this is nice winter weather. however, as the man on the ladder was born some distance prior to the week before last, there’s a tang and chill in the breezes up here about the ladder top which makes the temperature decidedly less congenial than is the atmosphere in the editorial rooms of my publisher.

but, say, the view from this elevation is mighty interesting. the mobilization of the united states soldiery far to the southwest; the breaking up of corrals and herds to the west; the starting of activities about mining camps in the west and northwest; the lumber jacks and teams in the spruce forests of the north are indeed inspiring things to look upon; and over the eastern horizon, there in the lumber sections of new england and to the southeast, in the soft maple, the cottonwood and basswood districts, the people appear to be industriously and happily active; away to the south——

say! what’s that excitement over there at washington, d. c.?

“hello, central! hello! yes, this is the man on the ladder.”

“get me washington, d. c., on the l.-d. in a hurry—and get congressman blank on that end of the wire. the house is in session, and certainly he ought to be found in not more than five minutes.”

it is something unusually gratifying to see that activity about that sleepy group of capitol buildings—the “house of dollars,” the house of the hoi polloi, and the white house—a scene that will linger in the freshness and fragrance of my remembrance until the faculty of memory fades away. there are messengers and pages flitting about from house to house as if the prairies were afire behind them. excited congressmen are in heated discourse on the esplanade, on the capitol steps and in the corridors and cloak rooms. and there are numerous groups of senators, each a kingly specimen of what might be a real man if there was not so much pickled dignity[10] oozing from his stilted countenance and pose. there now go four of them to the white house, probably to see the president, our smiling william. i wonder what they are after. i wonder——

“yes, yes! hello! is that you, congressman jim?” “yes? what can i do for you?”

“well, this is the man on the ladder, jim, and i want to know in the name of heaven—any other spot you can think of quickly will do as well—what’s the occasion and cause for all that external excitement and activity i see around the capitol building? there must be a superthermic atmosphere inside both the senate and house to drive so many of our statesmen to the open air and jolt them into a quickstep in their movements. now go on and tell, and tell me straight.”

well, well! if i did not know my congressman friend so well, i would scarcely be persuaded to believe what he has just phoned me.

it appears that a conspiracy—yes, i mean just that—a conspiracy has been entered into between our chief executive, a coterie of senators, possibly a congressman or two and a numerous gang of corporate and vested interests, cappers and beneficiaries, to penalize various independent weekly and monthly periodicals. penalize is what i said. but that word is by no means strong enough. the intent of the conspirators was—and is—to put certain periodicals out of business and to establish a press censorship in the person of the postmaster general as will enable him to put any periodical out of existence which does not print what it is told to publish.

it would seem that when the postoffice appropriation bill left the house, where all revenue measures must originate, it was a fairly clean bill, carrying some $258,000,000 of the people’s money for the legitimate service of the people. of course it carried many service excesses, just as it has carried in each of the past thirty or forty years, and several of those looting excesses so conspicuous in every one of the immediately past fifteen years.

but otherwise, it may be stated, the house approval carried this bill to the senate in its usual normal cleanliness. it was referred to the senate committee on postoffices and postroads, the members of which, after conference with the president, annexed to it an alleged revenue-producing “rider.”

[11]

this rider i will later on discuss for the information of my readers. here i desire only to call the reader’s attention to the fact that under the constitution of the united states the united states senate has no more right or authority to originate legislation for producing federal revenues than has the hamilton club of chicago or the golf club at possum run, kentucky. but the conspirators—i still use the milder term, though i feel like telling the truth, which could be expressed only by some term that would class their action as that of assassinating education in this country. these conspirators, i say, did not hesitate to exceed and violate their constitutional obligations and prerogatives. they added a revenue-producing “rider” to house resolution 31,539. the rider was to raise certain kinds of second-class matter from a one-cent per pound rate to a four-cent per pound rate. not only that, but they managed to induce postmaster general hitchcock to push into the senate several ulterior motive reports and letters to boost the outlawry to successful passage. but, more of this later.

my friend congressman jim has just informed me that the conspirators were beginning to fear their ability even to get their “rider” to the post for a start; that many members and representatives of the periodical press association of new york city, as well as those of other branches of the printing industry, hearing of the attempt to put this confiscatory rider over in the closing hours—the crooked hours—of congress, hurried to washington and sought to inform senators and members of the house of the truth about second-class mail matter. congressman jim also informed me that a delegation representing the publishing interests of chicago had arrived a few hours before and were scarcely on the ground before “things began to happen.” “people talk about chicagoans making a noise,” said jim in his l.-d. message, “but when it comes to doing things you can count on them to go to it suddenly, squarely and effectively. that delegation is one of the causes of the excitement which you notice here. good-by.”

