Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Abolition of the postal system : speech of Hon. Gerrit Smith, in the House...

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 489

ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.

SPEECH

OF

HON. GERRIT SMITH

IN THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 15, 1854.

WASHINGTON:
BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS.
1854.

SPEECH OF HON. GERRITT SMITH.

The bill and substitute (both of which were introduced by Mr. OLDS, Chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads) being under consideration,

Mr. SMITH, of New York, presented the following amendment:

And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue in force two years; and that, at the expiration of that time, the Post Office Department shall be abolished, and individuals and associations shall thereafter be as free to carry letters, as to carry anything else.

Mr. SMITH, of New York, said:

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to make an argument in support of my amendment. I have read the bill, which the Chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads introduced; and, also, the substitute, which he introduced, and I am constrained to say, that I do not like either of them. I dislike both of them - and I do so, if for no other reason than that they both bear so much resemblance to the existing post office laws.

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from New York inform the Chair, whether he proposes to amend the original bill or the substitute?

Mr. SMITH. I have no choice. Whichever the Chair shall think most proper, I shall be satisfied with.

A MEMBER. Apply it to each.

Mr. SMITH. Let my amendment be first to the original bill; and then, if it fail in that mode, be to the substitute. [Laughter.]

My first objection to these papers - for such I shall call the bill and substitute - is, that they both propose to retain the franking privilege. It is true, that the substitute does not propose retain it to the discredit of the Post Office Department - or, in other words, as a charge upon that Department; but, what is the same

[page 3, col. 2]

thing to the people, it proposes to retain, it at the expense of the common Treasury.

I am free to admit, that most members of Congress have to write more letters than they would have to, were they not members of Congress. The difference would not be great, however, if the persons, who write to them, were compelled, as such persons should be, to pay postage on their letters; and this difference would be still less, if such persons should, as all true gentlemen do, enclose stamps to pay the postage on the answers, in every case, where the correspondence is on the business of those, who originate it. Most of the letters, with which we are deluged, are too unimportant, and even frivolous, to have been written, had their writers been obliged to pay postage on them. And then, as to the speeches we send - the country would not perish, if they were not sent. Perhaps, indeed, it would not be essentially less enlightened. I apprehend, that, in the flood of speeches, which we pour over the land, there is quite as much of darkness, as of light. Of course, I would not speak disparagingly of my own speeches. [Laughter.] Every member will so far provide for his self-complacency, as to make, if not an express, at least a tacit exception, in behalf of his own speeches, whenever he is tempted to speak slightingly of the mass of speeches. [Laughter.] But, I am willing to admit, that it may be proper to send off a limited number of our speeches, at the expense of Government, so far as the transportation is concerned. Hence, I am willing to have Government furnish each member of Congress with stamps, during his term, to the amount of, say $300 or $400. These stamps should be peculiar. They should be made to be used by members of Congress only; and only in franking printed matter. Let the value of each frank be one cent

4 [col. 1]

and let a single frank be sufficient to frank two ounces. The member of Congress, who should not wish to use all his stamps, would take pleasure in letting a fellow-member have the balance.

Another objection, which I have to these papers, is not that they propose more than one rate of postage - but rather, that they do not propose more than two. Moreover, the higher of the two is of comparatively very little consequence. For ten years to come, forty-nine fiftieths of the letters would not be affected by the higher rate. In other words, not one letter in fifty would be charged with the ten cents rate of postage. Then, these papers are unreasonable, in making distance the sole ground of difference in the rates of postage. Distance is but one, and it is far from being the most important one, of the grounds for such difference. Density and sparseness of population; facilities and non-facilities of carriage; are much more important considerations in authorizing and measuring such difference. Hence, then, although the existing post office laws provide for but one rate of postage, and although there evidently should be more than one, nevertheless the papers before us are, even in this respect, hardly an appreciable improvement on those laws, so ill-grounded and faulty is the higher rate of postage, which they propose.

To illustrate the error of these papers, in making mere distance the ground of difference, in rates of postage: - they provide, that a letter from Boston to San Francisco shall be charged with ten cen cents; and a letter from San Francisco to any post office in the region of the Rocky Mountains with only five cents, according to one of the papers, and with only three cents, according to the other. But it may be worth three times as much to carry this letter from San Francisco, as that letter to San Francisco.

Both, then, because this higher rate of postage is to affect so small a proportion of the letters; and because a rate of postage, founded on so insufficient a reason, must, if adopted, be very short-lived; and, because, too, it seems well nigh impossible, that it should be adopted; I shall regard these papers, in the argument I am now making against them, as virtually proposing but one rate of postage.

