( caucus的名词复数 )；决策干部；决策委员会；秘密会议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
steer
|
|
| vt.驾驶，为…操舵；引导；vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
industriously
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
browse
|
|
| vi.随意翻阅，浏览；(牛、羊等)吃草 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
steamship
|
|
| n.汽船，轮船 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
Congressman
|
|
| n.（美）国会议员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
constituents
|
|
| n.选民( constituent的名词复数 )；成分；构成部分；要素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
credibly
|
|
| ad.可信地；可靠地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
benevolent
|
|
| adj.仁慈的，乐善好施的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
appropriation
|
|
| n.拨款，批准支出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
postal
|
|
| adj.邮政的，邮局的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
spouter
|
|
| 喷油井；捕鲸船；说话滔滔不绝的人；照管流出槽的工人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
39
spouted
|
|
| adj.装有嘴的v.（指液体）喷出( spout的过去式和过去分词 )；滔滔不绝地讲；喋喋不休地说；喷水 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
tightened
|
|
| 收紧( tighten的过去式和过去分词 )； （使）变紧； （使）绷紧； 加紧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
kernel
|
|
| n.(果实的)核，仁；(问题)的中心，核心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
previously
|
|
| adv.以前，先前（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
patriot
|
|
| n.爱国者，爱国主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
patriotic
|
|
| adj.爱国的，有爱国心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
payroll
|
|
| n.工资表，在职人员名单，工薪总额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
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： |
|
|
|
|
51
deficit
|
|
| n.亏空，亏损；赤字，逆差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
appalling
|
|
| adj.骇人听闻的，令人震惊的，可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
colossal
|
|
| adj.异常的，庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
alleged
|
|
| a.被指控的，嫌疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
ledger
|
|
| n.总帐，分类帐；帐簿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
liar
|
|
| n.说谎的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
tangibles
|
|
| n.有形资产； 值钱之物；明确的( tangible的名词复数 )；确凿的；可触摸的；可触知的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
veracity
|
|
| n.诚实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
subsidy
|
|
| n.补助金，津贴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
deficits
|
|
| n.不足额( deficit的名词复数 )；赤字；亏空；亏损 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
progeny
|
|
| n.后代，子孙；结果 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
crooked
|
|
| adj.弯曲的；不诚实的，狡猾的，不正当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
enacted
|
|
| 制定（法律），通过（法案）( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
sneak
|
|
| vt.潜行(隐藏,填石缝)；偷偷摸摸做；n.潜行；adj.暗中进行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
almighty
|
|
| adj.全能的，万能的；很大的，很强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
mighty
|
|
| adj.强有力的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
helping
|
|
| n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的，辅助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
averred
|
|
| v.断言( aver的过去式和过去分词 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
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： |
|
|
|
|
77
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
accomplishment
|
|
| n.完成，成就，（pl.）造诣，技能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
graft
|
|
| n.移植，嫁接，艰苦工作，贪污；v.移植，嫁接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
grafting
|
|
| 嫁接法，移植法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
crookedness
|
|
| [医]弯曲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
administrative
|
|
| adj.行政的，管理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
joints
|
|
| 接头( joint的名词复数 )； 关节； 公共场所（尤指价格低廉的饮食和娱乐场所） （非正式）； 一块烤肉 （英式英语） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
vocal
|
|
| adj.直言不讳的；嗓音的；n.[pl.]声乐节目 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
jaw
|
|
| n.颚，颌，说教，流言蜚语；v.喋喋不休，教训 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
squealing
|
|
| v.长声尖叫，用长而尖锐的声音说( squeal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
actively
|
|
| adv.积极地，勤奋地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
touting
|
|
| v.兜售( tout的现在分词 )；招揽；侦查；探听赛马情报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
rental
|
|
| n.租赁，出租，出租业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
subsidies
|
|
| n.补贴，津贴，补助金( subsidy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
neatly
|
|
| adv.整洁地，干净地，灵巧地，熟练地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
appropriations
|
|
| n.挪用（appropriation的复数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
fixtures
|
|
| （房屋等的）固定装置( fixture的名词复数 )； 如（浴盆、抽水马桶）； 固定在某位置的人或物； （定期定点举行的）体育活动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
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： |
|
|
|
|
104
inconvenient
|
|
| adj.不方便的，令人感到麻烦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
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： |
|
|
|
|
106
tabulated
|
|
| 把（数字、事实）列成表( tabulate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
disinterested
|
|
| adj.不关心的，不感兴趣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
patriots
|
|
| 爱国者，爱国主义者( patriot的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
shearing
|
|
| n.剪羊毛，剪取的羊毛v.剪羊毛( shear的现在分词 )；切断；剪切 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
lashed
|
|
| adj.具睫毛的v.鞭打( lash的过去式和过去分词 )；煽动；紧系；怒斥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
quotation
|
|
| n.引文，引语，语录；报价，牌价，行情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
amend
|
|
| vt.修改，修订，改进；n.[pl.]赔罪，赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
amendment
|
|
| n.改正，修正，改善，修正案 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
gathering
|
|
| n.集会，聚会，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
abiding
|
|
| adj.永久的，持久的，不变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
discriminating
|
|
| a.有辨别能力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
candidly
|
|