friend jim, being a chicago boy, may be pardoned even when a little profuse or over-confident in speaking of what his townsmen can do, but congressman jim is a live-wire congressman, and has been able to do several things himself while on his legislative job, even against stacked-up opposition.

while reporting on congressman jim’s message from washington,[12] i phoned the leading features to the office and have just received peremptory orders to write up not only this attempt but other attempts to raid the postal revenues of the country by means of crooked riders and otherwise. so there is nothing to do but go to it.

incidentally, my editor, knowing my tendency to write with a club, cautions me to adopt the dignified style of composition while writing upon this subject. i assure my readers that i shall be as dignified as the heritage of my nature will allow and the subject warrants. if i occasionally fall from the expected dignified altitude i trust the reader will be indulgent, will charge the fault, in part at least, to my remote alsatian ancestor. he fought with a club. i have therefore an inherited tendency to write (fight), with a club. so here goes.

in opening on this important subject, for vastly important it is from whatever angle one views it, i wish first to speak of the governmental postoffice department and then of postmaster generals.

first i will say that this government has not had, at least within the range of my mature recollection, any business management of its postoffice department above the level of that given to reuben’s country store of reubenville, arkansas.

the second fact i desire to put forward is that since the days of benjamin franklin there have been but few, a possible three or four, postmaster generals who had any qualifications whatsoever, business or other, to direct the management of so large a business as that comprehended in the federal postal service. not only are the chiefs, the postmaster generals, largely or wholly lacking in business and executive ability to manage so large an industrial and public service, but their chosen assistants (second, third and on up to the fourth or fifth “assistant postmaster generals”), have been and are likewise lacking in most or all of the essential qualifications fundamentally necessary to the management and direction of large industrial or service business enterprises. i venture to say that none of them have read, and few of them even heard of, the splendid book written by mr. frederick w. taylor explaining, really giving the a, b, c of the “science of business management,” which for several years has been so beneficial in the business and industrial methods in this country as almost to have worked an economic revolution. i equally doubt if they have even read the series of articles in one of the monthly[13] periodicals, which postmaster general hitchcock and his coterie of conspirators tried to stab in the back with that senate “rider” on the postoffice appropriation bill. yet mr. taylor wrote these articles, and mr. taylor must know a great deal about economic, scientific business management. he must know, otherwise the steel corporation, the great packing concerns, several railroads, the yale and towne manufacturing company, the link belt company and a number of other large concerns, as well as the trained editors of several engineering and industrial journals, would not have so generally, likewise profitably, adopted and approved his recommendations and directions.

yet while most of these “assistant postmaster generals” and their subassistants have been glaringly—yes, discouragingly—incompetent to manage and direct the work of their divisions, some of them have shown an elegance of aptitude, a finished adroitness in using their official positions to misappropriate, likewise to appropriate to their own coffers, the funds and revenues of the postoffice department. reference needs only to be made to the grace and deftness displayed by august w. machen, george w. beavers and their copartners. the one was superintendent of free delivery, the other superintendent of salaries and allowances, and the way they, for several years, made the postoffice funds and revenues “come across” beat any get-rich-quick concern about forty rods in any mile heat that was reported in the sporting columns of the daily press.

general leonard wood, congressman loud and a few other reputable officials induced president roosevelt to institute an investigation. the investigation was made under the direction of joseph l. bristow. then things were uncovered; that is, some things were uncovered. in speaking of the nastiness disclosed william allen white in 1904 wrote, in part, as follows:

“most of the congressmen knew there was something wrong in beaver’s department; and beaver knew of their suspicions; so congressmen generally got from him what they went after, and the crookedness thrived.

