FEBRUARY, 1906]

OUR MONTHLY TALK.

An Honest and Modest Patriot.

I have, for several days past, been watching with concern the reports from the sick bed of Marshall Field, the great Chicago merchant, ill with pneumonia in New York City; and I was very sorry to learn that he died yesterday afternoon (January 16). The reason that I was specially interested in the health and welfare of this man is that he was the only multimillionaire, in this greatest country of multimillionaires, who made a report of his property for taxation at all commensurate with his real holdings. It is a proud distinction, in this country of tax-dodging multimillionaires, to be a multimillionaire with an honest tax return; and Marshall Field deserved that distinction; and I have held him in high esteem and admiration ever since I knew it. Several months ago I tried, thru correspondence, to get the facts from the tax authorities in Chicago, in order to write the matter up for a "Talk," under some such head as, "A Multimillionaire Who Pays Just and Honest Taxes;" but the Chicago authorities naturally felt a delicacy about giving out the details of Mr. Field's assessment for publication, and from this distance I had not yet succeeded in getting the facts upon which to base comment. Now that he is dead, any indelicacy in giving such facts to the public is removed, and I quote from this morning's Philadelphia Ledger:

Altho there are larger estates in the country, Mr. Field was in 1905 the largest individual taxpayer in the United States. He paid more than $500,000 in Cook County taxes alone. He paid taxes on $40,000,000 worth of Chicago property, of which $30,000,000 was in real estate.

I understand that he never sought reduction of assessments, and never was guilty of tax evasion. It is a pity that there is occasion to make special mention of such a matter as this, but tax dishonesty among multimillionaires is so universal that this case of honesty in that respect seems to stand entirely alone; so the difference makes it necessary for us to either crown Mr. Field as a specially honest and patriotic citizen, or condemn the rest of our multimillionaires as dishonest and unpatriotic. Which shall we do? There are thousands of citizens not blessed with millions who pay honest taxes; but, unless many millions come to a particularly dishonest set, it seems that the accumulation of many millions breeds a canker or dry rot in the nerve center where honesty in located. One would think that the richer a man is, the more able he should be to pay his taxes, and the more willing he should be to pay his taxes; but it doesn't seem to work out that way in actual life. The assessments of our multimillionaires are ridicuously small. For example, Russell Sage, worth from 25 to 50 millions, and who recently loaned nearly $20,000,000 to take advantage of the exceedingly high rates of interest then current (nearly 100%), has applied for a reduction of assessment, the New York City assessor having placed his assessment at $2,000,000!

77

multimillionaires in another respect: He won his great wealth in the open field of competition, without special advantage granted by law. Most of the other great fortunes of this country were won thru or by means of railroads, street car lines, gas companies, water companies, financial corporations, as banks, trust companies, etc., industrial corporations, including the trusts, etc., all enjoying more or less monopoly and advantage by the favor of the law; Andrew Carnegie's millions were won under the protecting wing of a high tariff; it is well known how the railroads built up Standard Oil and tore down its competitors. Mr. Field was a merchant, in the open field of competition, where energy, judgment and enterprise had to be depended upon. His guiding principles were as follows: Never speculate.

Never borrow, nor mortgage property.

Buy for cash, and sell on short time and narrow margins.

Sell same grade of goods at less prices than competitors.

Hold customers to a strict meeting of their obligations.

It is a pity that we have lost a man who had qualities that brought him many millions without unfair advantages over his contemporaries and competitors, and who was honest enuf to pay just taxes on his great wealth. However, I hope his death will inspire other multimillionaires to also pay honest and just taxes, or inspire our people to compel multimillionaires to do so.

Express Companies and the People.

I intended to "talk" a little on our domination by express companies-that is, how the express companies prevent us from extending and modernizing our postal service as the postal service of other countries has been extended and modernized. But, opportunely, a letter came to me from Mr. James L. Cowles, Secretary of the Postal Progress League, inclosing a circular, which presents important facts on the subject, so I will draw largely on Mr. Cowles' circular instead of "talking" much myself. In the first place, let us look at the following facts and compare them: In the United States, a postal package is limited to 4 lbs. weight, and the cost (if not printed matter) is one cent per oz.-16 cents per pound; hence 32 cents for a 2 lb. package, 48 cents for 3 lbs., and 64 cents for 4 lbs.