| adv.坦率地，直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
spurt
|
|
| v.喷出；突然进发；突然兴隆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
shaft
|
|
| n.(工具的)柄，杆状物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
procrastinating
|
|
| 拖延，耽搁( procrastinate的现在分词 )； 拖拉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
continental
|
|
| adj.大陆的，大陆性的，欧洲大陆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
informative
|
|
| adj.提供资料的，增进知识的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
leeward
|
|
| adj.背风的；下风的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
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： |
|
|
|
|
128
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
farce
|
|
| n.闹剧，笑剧，滑稽戏；胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
crate
|
|
| vt.(up)把…装入箱中；n.板条箱，装货箱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
consignment
|
|
| n.寄售；发货；委托；交运货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
perishable
|
|
| adj.（尤指食物）易腐的，易坏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
enactment
|
|
| n.演出，担任…角色；制订，通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
valid
|
|
| adj.有确实根据的；有效的；正当的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
apathy
|
|
| n.漠不关心，无动于衷；冷淡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
wasteful
|
|
| adj.（造成）浪费的，挥霍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
populous
|
|
| adj.人口稠密的，人口众多的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
sparsely
|
|
| adv.稀疏地；稀少地；不足地；贫乏地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
census
|
|
| n.(官方的)人口调查，人口普查 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
savings
|
|
| n.存款，储蓄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
buffalo
|
|
| n.(北美)野牛；(亚洲)水牛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
metropolis
|
|
| n.首府；大城市 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
bovine
|
|
| adj.牛的；n.牛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
baron
|
|
| n.男爵；(商业界等)巨头，大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
tariff
|
|
| n.关税，税率；(旅馆、饭店等)价目表，收费表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
tabulation
|
|
| 作表，表格； 表列结果； 列表； 造表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
chili
|
|
| n.辣椒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
partially
|
|
| adv.部分地，从某些方面讲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
defiance
|
|
| n.挑战，挑衅，蔑视，违抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
yokel
|
|
| n.乡下人；农夫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
painstaking
|
|
| adj.苦干的；艰苦的，费力的，刻苦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
caption
|
|
| n.说明，字幕，标题；v.加上标题，加上说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
kindly
|
|
| adj.和蔼的，温和的，爽快的；adv.温和地，亲切地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
conclusively
|
|
| adv.令人信服地，确凿地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
exaction
|
|
| n.强求，强征；杂税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
unreasonable
|
|
| adj.不讲道理的，不合情理的，过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
auditor
|
|
| n.审计员，旁听着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
colloquy
|
|
| n.谈话，自由讨论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
franchises
|
|
| n.（尤指选举议员的）选举权( franchise的名词复数 )；参政权；获特许权的商业机构（或服务）；（公司授予的）特许经销权v.给…以特许权，出售特许权( franchise的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
warehouse
|
|
| n.仓库；vt.存入仓库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
agitated
|
|
| adj.被鼓动的，不安的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
patronage
|
|
| n.赞助，支援，援助；光顾，捧场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
remunerative
|
|
| adj.有报酬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
shareholders
|
|
| n.股东( shareholder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
banking
|
|
| n.银行业，银行学，金融业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
audacity
|
|
| n.大胆，卤莽，无礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
commissioner
|
|
| n.（政府厅、局、处等部门）专员，长官，委员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
molested
|
|
| v.骚扰( molest的过去式和过去分词 )；干扰；调戏；猥亵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
inflicted
|
|
| 把…强加给，使承受，遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
exalted
|
|
| adj.(地位等)高的，崇高的；尊贵的，高尚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
behold
|
|
| v.看，注视，看到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
veneration
|
|
| n.尊敬，崇拜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
embody
|
|
| vt.具体表达，使具体化；包含，收录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
illuminating
|
|
| a.富于启发性的，有助阐明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
retail
|
|
| v./n.零售；adv.以零售价格 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
enumerated
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
enumerate
|
|
| v.列举，计算，枚举，数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
embroideries
|
|
| 刺绣( embroidery的名词复数 )； 刺绣品； 刺绣法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
impudent
|
|
| adj.鲁莽的，卑鄙的，厚颜无耻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
wagons
|
|
| n.四轮的运货马车( wagon的名词复数 )；铁路货车；小手推车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
jobber
|
|
| n.批发商；(股票买卖)经纪人；做零工的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
brazen
|
|
| adj.厚脸皮的，无耻的，坚硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
effrontery
|
|
| n.厚颜无耻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
tariffs
|
|
| 关税制度； 关税( tariff的名词复数 )； 关税表； （旅馆或饭店等的）收费表； 量刑标准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
hazardous
|
|
| adj.(有)危险的，冒险的；碰运气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
apoplectic
|
|
| adj.中风的；愤怒的；n.中风患者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
gouging
|
|
| n.刨削[槽]v.凿( gouge的现在分词 )；乱要价；（在…中）抠出…；挖出… | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
ribs
|
|
| n.肋骨( rib的名词复数 )；（船或屋顶等的）肋拱；肋骨状的东西；（织物的）凸条花纹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
toll
|
|
| n.过路(桥)费；损失，伤亡人数；v.敲(钟) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
exorbitant
|
|
| adj.过分的；过度的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
affixed
|
|