“when it was stopped by president roosevelt, this crookedness was so far-reaching that when a citizen went to the postoffice to buy a stamp the cash register which gave him his change was full of graft, the ink used in canceling the stamp was full of graft, the pad which furnished the ink was full of graft, the clock which kept the clerk’s[14] time was full of graft, the carrier’s satchel tie-straps, his shoulder straps, and his badge were subject to illegal taxation, the money order blanks were full of graft, the letter boxes on the street were fraudulently painted, fraudulently fastened to the posts, fraudulently made, and equipped—many of them with fraudulent time-indicators. often the salaries of the clerks were full of graft. and in the case of hundreds of thousands of swindling letters and advertisements that were dropped in the box—they were full of graft.”

we will now get down to the present postmaster general, mr. frank h. hitchcock. i have read, and shall later print in this volume the senate “rider” to the postoffice department appropriation bill, which, so far as the man on the ladder has been able to learn, mr. hitchcock either wrote or “steered” in its writing. i have also read his series of letters to senator penrose, chairman of the senate committee on postoffices and postroads; also his 1910 report. at this point i shall make my comment on postmaster general hitchcock brief but, mayhap, somewhat pointed.

most postmaster generals for the past thirty or more years have been incompetent. there have been a few notable and worthy exceptions, but their worthiness was almost completely lost in the department by reason of previously planted corruption and political interference. most postmaster generals, as has been stated, have had little or no qualification for the management and administration of so large a service industry as that covered by the federal postoffice department.

mr. hitchcock, in his administration of the department, in his reports and recent letters to the senate and the house, has shown himself scarcely up to the average of his incompetent predecessors.

mr. hitchcock’s “rider” to the 1911 postoffice appropriation bill and his recent letters to senator penrose and others will convince any fair-minded, informed reader that he is either an “influenced” man or is densely ignorant. i wish to make this point emphatic: the careless, loose, hurried—yes, even silly—wording of that “rider” and the false and foolish statements in his letters to senator penrose, relating to his demand for an increase of three cents a pound on certain periodicals now carried in the mails as second-class matter at one cent a pound, he to be given authority to pick out and designate the periodicals which should be subject to the increased rate—his false[15] and foolish statements in that “rider,” and in his recent letters, i say, must show to any intelligent mind that mr. hitchcock is either an “influenced” man or a six-cylinder, chain-tired, hill-climber of an ignoramus in matters relating to periodical publication, and also in many essential matters relating to his department.

my previous statements regarding the government’s postoffice department, about postmaster generals in general and about mr. hitchcock in particular, may not be up to the broadcloth of dignity, but they do carry the dignity of fact and truth, as i shall proceed to demonstrate to my readers.

let us consider first the government postoffice department and then mr. hitchcock’s recent actions and utterances.

most of the postmaster generals, including mr. hitchcock, appear to have been greatly exercised about “deficits,” yet persist in pursuing methods of business management and direction that must, almost necessarily, make expenditures of the department exceed its receipts.

also i may ask, in this connection, why so much agony, or “front,” whichever it may be, about a “deficit” in the postoffice department? the postal service of the country is a public service, a service of all the people. as such the revenues of the federal postoffice department should not be permitted to exceed the actual cost of the service rendered under honest, economical and competent management and direction.

the departments of war and the navy produce no revenue save the comparatively speaking trifling sums received from the sale of junk, abandoned equipment, accoutrements, etc. these departments render personal or direct service to but a small fraction of the vast number of people served by the postoffice department. almost the entire appropriation for war and the navy in the past forty-five years might be called a “deficit” so far as any service they have rendered to the great body of the nation’s citizenship is concerned. yet in the face of all this, so loosely, carelessly and crookedly have the departments of war and of the navy been managed that there is scarcely a session of congress which is not appealed to for huge sums of money to cover “deficits,” to meet extravagant, wasteful and, not infrequently, fraudulent expenditures in excess of the vast sums set aside for them in their annual appropriation bills.

[16]

a few years since it was found that the navy department was employing more clerks than it employed service men.

as to these strictures on the postoffice department, i will here quote for the benefit of readers who may not have studied this postal service question, a few authorities on the subject under consideration.

a few years ago the methods and abuses of the federal postoffice department were investigated by a joint commission of congress. one paragraph of the commission’s report reads as follows and must be regarded as officially significant:

“it appears too obvious to require argument that the most efficient service can never be expected as long as the direction of the business is, as at present, intrusted to a postmaster general and certain assistants selected without special reference to experience and qualifications and subject to frequent change. under such a system a large railroad, commercial or industrial business would inevitably go into bankruptcy and the postoffice department has averted that fate only because the united states treasury has been able to meet deficiencies.”

pretty plain, straight talk that, is it not?