Keep this in mind while we look at the following:

Great Britain: Weight limit, eleven pounds. One pound, 6 cents; two pounds, 8 cents; three pounds, 10 cents; four pounds, 12 cents; eleven pounds, 24 cents. Rates insure to $5; 4 cents registry fee insures to $25.

France: Seven-pound parcels, 12 cents; elevenpound parcel, 16 cents; twenty-two pound parcel, 25 cents.

Germany, including Austria-Hungary: Eleven pounds up to 46 miles, 6 cents; greater distances,

THE UNITED STATES PARCELS POST.

IN 1874, THE BEST; IN 1906, AMONG THE POOREST IN THE WORLD.-UNITED STATES PARCELS POST TAX IN 1906 100 PERCENT HIGHER THAN IN 1874.

In 1872 the United States Parcels Post-third-class matter-was extended to twelve-ounce parcels of general merchandise and four-pound parcels of books at the common rate, 1 cent for each two ounces. In 1874 the weight limit of all matter handled by the United States Parcels Post was fixed at four pounds, with the common rate of 1872, 1 cent per each two ounces-ONE-HALF THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE RATE OF TO. DAY.

The year 1874 saw the highest culmination of the United States Parcels Post. In 1875 the substitution of the word "ounce" for the phrase "two ounces" in the law determining the parcels rate, increast the parcels post tax 100 percent, from 8 to 16 cents per pound.

An amendment to the postal appropriation bill of July 12, 1876, relieved the powerful publishing interests from the 100 percent increase in the tax on their merchandise -books, etc.-by reducing the rate on book parcels to that of 1872 and 1874.

The Congress of 1879 found third-class matter divided into books, circulars, etc., taxed 1 cent per each two ounces and "general merchandise" taxed 100 percent higher, with so little difference in character, however, in many cases, as to make it practically impossible to determin which tax should be applied. A reversion to the old law of 1874, with its common rate-1 cent per each two ounces-would have solved this difficulty with benefit to the public and the Post-office, but not to the satisfaction of the express companies. Congress, therefore, confirmed the then existing confusion by styling books, etc., third-class matter and other kinds of merchandise, fourth-class matter. This, however, left the seedsmen and farmers subject to a 100 percent increase on seeds, scions, bulbs, etc., over the old law of 1872 and 1874, and seedsmen and farmers have votes. It therefore happened that in 1888 scions, seeds, bulbs, etc., were given the old third-class rate, in cases where they were not intended for use as food.

And this is the condition of things to which the voters of the United States have been subjected for the last seventeen years:

Last winter Congressman Henry, of Connecticut, at our request, introduced a bill, H. R. 15,983, to put an end to these absurdities:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativs of the United States of America, in Congress assembled:

"SECTION 1. That the third and fourth classes of mail matter be and are hereby consolidated under the title of 'Merchandise' at the third-class rate, I cent per each two ounces. "SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect immediately upon the approval thereof."

This proposition was so simple, the arguments persistently repeated by the Post-office Department in its favor were so unanswerable, the benefits that would accrue at once to the Post-office and the public from its enactment into law were so evident that it seemed as if it must be taken up at once and passed without debate. It was referred, however, to the House Postal Committee, and there it remained. Several of the Committee favored the measure, but they said that the majority were so opposed to it or to any proposition for an improvement of the merchandise post that it would be very difficult to get a hearing on the bill; its enactment into law during that session of Congress would be an impossibility. Their prophecy proved correct.

Finally, despairing of any action by the House of Representativs, we turned to the Senate, and a little later Senator Crane, of Massachusetts, wrote us that the Senate Postal Committee had agreed to an amendment of the Postal Appropriation Bill covering our proposition. When the bill came before the Senate, however, Senator Crane's amendment was rejected on the ground that it was a revenue measure that ought to have been introduced in the House.

On the 6th of December, 1905, Mr. Henry re-introduced our bill as H. R. 4549 of the Fifty-ninth Congress, endorsed on this occasion not only by the Postoffice Department, but also by the legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, and by the lower houses of New York and New Jersey, thru resolutions requesting their respectiv representativs in Congress to use every effort to secure the immediate enactment of this proposition into law.

