Postal Riders and Raiders. W. H. Gantz
and encourage and promote the circulation of the public press rather than repress and curtail it. Its obstructive course has been pursued too long, having no basis in justice, business foresight, or common sense.
Let there be a realization and an awakening!
IN MEMORIAM.
During the last fiscal postal year the death list of publications footed up to 4,229. Of these, 504 died a-bornin, that is, were denied entry; the others—3,725—were papers that had been established.
In the decade from 1901 to 1910, inclusive, 11,563 publications were strangled at birth (denied entry), and of established papers that died there were 32,060.
How many of these were forced to give up the struggle for existence on account of the hard conditions imposed by the government, we have no means of knowing. It is not found in the annual reports. It is beyond question that with sample copies cut off and necessary credit for subscriptions forbidden, no publishers without large cash capital to draw from can start and keep going in competition with old established papers.
Why at this time, when the people are trying to get rid of monopoly, the government should thus build one up, is hard to comprehend.
We are informed that the rule in regard to expired subscriptions “has met with strong approval and continues to grow in favor with publishers and the public generally.” This statement is made by the newly installed Third Assistant Postmaster General, but it is a delusion which Mr. Britt has unfortunately inherited from his predecessor. It may be true as to those benefited by the monopoly, but not as to those who have been put down and out. “Dead men tell no tales.”
I had intended to omit that “In Memoriam.” Then I carefully read it over. The appalling slaughter of the “innocents” which it exposes was so new to me, news of such a tragic nature in the domain of periodical publishing, that I then and there changed my mind. I am of the opinion that the news conveyed in its five brief paragraphs will be as new and as surprising to most of my readers as it was to me. Think of 42,623 publications put out of business in ten years? Of 4,229 sent to the commercial—in most instances, probably, to the financial—junk pile in one year—last year? Then think of the causes this conscientious writer holds chargeable for a large share of the slaughter!
ATTEMPT TO BREACH THE CONSTITUTION.
We will now revert to the bold attempt made in presenting that rider amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill to breach the federal constitution, following which we will take up some of Mr. Hitchcock’s efforts to show how much or how little he knows about the business of publishing and distributing magazines and other periodical literature.
First let us inquire if Mr. Hitchcock and the coterie backing that Senate “rider” knew that, under the Constitution, all measures for raising federal revenue must originate in the Lower House of Congress? One scarcely dares conclude they were so densely ignorant as that. Then, was theirs a deliberate, calculated attempt to breach the constitutional prerogatives and rights of the Lower House? Did they figure upon putting through that vicious rider in the congested closing hours of Congress? I call them the crooked hours of Congress. Did those backers of that rider hope that Senators and Congressmen would overlook or fail to read that rider, hope that so many would be so fully occupied by the swan-song chorus being sung during those closing hours that they would not notice that “rider” jumping the constitutional hurdles?
Now, if either one of the last assigned reasons is valid, a word stronger than “ignorance” should apply to such tricky, treacherous action, whether it is practiced by Senators, Congressmen, cabinet chiefs or chiefs higher up. One greatly dislikes to apply a fitting term to such ulterior motives as lead high and respected public officials to breach the constitution by trickery about on a level with that of the sneak thief or with that of a “con” man who thinks he has done his full duty by the people when he has sold Reuben the painted brick. But how could Mr. Hitchcock and those Senators co-operating with him be ignorant of the plain letter of the law and supported by a long line of precedents in both the Senate and the House?
As to the Senate precedents for the House’s right to originate all measures for the raising of revenues, Mr. Henry H. Gilfry, Chief Clerk of the Senate, compiled in 1871 a work entitled “Decisions on Points of Order with Phraseology in the United States Senate.” Mr. Gilfry cites the attempt of the Senate to repeal the income tax. The House returned the bill to the Senate with a reminder that the Constitution “vests in the House of Representatives the sole power to originate such measures.” Mr. Gilfry cites many other precedents.
In 1905 the Senate tried to originate revenues by amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill. That amendment was very similar to the “rider” of Mr. Hitchcock. I will here reprint it:
“That hereafter the rate of postage on packages of books or merchandise mailed at the distributing postoffice of any rural free delivery to a patron on said route shall be three cents for each pound or any fraction thereof. This rate shall apply only to packages deposited at the local postoffice for delivery to patrons on routes emanating from that office, or collected by rural carriers for delivery to the office from which the route emanates, and not to mail transmitted from one office to another, and shall not apply to packages exceeding 5 pounds in weight.”
The House brought that measure to conference and flatly refused to recognize the power of the Senate in the premises. The Senate receded and the amendment was killed.
“Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives” is a recognized authority. In Chapter XLII, Vol. 2, under the caption, “Prerogatives of the House as to Revenue Legislation,” Mr. Hinds cites many instances in which the House had invariably insisted upon the exclusive exercise of its rights as defined in Section 7, Article 1, of the Constitution.
Mr. Hinds cites in all one hundred and twenty-five precedents, each of which raises the same point of order as was raised in debating Mr. Hitchcock’s late “rider” and on each of which the House maintained its right to originate all bills for raising revenues.
In view of the fact that some of Mr. Hitchcock’s supporters were men of experience, skilled parliamentarians, in view of the fact that some of them were trained lawyers, and in view of the further fact that the works both of Mr. Hinds and of Mr. Gilfry are on file in the reference libraries of the Senate and House and probably in most of the departments, how, I ask, in view of the above facts, can either Mr. Hitchcock or any of his supporters enter a valid plea of ignorance of the fact that their attempt to put over that rider was contravening the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the House?
No, they were not ignorant. In my judgment, as based upon the reports which have reached me, that “rider” was a deliberate frame-up and its architects were a few conspirators who sought by means of that rider either to put certain periodicals out of business or force them to print what they were told to publish.
Possibly I may be in error as to this, but the careful observation of the best informed and most experienced correspondents on the Washington assignment, as well as a number of Senators and Congressmen, have, in reports made, supplied ample evidence to warrant my statement to the effect that there was a collusive understanding among a few people to present that “rider” in the closing hours of the session with the hope that in the rush of affairs it might escape notice and go through. And that hope was born of an ulterior purpose to get even with some monthly and weekly publications—publications of independent thought and voice and which have for several years been telling the truth about certain Senators and Congressmen. These independent periodicals have also been telling a rapidly growing multitude of eager readers the cold, unvarnished facts about some corporations and corporate interests which, it is generally believed and openly charged, are represented in federal legislation and in cabinet and other official circles in Washington by several of the very men who were so actively supporting Mr. Hitchcock in pushing his “rider” over the legislative