the resolution to appoint a commission of three members and appropriate $50,000 for the commission’s use was tacked onto the postoffice appropriation bill after the senate “rider” was ditched. that resolution was under discussion in the house march 3rd (1911)—the usual swan-song day for those who failed to “arrive” at the november election. mr. weeks, chairman of the house committee on postoffices and postroads, led the discussion. the discussion was participated in by several congressmen, among whom was congressman moon of tennessee. judge moon is recognized as one of the best informed men in congress on postal matters, and particularly informed as to present methods of transporting and handling second-class mail. mr. moon, though a member of the conference committee which had just agreed to the bill, senate resolution and all, as amended in conference, quite vigorously opposed the appropriation of $50,000 of the people’s money for a “commission” to investigate the cost of transporting and handling second-class mail matter. he based his opposition largely on the fact that two or three previous commissions had been appointed to investigate the same question or matter; that these previous commissions had gone into the subject thoroughly,[17] had collected every scrap of information that, under the present methods, or lack of method, in the postoffice department, it was or is possible to collect; that these commissions had spent hundreds of thousands of the people’s money; that they had made complete and exhaustive reports covering all the information obtained or obtainable; that these reports are on file and easily accessible, and that the postal committees of neither senate nor house had given any attention or consideration to those reports.

from the many trenchant things said by mr. moon i take the following:

“if the gentleman will excuse me a minute, i am trying to get to another reason which i want to present to the house as to why i deem it inappropriate and unwise to pass this legislation. now, when the experts undertake to determine just exactly what ought to be paid for the carrying of the magazines, how the government ought to be remunerated for the carrying and handling of these magazines, or other second-class matter, they are bound to take as the basis of the investigation the manner in which the second-class matter is now handled and the manner in which it is paid for. in other words, the basis of weighing and the computation of paying are the basic facts upon which they must rely in order to determine the question. i undertake to say to this house deliberately, that in view of our method of weighing and of the computation of railway mail pay, that no expert on the face of this earth can today come within fifteen or twenty millions of dollars of what the compensation ought to be for the transportation of second-class mail.

“if every fact has been adduced that would lead to a proper conclusion as to what the pay ought to be, if we are to go again over the same field of investigation with no possibility of any more light, tell me what sense there is in expending the public money for that purpose? and, then the very minute you undertake to reach the correct result you are confronted with a proposition that you cannot justly charge the cost of transportation and handling to a class of matter flatly that in itself produces a return to the government in another class of matter, probably in excess of the charges of transportation and handling of that matter itself—the second class. how are you to draw the lines for the determination of these questions? you are in[18] the dark; it is a chaotic proposition, considering the method by which it must be determined today.”

i take it, that however much they may differ from him in his political and economic views, readers recognize in william randolph hearst one of the most alert and best informed men in this country on the subject of publishing and distributing periodical literature. he certainly ranks among the largest, if he is not indeed the largest, publisher and distributer of newspapers and other periodical prints there is in this country,—yes, i may say, in the world.

on february 24, 1911, a letter over mr. hearst’s signature appeared in the washington post. in this communication he touches upon the efficiency—rather the inefficiency—of the postoffice department in handling the postal service of this country. i would like to reproduce the letter entire, but cannot. i will, however, reprint some of its cogent statements which bear largely upon the point under consideration. mr. hearst says:

i know something about the cost of distribution of publications. i know something about the reasons for the excessive cost of distribution of the postoffice. and i say that the high cost of distribution in the postoffice is largely due to loose and careless and reckless methods, to antiquated systems and incompetent management.

it is estimated that 40 per cent of the charged weight of mail matter is composed of cumbersome mail bags and their heavy iron locks and fastenings.

how absurd to imagine that a man who wanted to break into a mail bag would be deterred by a ponderous lock.

the postoffice department might as well insist that a burglar-proof lock be affixed to every letter, under the inane impression that the only way to tear open a letter would be to pick a lock.

i know, too, personally and positively, of an instance where the great mass of western mail was sent over one railroad and when the bulk of it was transferred to another railroad, all the postal clerks previously employed were maintained on the first railroad for over two years after the mail had been transferred.

the evening journal, without any of the powers of the great united states government behind it, distributes its product for seven-tenths of a cent a pound, and included in this average is the 1-cent-a-pound rate paid to the government for copies mailed. obviously, then, the proportion of the product which is not carried by the postoffice is delivered for much less than seven-tenths of a cent per pound.

the new york american distributes by mail and express 303,584 pounds of daily and sunday papers every week at a cost of $1,655.17, or little over one-half a cent per pound. this average includes 28,028 pounds sent by mail at 1[19] cent per pound, so, obviously, the average of matter not distributed by mail is less than one-half a cent per pound.