At the hearing on the resolution, endorsing the consolidation of the Book Parcels Post and the General Parcels Post-third and fourth-class matter-before the Committee on Federal Relations of the Massachusetts Legislature, one of the manufacturing jewelers of Salem, Mass., testified that the proposed reduction of the general merchandise rate to the book rate would be worth to his firm alone $10,000 a year.

Postmaster-General Cortelyou urgently recommends the proposed consolidation of our double-headed parcels post, saying that the reduced rate on four-pound parcels of general merchandise "would afford a great opportunity for distributing light packages to a multitude of places not reached by express companies and at a charge sufficient to reimburse the government for actual cost of carriage."

I believe I am safe in the statement that the United States was the first of modern nations to establish a parcels post. In any case, our four-pound parcels service of 1874 preceded the establishment of the International Parcels Post Union and of the French domestic Parcels Post by six years, and of the English Parcels Post by nine years.

Mr. Cowles writes me: "I think that if our friends will help us this winter we may at least succeed in securing the consolidation of the third and fourth classes of mail matter" (as per the Henry bill above mentioned-restoring the law of 1874). But this will not be done this winter, nor at any other time, if the express companies can help it, and I guess they can-they always have. I suggest that you clip this portion of the "Talk" and send it to your Congressman or U. S. Senator, and ask him if he is in the service of the express companies or the people.

That railroad book which Prof. Parsons and I have been working on so long, is now partly in type. I will here present a few paragraphs from chapter 9, which is entitled "The Railways and the Postal Service." In order to present here only small and scattered portions of the excellent matter which Prof. Parsons has prepared, I will again have to use the smallest type, but you can have younger eyes read it to you, if necessary:

The census of 1890 affords the means of a very broad and instructiv comparison. From that census we learn that the express companies paid the railways $19,327,000 for carrying 3,292,000,000 pounds of express matter, or 6-10 of a cent a pound. The same year PostmasterGeneral Wanamaker reported the weight of the mails, paid and free, to be 365,368,417 pounds, or one-ninth of the express weight, and by no means all of this was carried by the railways, yet they received $22,102,000 for less than a tenth of the weight the railways hauled for the express companies for several millions less money. The rate per pound on mail was fully ten times the rate per pound on express. The average haul for express is estimated at 25 to 50 percent less than for mail. So that the ton-mile rate for mails appears to have been at least five times as much as for express, according to the data of the census and the PostmasterGeneral. Since 1890 the express companies have carefully refrained from allowing the census people or any

For ton-mile.

carrying commutation passengers, 6 cents per For carrying dairy freight (as low as) 1 cent per tonmile.

For carrying ordinary freight in 1. c. 1., 2 cents per ton-mile.

For carrying imported goods, N. O. to S. F., .8 of a cent per ton-mile.

For carrying average of all freight, .78 of a cent per ton-mile.

The mail rate ought not to be higher than the railway rates on express or excess baggage, and should probably be lower than the average excess baggage rate. It is a sure traffic, steady, homogeneous, easily handled, and admits of economy from every point of view. It does not entail any such expenses for storage, loading, and unloading, etc., as pertain to baggage. Station expenses are eliminated. There is practically nothing but the cost of haulage. Wellington, our highest authority in railway economics, says that only 70 percent of railway expense is due to transportation. On this basis the railway mail rate would be about 1-3 less than that charged for excess baggage, or about 4 cents per tonmile instead of 12.

The ex

The total pay received by the railways from the government on account of the mail was $44,499,732 for the year ending June 30, 1904. A part of the mail pay, out of a total expenditure of $152,362,116, viz., $5,368,000, was paid as rentals for postal cars in addition to excessiv rates for the mail carried in the cars. press companies do not pay rentals for use of express cars neither does the government pay for the use of postal apartments. There is no reason why it should pay rental for postal cars. The whole of this $5,368,000 therefore should be cut out. As the remaining $39,000,000 is paid on the basis of a rate at least two or three times greater than that received by the railways for the carriage of express, it is clear that the total railway mail pay should not exceed $20,000,000, and probably should be less than $14,000,000 a year. If we base our estimate on a comparison with first-class freight or dairy freight, or take the Canadian principle and compare the mail with the less expensiv freight, we should arrive at a much lower total payment. It is doubtful, however, whether the Canadian suggestion is fair, for the mails are carried on passenger trains and do not come as a rule in carload lots. There can be no doubt, however, that it is fair to compare the mails with the carriage of express and excess baggage on the same trains, and this comparison would indicate as we have seen, that at most the total railway mail pay should not exceed $20,000,000.