I have still another objection to these papers. It is my chief one. They would have Government continue to be the mail-carrier. But I would have Government separated from such work, entirely and forever. I am in favor of breaking up the Post Office Department. I would have the people left as free to choose their own modes of carrying their letters, as to choose their own modes of carrying their other property. Why should Government carry the letters any more than the other property of the people? Again, if Government may carry the property of the people, why not the persons of the people also? - why not passengers as well as property?

Is it said, that letters, especially some of them, are very precious and important, and that therefore the carrier of them should be highly trustworthy and responsible? I admit it all; and I hold, that this is a reason why the people should

4 [col. 2]

not be confined to one carrier, but should have a choice of carriers - ay, the widest range of selection.

Happily for the people, they are not forbidden by Government to transmit money by express. They may choose between the express and the mail. And what does the choice, which they actually make, prove? It proves, that they prefer the express to the mail; in other words, that the express is a more safe and suitable conveyance for money than the mail. It proves, too, that, in all probability, the people would, were they not restricted to the mail, extensively adopt other modes of transmitting letters, as well as money. This monopoly of Government is aggravated by the fact, that Government disclaims all liability for damages, arising from either the bad performance, or non-performance, of the work it has monopolized.

Is it said, that speed and punctuality are necessary in the transmission of letters? They are. But this, instead of being an argument against abolishing the Post Office Department, and against throwing open its work to the freest and widest competition, is a very strong argument for doing so. The motive for attaining speed and punctuality, in the case of such competition, must be unspeakably stronger, and more effectual, than when, as now, there is no competition. It would be strange, indeed, if, under the pressure of unlimited rivalry, a greater than the present degree of speed and punctuality should not be attained. It would be strange, indeed, if the enterprise, sharp sight, and intense interest of individuals, and small associations, should not accomplish the work with far greater speed and punctuality than characterize it in the hands of Government. It would be strange, indeed, if Government - Government, that is so corpulent, so unwieldy, so lazy, so blundering - should be found to be fitted to the work of carrying the mail. But, we are not left to mere theory in the case. The actual fact, that, here, the mail is several hours, and, there, several days, behind the express, is as glaring as the sun.

Is it said, that it is important to have the rates of postage low? I admit it is. I admit, that, as in the case of commerce itself, so the more nearly commercial correspondence can be free, the better. And more eager am I to admit, that the commerce of the affections, which is carried on in letters of friendship and love, should be but lightly taxed. These admissions, however, make nothing against my doctrine, that Government is not fit to be the carrier of letters. On the contrary, Government must cease to be the carrier, ere we can have, or, to speak more safely, ere we can be entitled to have, cheap postage either on land or sea - either "ocean penny postage," (two cents;) or any other demanded reduction of postage. We are not entitled to cheap postage, at the expense of the common Treasury. There is not one good reason, why the carrying of letters should be a charge on the common Treasury - a charge on the whole people. There is not one good reason why they, who have but little to do with letters, should be taxed to make the transmission of them cheap to those, who have much to do with letters. Again, there is not one good

5 [col. 1]

reason, why they, whose letters can be carried at half the cost, at which the letters of others are carried, should be compelled to pay as high rates of postage, as others.

The argument for carrying the mail, at the expense of the common Treasury, founded on the fact, that our naval and military operations are also at such expense, is as superficial and fallacious, as it is plausible and current. It is absolutely astonishing, that so many wise men use this argument. In turning mail-carrier, Government goes entirely out of the province of Government; goes out of it to perform an unnecessary service; and to perform it for but a portion of its subjects. On the other hand, the preparation and employment of force are strictly within the province of Government; are not only a legitimate, but a necessary work; are for the protection of all, and not a part only, of its subjects; and are for that protection equally in the case of all.

I have, virtually, said, that, so long as Government is the mail-carrier, the rates of postage must be high, in order, that they may cover the whole cost of carrying the mail. Indeed, the papers before us do, in the changes which they propose, admit, that a self-supporting mail, if carried by Government, must be a dear mail. Just here, however, the question very properly arises, whether, if the transmission of letters is thrown open to the enterprise and rivalry of individuals and associations, the rates of postage will be lower. That they will be much lower, in the case of the great majority of letters, is as certain, as that the cost of the transmission will, in that event, be much less. Who, that has marked the difference between the carelessness and clumsiness of Government on the one hand, and the vigilance and alertness of individuals and small associations on the other; between, for instance, the slow and dear process of building railroads and canals, and ships, by Government, and the speed and cheapness with which private enterprise builds them: can, for a moment, doubt, that the cost of carrying letters, is twice as great, when Government is the carrier, as it would be, were they carried by individuals and small associations? But if this work is thrown open to unlimited competition, then, as all experience, in like cases, proves, the cost of the work will regulate the pay exacted for it: or, in other words, the rates of postage on letters will be according to the expense of carrying them. It is safe to say, that, in such event, the rate of postage on half the single letters would not exceed one cent. On a portion of the remaining half, it would be two cents: on a much smaller portion, two or three times two cents and on a comparative few, a part of whom, it must be remembered, are not reached by the present Post Office accommodations, three or four, or even five or six, times two cents.