the new york american sends 67,268 pounds of these papers over the pennsylvania railroad at one-fourth of a cent per pound, or one-fourth the rate paid to the united states postoffice department.

that same rate—one-fourth of a cent per pound—is exactly the rate charged by the canadian government for carrying magazines by mail through its postoffice department and for distributing them over a thinly populated territory even greater than the united states.

how absurd, then, to assert that the government cannot distribute the magazines profitably at this present rate when it handles the magazines along with all other mail distributed and without any particular extra expense because of them.

even if, as i said, the government were handling the magazines at a loss, it would be doing a creditable thing. but it is not handling the magazines at a loss. it is carrying them at a profit, and if it taxes the magazines out of existence it will compel the postal department to be conducted at a greater loss than the loss at which it is now conducted.

what inconsistency, too, for the administration to advocate a government subsidy to restore a united states merchant marine and at the same time advocate a measure to put out of existence a much more important american institution.

if it is a republican policy to promote business and encourage industry, and a proper republican and american policy to take money out of the united states treasury to subsidize a private business in order to create an industry, why is it not a proper republican and american policy to continue to provide a cheap mail rate in order to maintain a great american industry and perpetuate a mighty educational influence already existent?

the evidence in support of my impeachment of the postoffice department on account of its almost total lack of business method, its absolute helplessness to tell, even with approximate accuracy, the loss of any division of its service, or the revenues resulting from any given source or class of mail carried, would not be complete without quoting senator penrose and former senator carter.

senator penrose of pennsylvania is chairman of the senate committee on postoffices and postroads, and former senator carter was conceded to be one of the well informed men on postal matters in congress.

the excerpt from senator penrose is from an address he made on the floor of the senate, within the year, when speaking to the subject of second-class mail rates, and that from mr. carter is from his address on the same subject made in march, 1910. both follow:

[20]

it is idle to take up such questions as apportioning the cost for carrying second-class mail matter or the proper compensation of railroads for transporting the mails until we shall have established business methods in postoffice affairs by a reorganization of the whole postal system.—senator penrose.

i deeply sympathize with the earnest desire of the department officials to get rid of the deficiency they are fated to encounter every year, but i submit that the first real movement toward that end must begin with the substitution of a modern, up-to-date business organization for the existing antiquated system.—senator carter.

comment on the plain, blunt statements of these members of our highest legislative body, each admittedly well informed on the subject to which he speaks, is quite unnecessary.

in closing this division of my subject i desire to quote president taft; quote from his message to congress under date of march 3, 1911. it is an illuminating message and forcefully pertinent to the point we are considering. i would like to reprint the entire document, but fear i cannot do so. of course, president taft’s strictures and adverse criticisms are general—since they apply to all governmental departments—but every official in washington knows, and none better than the president himself, that they have both adhesive and cohesive qualities when applied to the postoffice department.

in this message the president asks for an appropriation of $75,000 to continue the work he has already begun, that of revising departmental methods of doing business and of instituting a practical, commonsense system of accounting under which, or from which, it will be possible for administrative and legislative officials to learn, approximately at least, just what departments have done—to any date—and just what it has cost to do it, two items of information as appears from the message of the chief executive which neither his nor any previous administration has ever been able to learn, and is not now able to learn with any considerable degree of dependable accuracy.

as yet i have not learned whether the president obtained the $75,000 asked for. i hope he did. if congress will appropriate $750,000 for the purpose the president names in his message, and sees to it that the money is judiciously and intelligently disbursed, it is the opinion of the man on the ladder that not less than $100,000,000 annually would be saved in government expenditures, or one hundred millions more of service, material, equipment, etc., delivered for the money now expended.

[21]

following is the essential part of the president’s message. the italics are the writer’s:

to the senate and house of representatives:

i ask that you include in the sundry civil bill an appropriation for $75,000 and a reappropriation of the unexpended balance of the existing appropriation to enable me to continue my investigation by members of the departments and by experts of the business methods now employed by the government, with a view to securing greater economy and efficiency in the dispatch of government business.

the chief difficulty in securing economy and reform is the lack of accurate information as to what the money of the government is now spent for. take the combined statement of the receipts and disbursements of the government for the fiscal year ended june 30, 1910—a report required by law, and the only one purporting to give an analytical separation of the expenditures of the government. this shows that the expenditures for salaries for the year 1910 were $132,000,000 out of $950,000,000. as a matter of fact, the expenditures for personal services during that year were more nearly $400,000,000, as we have just learned by the inquiry now in progress under the authority given me by the last congress.