The excess of $24,000,000 or more which the government now pays the railways for carriage of the mails is much more than sufficient to account for the postal deficit. For 1904 the Postmaster-General reported the deficit as $8,812,769. The year before it was $4,586,977.

In other countries the obligation of the railways in consideration of their franchises, etc., and the principle of public utility are fully recognized and acted upon. In France the railways carry the mails free, with the single exception that where the government runs a postal car of its own the railway receives 2 centimes per kilometer, or about 1 cent per car-mile, which is so near nothing that the railway officials, when I questioned them about the mails, usually made the broad statement that the government pays nothing for the railway carriage of the mails, and it took a cross-examination to bring out the fact of the 2 centimes special charge in case of government postal cars. The free carriage of the mails by the railways is a part consideration for their franchises.

In Switzerland, where the roads were in private hands, the Minister of the Railways, in answer to my question, said: "On the great railways the government pays nothing for the mails; their concessions require them to carry the mails free. On the small lines, if the dividends fall below 3% percent the government pays the fair cost of carrying the mails; when the road attains 32 percent it must carry the mails free." This is the law relating to private railways.

In Germany the mails go free on the railways up to one car per train. If a second postal car is needed on any train, the government pays 5 pfennig per axlekilometer, or 10 pfennig if the car belongs to the railway. There are usually two axles per car, sometimes three, so that the outside charge is 8 to 12 cents per car mile, and this only for extra mail cars. The great bulk of the mail goes free, and the excess beyond one car per train pays merely the actual cost of haulage. This law applies to both public and private roads, and was in force long before the government took over the leading railways.

In Austria it is provided in the railway concessions that the letter post shall be carried free, and that all mail shall be free up to one car per train. Beyond this the railway receives 18 heller per axle, or 10 to 15 cents per car-mile, which is intended to cover the cost of transportation of the excess beyond one car per train. This is the law in respect to the Nordwest, one of the principal private systems of Austria, and is a fair example of the policy of the country in respect to railway carriage of the mail; the theory being that the roads should carry the mail as part return for the franchises given them by the state.

In Italy again the Minister of Railways told me that the government paid nothing for the railway carriage of the mails. It was so provided in the railway con

tracts.

In Belgium a similar policy prevails, and even in England, where the House of Commons is crowded with railway directors and others more or less under railway influence even in England with the post-office carrying a large part of the parcels that go by express in this country-even in England the postal payment to the railways is only about one-ninth of the total expenditure, instead of one-quarter to one-third as in the United States.

Thus we see that in countries where the railways are owned by the government or where the government control over private railways is strong, the mails are carried at cost or below cost, while in the United States, where the government does not exert any real control over the railways, but they rather exert a real control over the government, the post-office pays the railways several times the fair price for the carriage of the mails.

Where public interest dominates private interest, low rates are made for the transportation- of the mails. But in the United States, where the government has been most lavish in gifts of land, money, and privileges to the railways, where a large part of the privately owned capitalization of the railways has come directly out of the public treasury and the public domain, the railways charge for hauling the mails, not cost, but a fancy price that cripples and curtails the postal service.

If the relation of the government to the railways were simply that of a voluminous private shipper, such as one of the great express companies, the railroads would openly, honestly and gladly give it rates not exceeding half and probably not over one-third of the rates that are being paid, thereby saving the post-office twenty or twenty-five millions a year. As the creator of the railways, the grantor of over half their values, and the representativ, in its postal department, of one of the highest interests of civilization, the government is entitled to much better terms than any mere commercial shipper, and yet, instead of better terms, it pays for higher charges than large private shippers.