It is argued, that the rates of postage should be uniform, throughout the whole length and breadth of the nation. But, why should they be? They cannot be, but at the expense of great and glaring injustice. Two brothers reside in New England. One of them says: "I will continue to reside in New England. It is true, that my rent, and fuel, and bread, are dear: but my merchandise is

5 [col. 2]

cheap, because it is subjected to so light a charge of transportation; and, ere long, the postage on letters, through every part of railroad-laced New England, will be very small." The other brother says: "I will remove to Nebraska. It is true, that a home, in a new country, has its disadvantages and trials. But land and fuel are cheap there; and my bread there will soon be cheap, because I shall soon grow it. As to merchandise too - who knows but Government will, ere long, be so consistent with itself, as to carry that, as well as letters, all over the country? and at the same charge for all distances; short or long?" Now, would it be right for Government to realize this anticipation of the Nebraska brother, and to turn carrier of merchandise, as well as letters? and on such absurd terms, too? No - all admit, that it would be wrong, very wrong, very oppressive. It is worth, say, ten cents, to carry a barrel of rice from Baltimore to Washington; fifty cents from Baltimore to Pittsburgh; one dollar from Baltimore to Chicago; and three dollars from Baltimore to Nebraska. Now, it would be bad enough for Government to monopolize the carrying of rice; but, far worse, to have only one price - a mean or average price; and to charge, say, one dollar for carrying the barrel to Washington and Pittsburgh, as well as to Chicago, and only one dollar for carrying it to Nebraska. Such a bringing of prices to one level would be oppressive to the people of Pittsburgh; far more so to the people of Washington; and it would be doing a favor to the people of Nebraska, at the expense of all equity and justice. And, yet, if Government requires the Nebraska brother to pay no higher rates of postage on Nebraska letters than it requires the New England brother to pay on New England letters, why, in the name of consistency, should it not make the transportation of other property as cheap to the Nebraska as to the New England brother? Can any tell me, why?

Is it said, that the Nebraska brother should be favored, because he has to encounter the hardships of making a home in the wilderness? I anticipated and replied to this objection, in my reference to the advantages, as well as disadvantages, of such a home; and in my reference to the disadvantages, as well as advantages, of a home in a long-settled section of the country. Moreover, it was because he saw, that the disadvantages of his new home would be overbalanced by its advantages, that he concluded to emigrate. Hence, he is not an object for partiality to expend itself upon - certainly, not for the partiality of Government. Government is to be impartial, always, and with all. Government has no gifts to make - even to the most needy: no favors to show - even to the most deserving. I do not deny, that help is often due from the rich and densely-peopled East to the poor and thinly peopled West. But it is not due from Government. It is due from men to their fellow-men and is to be paid, without the intervention of Government. The deep sense of such obligation has been already expressed in the bestowment of millions upon schools and churches.

I would add, under this head, that it is far from certain, that, were the carrying of the mails left

6 [col. 1]

to private enterprise, the people of our new settlements would have to pay higher rates of postage, than they will have to pay, if Government continues to be the mail-carrier. For, first, if we are to continue to have so unfit, and so expensive a carrier of the mail, the rates of postage must necessarily be increased, and greatly increased. Second, the constantly and rapidly swelling deficit in the Post Office Department is already so great, as to make it necessary to refuse to establish post offices, which will not, in all probability, be self-supporting. Third, if the delivery of a letter, mailed to, or from, our most inaccessible settlements, should cost so unsuitable a carrier, as Government, twenty cents, it, nevertheless, would not cost a suitable carrier ten cents.

There is another objection to my argument against uniform rates of postage. It is, that such uniformity operates as much in favor of the densely-peopled East, as of the sparsely-peopled West; - as much, for instance, in favor of the New England as the Nebraska brother. It will be said, that if the Nebraska brother pays but three cents on the letter he receives from his New England brother, the New England brother, in turn, has to pay but three cents on the letter he receives from his Nebraska brother. It is true, that if his only correspondence were with his Nebraska brother, the New England brother would not be so much wronged by uniform rates of postage. But, as a general thing, more than three-fourths of the correspondence of a New England man is with persons of New England: and, hence, the charges on the great mass of his letters should be regulated, not by what it may cost to carry letters through the wilderness, and upon the bad roads of Nebraska, but upon the good roads of cultivated New England.