the only balance sheet provided to the administrator or to the legislator as a basis for judgment is one which leaves out of consideration all assets other than cash, and all liabilities other than warrants outstanding, a part of the trust liabilities and the public debt. in the liabilities no mention is made of about $70,000,000 special and trust funds so held. no mention is made of outstanding contracts and orders issued as incumbrances on appropriations; of invoices which have not been vouchered; of vouchers which have not been audited. it is, therefore, impossible for the administrator to have in mind the maturing obligations to meet which cash must be provided; there is no means for determining the relation of current surplus or deficit. no operation account is kept, and no statement of operations is rendered showing the expenses incurred—the actual cost of doing business—on the one side, and the revenues accrued on the other. there are no records showing the cost of land, structures, equipment, or the balance of stores on hand available for future use; there is no information coming regularly to the administrative head of the government or his advisers advising them as to whether sinking-fund requirements have been met, or of the condition of trust funds or special funds.

it has been urged that such information as is above indicated could not be obtained, for the reason that the accounts were on a cash basis; that they provide for reports of receipts and disbursements only. but even the accounts and reports of receipts and disbursements are on a basis which makes a true statement of facts impossible. for example: all of the trust receipts and disbursements of the government, other than those relating to currency trusts, are reported as “ordinary receipts and disbursements.” the daily, as well as the monthly and annual statements of disbursements, are mainly made up from advances to disbursing officers—that is to say, when cash is transferred from one officer to another it is considered as spent, and the disbursement accounts and reports of the government so show them. the only other accounts of expenditures on the books of[22] the treasury are based on audited settlements most of which are months in arrears of actual transactions; as between the record of cash advanced to disbursing officers and the accounts showing audited vouchers, there is a current difference of from $400,000,000 to $700,000,000, representing vouchers which have not been audited and settled.

without going into greater detail, the conditions under which legislators and administrators, both past and present, have been working may be summarized as follows: there have been no adequate means provided whereby either the president or his advisers may act with intelligence on current business before them; there has been no means for getting prompt, accurate and correct information as to results obtained; estimates of departmental needs have not been the subject of thorough analysis and review before submission; budgets of receipts and disbursements have been prepared and presented for the consideration of congress in an unscientific and unsystematic manner; appropriation bills have been without uniformity or common principle governing them; there have been practically no accounts showing what the government owns, and only a partial representation of what it owes; appropriations have been overencumbered without the facts being known; officers of government have had no regular or systematic method of having brought to their attention the costs of governmental administration, operation and maintenance, and therefore could not judge as to the economy or waste; there has been inadequate means whereby those who served with fidelity and efficiency might make a record of accomplishment and be distinguished from those who were inefficient and wasteful; functions and establishments have been duplicated, even multiplied, causing conflict and unnecessary expense; lack of full information has made intelligent direction impossible and co-operation between different branches of the service difficult.

i am bringing to your attention this statement of the present lack of facility for obtaining prompt, complete, and accurate information in order that congress may be advised of the conditions which the president’s inquiry into economy and efficiency has found and which the administration is seeking to remedy. investigations of administrative departments by congress have been many, each with the same result. all the conditions above set forth have been repeatedly pointed out. some benefits have accrued by centering public attention on defects in organization, method, and procedure, but generally speaking, however salutary the influence of legislative inquiries (and they should at all times be welcome), the installation and execution of methods and procedure, which will place a premium on economy and efficiency and a discount on inefficiency and waste must be carefully worked out and introduced by those responsible for the details of administration.

does that broad accusation of the president approve or disapprove our previously expressed opinion of governmental department service in general and of the postoffice department in particular? notice the statements i have taken the liberty to italicize. permit me to repeat a few of them:

“the chief difficulty in securing economy and reform is the lack of accurate information as to what the money of the government is spent for.”

[23]

does not that fully bear out what judge moon said in discussing the senate resolution to appropriate $50,000 more for a second-class mail commission—devote fifty thousand more after the government had already spent several hundred thousands delving into the same subject and got little or nothing of value, by reason of the loose, careless and wasteful methods of the federal postal department?

… “there is no means for determining the relation of current surplus or deficit.”

an inviting business situation that, is it not? especially “inviting” is it to officials and subordinates who want something they have not earned, who want to find something.