In this connection, my attention was attracted to the following, in this morning's Ledger: ROOSEVELT MAY RUN AGAIN, DECLARES RIIS. PRESIDENT'S FRIEND TELLS OF POSSIBLE ACTION. FIGHTING FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

WANTS TO SEE HIS WAR AGAINST THE MONEY POWER BROUGHT TO A CONCLUSION. WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.-The interview of Jacob Riis, publisht in the New York Herald, caused comment at the Capitol. In the interview Mr. Riis said:

"If duty demanded Roosevelt to continue this fight, he would do it. I know he does not want to become a candidate for another term, but at the bottom of his heart he believes in the people and will fight for them."

This war, Mr. Riis says, may last three, five and even ten years before the people are victorious. It will wipe out partisanship in parties-the first indications of which, says Mr. Riis, will be seen at the congressional elections to be held in 1906. Continuing, Mr. Riis said: "We have had three great struggles in this country. The first was led by Washington, the second by Lincoln, the third-oh, this is the greatest struggle of them all! It is the fight against the money power, the organized privilege grabbers. And Roosevelt will lead the people to victory in this struggle.

FIGHTING A TYRANT.

"Roosevelt is fighting the greatest tyrant of them all. Slavery affected only the South, but the money power means the enslavement of all human beings and all homes. The product of human hands is controled by this power, and this means slavery of the entire human

race.

"When it comes to a question of righteousness and unrighteousness you know where the President stands."

This was said apropos of the suggestion that party lines would be wiped out in this fight.

"Outwardly party lines will be maintained, but it would not surprise me to see partisanship disregarded entirely," replied Mr. Riis.

"I don't say that all people who differ from Roosevelt are crooks," he added, in a thoughtful manner. "People who honestly differ from the President will agree with him in the end, but all the crooks differ with Roosevelt all the time.

"Just now these crooks are trying to discredit the President. But they will find they are making a losing fight. Why, you have seen it here in your own statecorporations have elected and controled your legislature for their own selfish ends. It is so in other parts of the country. The people are learning these things, and they are rising in their might to overthrow them as they did in Ohio.'

COMMENT IN CONGRESS.

At the Capitol it was said that discussion of the possibility of another term for President Roosevelt will undoubtedly attract profound attention in congressional and political circles, the more so if predicated upon the assumption that the President's change of heart is based upon possible failure of Congress to do its duty as the President sees it.

It was recalled at the Capitol that the unqualified and unequivocal declaration of the President, made a year ago last November, election night, that he would not accept another nomination, contained no suggestion of a possible future reconsideration of his resolve on any ground.

True, Roosevelt is the "strong man" at present, and he has opposed and is opposing the depredations of the corporation power and money power as no previous president has done;

but, just think of this: If the people had the right to vote directly upon the question of proper pay to railroads for hauling the mails, do you think it would require a "strong man" in the presidential chair to bring the rate down to a reasonable figure? If Congress will not take hold of plain questions of justice, like this, and do its duty toward the people, why shouldn't the people have the right, the power, and the way, to do it for themselves? In Switzerland, the people could and would see to a matter of this kind if the government didn't do it. There they have the Initiativ and the Referendum.

The name of Tom Watson's magazine will be changed to simply "Watson's Magazine." And the price will be advanced from $1 to $1.50 per year; but subscriptions either new or renewal will be received at the old price, $1, up to March 31, 1906. You will find this to be a good investment of $1. Many people do not appreciate the good periodical literature now being offered to the people of this country; it is worth many, many times its price. Particularly is this true of magazines dealing with public questions in favor of the people and opposed to corporations and privileged interests. Such a magazine is "Watson's Magazine." Address 121 West 42d St., New York City. Doctors, whose interests are the same as the interests of the masses of the people, would do well to read and help to extend the circulation of this magazine.

What do you eat for breakfast? "Ye Editor's" breakfast is egg-o-see, fruit and cream. This was his breakfast before he ever thought that these Egg-o-see would ever be advertised in pages. We have received a beautiful and interesting book entitled "Back to Nature" from the Egg-o-see people. They have just written us that they will send this book to any doctor who requests it. It contains many good points on dietetics, instructions for gymnastics (with illustrations), recipes for delicate and healthful dishes, etc. It is a good book for the doctor's home, and also for the home of many invalids who are a bother to the doctor. After you write (a letter or postal card) for the book, and read it, perhaps they will supply extra copies for you Address to place with your invalid patients. "Egg-o-See," Quincy, Ill.