Is it honest to compel one man to pay another man's postage? Is it honest to compel one State to pay another State's postage? The Northern States do, to a great extent, pay the postage of the Southern States. Slavery is said to be the cause of this wrong. I am aware that slavery is fruitful of wrong. Perhaps, this is one of them. I will pass no opinion on this point, just now. I will leave each one to make up his own opinion upon it, in the light of the facts of the case. Indeed, there is an especial reason why it does not become me to be finding fault with slavery. For, if we may believe the newspapers, (and we all know, that newspaper is only another name for truth,) I am now a pro-slavery man. My going to bed, as calm as usual, that night, when the final vote on the Nebraska bill was to be staved off by a ceaseless round of cunningly-devised yeas and nays, was fatal to all my Abolition fame. My former honors are now worn by others - by others, who kept awake for liberty, during all the long and weary hours of that memorable night. Surely, surely, if I have, as the newspapers say, become "a good national," and am on the eve of embarking in "the purchase of negroes," I ought to be chary of my words against slavery. [Laughter.] Very unseemly, very unnatural, would it be for a young convert to speak reproachfully of the idol of his new faith. But, to return from this digression. I was saying, that the Northern States

6 [col. 2]

have to pay much of the postage of the Southern. While, in the free portion of the nation, the postage exceeds the expenditure, in the slave portion the expenditure exceeds the postage; and that, too, by the great sum of $1,311,907.*

Most heartily Mr. Chairman, do I rejoice, that our post office ship has run ashore. As my amendment shows, I am willing to have it so far patched up, that it may be kept at sea a couple of years longer, whilst other and fit craft is made ready to take its place. After that, let the poor broken thing be left to lie on shore - a wreck to

Deficiency, $1,311, 907.

Uncertain whether to be free or slave.

New Mexico	$517	$19,925
Utah	955	3,633
Nebraska	---	237
	$1,472	$23,795

Deficiency, $22,323.

Total of deficiency in Post Office Department, for year ending June 30, 1853, aside from ocean mail service, $1,273,562.

7 [col. 1]

admonish the people, so long as it shall lie rotting there, of the folly of permitting Government to be the carrier of their letters and papers. Now is the time for the people to determine to take into their own bands their own work of carrying their own letters and papers. Am I asked, how - by what means - the people can do this work? I answer, that is none of our business. It is no more our business - the business of Government to make this inquiry, than it would be to inquire, how the people could build their roads and canals, and manage their schools and churches, without the intervention of Government. Government is to leave the people to do their own work, in their own way - be that way the best or the worst. That the people's way for carrying their own letters and papers would, however good or bad, be far better than the way, in which meddling, usurping Government has done it, there is not the least reason to doubt.

Perhaps, I shall be told, that the people will not consent to pay, in any cases, higher rates of postage than they now pay - no, not even if they are recompensed fourfold for it by less rates of postage in the great majority of cases. Perhaps, I shall be told, that, rather than have the rates of postage different for different distances, or for any other cause, the people will prefer to have the Government continue to be the mail-carrier, and that, too, even though the Post Office Department shall continue to sink deeper and deeper in debt. But the people are not so blind to their own interests, as not to see, that the losses of the Post Office Department are the losses of the Treasury; and that the losses of the Treasury are the losses of themselves. Nor are the people so perverse and suicidal as to array themselves, deliberately and perseveringly, against their known interests.

Thrice welcome to my whole heart would be the breaking up of the Post Office Department! Not merely, however, nor even mainly, however, because I desire a reform in the Government, at that point. It is true, that I do deeply desire this particular reform, for its own sake. Nevertheless, my deep desire for it is chiefly because it would lead the way to numerous wise, and wide, and radical reforms in the theories and practices of civil government: and, thereby, do much toward bringing forward the day, when civil government shall be confined to its sole, legitimate province of protecting persons and property.

The Post Office Department broken up - and there would, then, be no franking privilege. In this wise, the people would be saved much more than a million of dollars a year. According to some estimates, more than even two millions, a year. It may be well for me to say here, that, even were the mail taken out of the hands of Government, I would still be willing to have Government go to the expense of sending a limited amount of printed matter, at the hands of members of Congress. Of course, it could not, in that event, be done in the way suggested at the beginning of my remarks. But what the franking privilege costs would not be the whole amount, that the people would save by the breaking up of the Post Office Department. Including what was paid to ocean mail steamers, the Post Office

7 [col. 2]

Department cost the people, for the year ending last June, nearly $3,000,000. The cost, for the year ending the present June, will exceed the sum of $3,500,000; and it is estimated, that the Post Office Department will, in the year ending next June, load the people with the loss of $4,000,000. Will the people be patient under these enormous, and rapidly increasing, losses? They will not be. And they will not be patient with the present Congress, if we do not, and that, too, before the close of the present session, provide for the speedy termination of these losses.

To protect myself from misapprehension, I would disclaim all imputation of mismanagement in the Post Office Department. I presume, that it is as well managed, at the present time, as it ever was. I believe, that they, who have the control of it, are upright and able men. But the Post Office Department is itself a wrong: - and, therefore, every administration of it must, necessarily, be a wrong - because every administration of it, however able or well-intended, must partake of the inherent wrong of that, which is administered.

Again, the Post Office Department broken up - and there would be no more making of books by Government. In this wise, too, the people would be relieved of another great tax. There is no danger, that there will not be books enough. There will still be enough books made, even if Government should make none. Let Government throw open the Patent Office, and the Coast Survey Office, and other offices, to persons, who collect materials for book-making; and such books, as Government, now, loads the mail with, and scatters among those, who do not, one in three, read them, will be published at half to three-fourths of the expense, at which they are now published: and, moreover, they will get into the hands of those, who will read them - for, it may may be presumed, that they, who go to the expense of buying their books, will read them.

But the saving of money to the people by the breaking up of the Post Office Department will be of little account, compared with the saving, by that means, of both Government and people from no small amount of corruption. There are more than twenty-three thousand post offices. The postmasters, their deputies and clerks, must altogether number more than fifty thousand. It is, of course, expected, that they shall all wear the livery of the Administration; and, alas, too large a share of them feel themselves irresistibly tempted to fulfil the expectation! Then, connect with this patronage the negotiations for mail contracts, and all the powers and influences incidental to the Post Office Department, and it will be strange, indeed - nay, inexpressibly honorable to human nature - if an immense and ever-swelling tide of corruption should not attend upon the organization and operations of that Department.

But, it will be said, that the individuals and associations, that would take the place of Government, in carrying the mail, would be as corrupt and corrupting in the work, as Government is. Admit, that they would be as corrupt - nevertheless they could not be as corrupting. The corrupting power of individuals and associations

8 [col. 1]

is as nothing, compared with that of Government. For, whilst Government remains pure, it will be both disposed and able to control guilty individuals and associations. But when Government itself has yielded to corruption, the restraining barriers are broken down, and all is in danger of being lost.

I must close. I have not said all, that I intended to say. But, as the remainder of our session may be very short, so we must make our speeches short. If this Congress would do a better thing than any Congress has ever done, let it declare, that the Post Office Department shall, at the end of two years, cease to exist; and shall then give place to such machinery, as the people shall select and employ; and to as perfect freedom, on the part of the people, to carry their letters in what way they will, as they now exercise in carrying their beef, and pork, and flour, and themselves.

What I have said is in harmony, with the amendment, which I sent to the Clerk's desk. I cannot be ignorant, that many, who hear me, will believe, that my amendment will be unpopular in some quarters, especially in the new and scantily peopled portions of the country. But I am, yet, to be convinced, that it will be unpopular, even there. I am, yet, to be convinced, that so just and wise a measure, as the abolition of

8 [col. 2]

the Post Office Department, will work loss to any portion of the country. A monopoly in the hands of a Democratic Government! - copied, in the ignorant infancy of that Government, from monarchy and despotism! at war with the whole genius and framework of that Government! - tell it not, that any section, or any worthy interests, of our people can be injured by the abolition of a so entirely misplaced usurpation!

I will admit, however, for the sake of the argument, that my proposition is unpopular. Happily for me, I have no popularity to jeopard. I belong, as I said, in this place, a few months ago, to a solitary party; or, if the honorable gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] will permit me to say so, to that dual party, composed of himself and myself. [Laughter.] But, though I have no popularity to jeopard, nevertheless, many, who hear me, have. I hope, however, that they will not allow themselves to be trammeled by it, on this occasion. I hope, that they will remember, that justice is more important than popularity, and that he, who honors the demands of justice, will acquire an increasing and enduring respect, which is infinitely more valuable than any popularity, and, especially, than that vulgar and mushroom popularity, which is the poor pay for trampling on justice.