“no operation account is kept, and no statement of operations is rendered showing the expenses incurred—the actual cost of doing business—the actual cost of doing business on the one side and the revenues accrued on the other.”

now, my dear reader, don’t you know that such a method or system, or lack of method or system, would put a western corn farm in “financial distress” the first season and out of business the second? a cattle ranch, handled on such loose, ignorant methods would be sold out in a year. what, in reduction, does this unqualified statement of our president mean?

it means that the heads of governmental departments do not know; that their subordinates do not know, and, therefore, our president, our senators and our congressmen do not know. nor can they, under existing conditions and methods, find out. they cannot find out even the common—the basic—essentials of business methods and management which job fraser, down in “egypt,” must know in order to keep his hen range out of bankruptcy.

do you remember a quotation, some pages back, from the joint commission which investigated the postoffice department? the investigation which rummaged into the second-class mail schedule particularly? if you do not remember, turn back and read it again. it fits like the skin of an alberta peach to what the president has just said (march 3, 1911), in his message from which we have quoted.

while collecting millions of revenue beyond all possible expenditures, under competent, honest management, our federal postoffice department would have gone into bankruptcy save for the backing of the government’s treasury—for the backing of your money.

[24]

“the only other accounts of expenditures on the books of the treasury are based on audited settlements, most of which are months in arrears of actual transactions; as between the record of cash advanced to disbursing officers and the accounts showing audited vouchers, there is a current difference of from $400,000,000 to $700,000,000, representing vouchers which have not been audited and settled.”

of course, i do not know how that may strike the reader. it strikes the writer, however, as being about as near the limit as any individual or corporation could go without falling over the financial edge and nearer the limit than any sensible, well and honestly directed government should go.

again—no, i will requote no more. turn back and read the quotation from the president’s message again. read carefully, and then read it once more. any citizen, whose mental tires are not punctured will be not only a wiser but a bigger and better citizen for having done so.

it was my intention to close this division of my subject with the excerpts from president taft’s message. my attention however was called to a move made by postmaster general hitchcock, and an interview had with him bearing on said move. it was taken note of and “spaced” by a majority of the newspapers having general circulation in the united states. what i shall here quote is taken from a chicago paper of date april 1, and the “write-up,” nearly a column, is based, it is probable, on a wire to the journal either from its washington correspondent or a news agency. as the article appeared in so many newspapers i take it that the information conveyed is entirely dependable.

from the write-up it appears that postmaster general hitchcock has made “a round dozen” of changes among the postal officials in the railway mail service. some of the changes were promotions—on the government’s pay roll—changes of division superintendents from one division to another, shifting of division chief clerks and of division inspectors, etc., etc. theodore ingalls, formerly superintendent of “rural mails,” is now superintendent of the “railway mail service,” succeeding alexander grant, who, the friendly space writer says, “is one of the most widely known postoffice officials in the service.” whether favorably or unfavorably known, the write-up sayeth not. at any rate, mr. grant goes to the st. paul division of[25] the railway mail service at $1,000 per year less than he formerly drew from the postoffice department funds. per contra, mr. ingalls steps from “rurals” to railway mails at an increase of $1,000. the other “round dozen” changes are of similar character, though affecting positions subordinate or minor to the ones named. no dismissals, just shifting the official pegs around, possibly for the “good of the service,” as mr. hitchcock says; possibly for other reasons. it is to be hoped that postmaster general hitchcock stated the entire truth and that these changes are for the good of the service. the railway mail service is certainly in dire need of betterment, as the reader will learn before i finish, if he but has the interest and the patience to follow me to the end.

why mr. hitchcock did not make some twelve hundred changes in the railway mail service instead of a “round dozen,”—and many of them dismissals—i do not know. perhaps mr. hitchcock does know. let us hope he does and be thankful for small favors. many people, however, who have watched the postoffice department’s maneuverings during the past forty years have seen too many “sunday editions” put to mail to be fooled by any of this “shake-up” talk. this shifting of the official shoats from one pen to another, still leaving them with their noses and four feet in the trough, is a too common and well known practice in the police and other public safety departments of our larger cities to fool anybody who has had his eyes open since the first full moon in april, 1868.

shake-ups which do not retire incompetent or “faulted” public officials and servants, just as a “faulted” casting is rejected at “milling,” is not a “shake-up” that will stand good in any strata of human intelligence above that found in asylums for broken-down cerebral equipment. it is betterments, not “shake-ups,” that are needed.

the reader will please understand that there is no personal animus in what i here—or elsewhere—write. i have not had the pleasure, and possibly the honor, of personal acquaintance with mr. ingalls, mr. grant and others of the “round dozen” involved in the postmaster general’s “shake-up.” they are probably all fine gentlemen personally, whom it would be a privilege to meet and to know. but we are writing to a subject infinitely larger than any man or set of men.

[26]

the people of this country are “up against” a postal service proposition—a proposition so stupendous in import, so far-reaching in its application, so crucial in its effects upon us and the children who follow us, and involving service so incompetent, so wasteful, so corrupt in its management and operation as to have appalled those of us who have watched and studied its practices, and to have become a joke, provoking a smile or laugh among postal officials of other nations who render a service that serves.

for upward of forty years—a few bright spots excepted—our postoffice department has shown itself not only incompetent in the matter of business management, but disregardful in serving the people who pay for the service. i am aware this is a bald statement, a “mere assertion,” some postoffice official or sinecure postal “servant” may say, but it will have to be said more often, more carefully and studiedly and far more eloquently, in order to have it believed outside the family circle than it ever has heretofore been said to get the people of this country to stand for it.

in the “write-up” annexed to postmaster general hitchcock’s few paragraphs of interview, the “space” artist gives us, in epitome, the biography of the men mr. hitchcock promotes and demotes in that “round dozen” of changes. some of my readers may have scanned the “booster” newspaper stuff of which i am writing. if so, much of what i have here said may be bricks or straw, just as it may happen that they know or do not know the true “innards” of the service status of this postoffice department of ours. i will not do more here than to point to the epitome biographical sketches of the promotes and demotes in the friendly “write-up.”

in substance it says that mr. ingalls “is a highly trained postal official” and “entirely familiar with the railway mail system, having begun his postal work in that service.”

now, we all sincerely hope that is true. i once ran a sawmill, but, candidly, i do not believe that any sensible business man would hire me today to run his saws in any mill turning out mixed cuts. it may be that mr. ingalls has accumulated just the proper, and the proper amount of, information in superintending “rurals” to enable—to qualify—him to manage and direct that case-hardened, looting division known as the railway mail service. let us hope that he knows how to do it.

[27]

in the past twenty-five or thirty years it has been conclusively shown that the postoffice department, en tout, knows about as much concerning the railroad end of the railway mail service as a mongrel spitz poodle knows of astronomy.

so i might comment on other names mentioned in the write-up of this “shake-up” of our postmaster general. they have all been good men. possibly they each and all are good men yet—for the jobs to which the postmaster general has promoted or demoted them. the people may appreciate and even honor jim jones because he “worked his way up” from mail carrier on a rural route at rabbit hash, mississippi, to superintendent of the cincinnati division or the st. paul division of the railway mail service, and even more so, if he got stilted to the position of “superintendent of the railway mail service.” still, listen. while we, the people, at rabbit hash, mississippi, may be entirely satisfied to see our boy, jim jones, move up the ladder to official honor and salary, how about you other 93,760,000 people? you want prompt, cheap service in the railway mail and our jim jones fails to give it to you,—fails when you know the conditions and the facilities are at call and command to give it to you.

what is the answer? simply that you 93,760,000 other folks may not think so well of our jim jones’ railway mail service ability—or business ability—as we of rabbit hash may think.

now i have said enough about postmaster general hitchcock’s “shake-up.” what i have not said the intelligent reader will readily infer—and there is a whole lot to be inferred.

at the outset i intended to quote mr. hitchcock—quote mr. hitchcock himself—in evidence or proof of my previously made and repeated statement, that the postoffice department is incompetently, is wastefully, if not crookedly, managed and directed.

i am now going to quote mr. hitchcock. of course, he here speaks of only the railway mail service. it is admittedly one of the worst divisions for waste and steal. but there are others scarcely a neck behind.

the subjoined dispatch states (march 31, 1911), that “while signing the orders necessary for the changes mr. hitchcock said:”

[28]

the investigation which we conducted so long and so carefully indicated clearly that the action which i have taken was absolutely necessary. the railway mail service has suffered greatly from poor management and lack of supervision.

in certain of the divisions it was found that the chief clerks had not been inspecting their lines, as was their duty. some of the routes had received no inspection for several years. …

the inquiry showed that the business methods of the service in several offices were antiquated and that, as a consequence, there was much duplication of work. instructions from the department directing improvements, as for example the proper consolidation of mail matter and the conservation of equipment, received only perfunctory attention.

there had been a lack of co-operation also in carrying into effect certain reforms which i had indicated, and it was made evident by the inquiry that no proper spirit of co-ordination with the department existed in the railway mail service.