| adj.[医]附着的，附着的v.附加( affix的过去式和过去分词 )；粘贴；加以；盖（印章） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
snails
|
|
| n.蜗牛；迟钝的人；蜗牛( snail的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
pointedly
|
|
| adv.尖地，明显地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
appellation
|
|
| n.名称，称呼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
opprobrium
|
|
| n.耻辱，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
captioned
|
|
| a.标题项下的； 标题所说的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
compensate
|
|
| vt.补偿，赔偿；酬报 vi.弥补；补偿；抵消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
prodigiously
|
|
| adv.异常地，惊人地，巨大地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
courageous
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，有胆量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
trajectory
|
|
| n.弹道，轨道 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
adversely
|
|
| ad.有害地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
nominal
|
|
| adj.名义上的；(金额、租金)微不足道的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
stipulation
|
|
| n.契约，规定，条文；条款说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
frenzied
|
|
| a.激怒的；疯狂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
grievances
|
|
| n.委屈( grievance的名词复数 )；苦衷；不满；牢骚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
heeded
|
|
| v.听某人的劝告，听从( heed的过去式和过去分词 )；变平，使（某物）变平( flatten的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
trespass
|
|
| n./v.侵犯，闯入私人领地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
orphans
|
|
| 孤儿( orphan的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
rugged
|
|
| adj.高低不平的，粗糙的，粗壮的，强健的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
courteous
|
|
| adj.彬彬有礼的，客气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
dictating
|
|
| v.大声讲或读( dictate的现在分词 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
strenuous
|
|
| adj.奋发的，使劲的；紧张的；热烈的，狂热的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
assortment
|
|
| n.分类，各色俱备之物，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
slashed
|
|
| v.挥砍( slash的过去式和过去分词 )；鞭打；割破；削减 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
investors
|
|
| n.投资者，出资者( investor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
collated
|
|
| v.校对( collate的过去式和过去分词 )；整理；核对；整理（文件或书等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
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： |
|
|
|
|
248
schooling
|
|
| n.教育；正规学校教育 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
efficiently
|
|
| adv.高效率地，有能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
purport
|
|
| n.意义，要旨，大要；v.意味著，做为...要旨，要领是... | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
transit
|
|
| n.经过，运输；vt.穿越，旋转；vi.越过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
janitor
|
|
| n.看门人，管门人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
laborers
|
|
| n.体力劳动者，工人( laborer的名词复数 )；（熟练工人的）辅助工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
255
specified
|
|
| adj.特定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
256
dealers
|
|
| n.商人( dealer的名词复数 )；贩毒者；毒品贩子；发牌者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
257
radius
|
|
| n.半径，半径范围；有效航程，范围，界限 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
258
jobbers
|
|
| n.做零活的人( jobber的名词复数 )；营私舞弊者；股票经纪人；证券交易商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
259
staples
|
|
| n.（某国的）主要产品( staple的名词复数 )；钉书钉；U 形钉；主要部份v.用钉书钉钉住( staple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
260
lurking
|
|
| 潜在 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
261
convened
|
|
| 召开( convene的过去式 )； 召集； （为正式会议而）聚集； 集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
262
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
263
promotion
|
|
| n.提升，晋级；促销，宣传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
264
hue
|
|
| n.色度；色调；样子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
265
retailers
|
|
| 零售商，零售店( retailer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
266
peruse
|
|
| v.细读，精读 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
267
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
268
annihilate
|
|
| v.使无效；毁灭；取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
269
thrift
|
|
| adj.节约，节俭；n.节俭，节约 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
270
thrifty
|
|
| adj.节俭的；兴旺的；健壮的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
271
canvasses
|
|
| n.检票员，游说者，推销员( canvass的名词复数 )v.（在政治方面）游说( canvass的第三人称单数 )；调查（如选举前选民的）意见；为讨论而提出（意见等）；详细检查 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
272
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
273
wholesaler
|
|
| n.批发商 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
274
illustrate
|
|
| v.举例说明，阐明；图解，加插图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
275
premature
|
|
| adj.比预期时间早的；不成熟的，仓促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
276
calf
|
|
| n.小牛，犊，幼仔，小牛皮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
277
bogey
|
|
| n.令人谈之变色之物；妖怪，幽灵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
278
tirade
|
|
| n.冗长的攻击性演说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
279
pickle
|
|
| n.腌汁，泡菜；v.腌，泡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
280
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
281
injustices
|
|
| 不公平( injustice的名词复数 )； 非正义； 待…不公正； 冤枉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
282
outrages
|
|
| 引起…的义愤，激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
283
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
284
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
285
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
286
paternal
|
|
| adj.父亲的，像父亲的，父系的，父方的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
287
abetted
|
|
| v.教唆（犯罪）( abet的过去式和过去分词 )；煽动；怂恿；支持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
288
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
289
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
290
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
291
dignifying
|
|
| 使显得威严( dignify的现在分词 )； 使高贵； 使显赫； 夸大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
292
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |