Postal Riders and Raiders. W. H. Gantz
politics and our social life. To make such a change, whatever its intentions in the minds of those who proposed it, would be to attack and embarrass the free processes of opinion.
CHAPTER IV.
BUREAUCRATIC POWERS SOUGHT.
I have before me the Postmaster General’s report for 1910. It presents a large amount of information both in statistical tabulation and in “straight matter.” A portion of the former, however, leaves the average lay mind rambling around in circles, wondering what in the name of all that is lofty it was compiled for, what service value it can possibly have and what was the ailment from which the fellow who compiled it suffered; that is, was his a case merely of bad liver or indigestion, or a serious case of ingrown intellect, struggling to help his fellowmen know how real dizzy and foolish tabulated figures can be made to appear?
Mr. Hitchcock in this 1910 report has separated himself from some striking oddities, about as serviceably valuable as a smoking compartment would be to a laundry wagon. Of course, it may be that Mr. Hitchcock did not write the division of this report signed by him. Some talented secretary, clerk or assistant may have cranked it up. However that may be, do not let what I here say deter you from looking through this 1910 report should it come your way. It contains a variety of excellent things, some valuable information, well collated and intelligibly presented. The foolishness and fooleries in it are—well, they are of the kind common to all, or at least most, departmental reports, federal, state, county and city. Much of the tabulated “statistics” in each can have no possible service value either in this world or the next—even assuming that statistics and statisticians will be recognized at all in that division of the “next” to which we all aspire.
As to the “straight matter” in these departmental reports, one often finds in it some most excellent suggestions, as is certainly the case with Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 production. One also finds a lot of other suggestions and space-written stuff that would make a totem laugh—that is, of course, presuming a totem could laugh and had advanced as far as the third grammar school grade in reading.
And the “literary style” of these official reports; so aerial in elevation, so officially dignified in “tone,” so profusely profound or profoundly profuse in elaboration and detail, and often so trivial in significance or import!
If they were still with us, the “literary” standard of most of these departmental reports would make Bertha M. Clay hug the rail and E. P. Roe carry weight. But, of course, one must not look for nor expect literary exaltedness in a departmental report. It should, however, tell us—we people—a good many things we wish to know, in fact, ought to know. It should not give us too much talk merely to show us how much—or how little—some chief or assistant knows. If you get the opportunity, read the Postmaster General’s 1910 report, and you will find many things in it that will jar you loose from your expectations, but do not be alarmed at that. Just keep in mind the fact that you can come as near reciting the Rubaiyat backwards as can Postmaster General Hitchcock, and that you at least know Old Mother Hubbard “by heart” as well as he knows it.
The point I am trying to make—to emphasize—is that Mr. Hitchcock’s 1910 report presents much valuable information for you and me. So you should not allow its follies to scare you off. For instance, the Postmaster General’s fifty notations of “Improvements in Organization and Methods.” Why he should stop at a round fifty I do not know. I believe he could easily have added twenty or thirty more of kind. Some of these “improvements” are most excellent; some of them are so assumedly conclusive on matters previously—for years—in doubt and controversy as to touch off the risibles in any man who has made anything like a careful study of conditions governing the Postoffice Department. For instance, his “Improvement” numbered 10 reads:
“The successful completion of an inquiry into the cost of handling and transporting mail of the several classes and of conducting the money order, registry and special delivery services.”
We can hope that the aforesaid “inquiry” was so carefully and comprehensively conducted as to entitle it to be classed as “successful” as Mr. Hitchcock’s statement is assertive. However, just how far we may prudently indulge such hope is a matter for grave consideration. The Postmaster General’s Third Assistant, James J. Britt, attempts to tell us (pp. 328–329, 1910 report), all about it. Mr. Britt will be referred to later.
Again: Mr. Hitchcock in his No. 11 “Improvement,” reports “the successful prosecution of an inquiry into the cost to the railroad companies of carrying the mails, the result of which will form a reliable basis for fixing rates of pay for railroad mail transportation.”
Now, if Mr. Hitchcock has really and truly so conducted an “inquiry” as to ascertain a “reliable basis” of pay for the mail haulage service rendered by the railroads—“a reliable basis” that can be built upon, acted upon and enforced—if he has done that, then he deserves a niche in the Hall of Fame. But here, again, I am doubtful. Did you take Britt’s word for it, Mr. Hitchcock, or did you steer the “inquiry” yourself? The only point of interest to us of the commonalty involved in your eleventh improvement is: Can you, or any other Postmaster General, compel or persuade the railroads to carry the mail at a reasonable rate? Will such rate be based upon that “reliable basis” you say you have ascertained?
Grant us but that and we shall ask no more nor will you have any “deficits” to worry about. I know you explain quite fully (pp. 18–20), as to how you went about it, how Congress made appropriation for a force of “temporary clerks” to tabulate the information, the data which your “successful” inquiry brought to the surface. Still, knowing something about the devious peculiarities of the railways in the past—say, back to the Wolcott investigation (at this moment I forget the year when this was made and have neither the time nor the opportunity to climb down and look it up)—unless the railways have had a rush of honesty and conscience into their reports, accounts and practices, I am gravely doubtful as to the dependability of the data your “inquiry” uncovered. Of course, if you went after them, backed by a court order calling for a showdown, Mr. Hitchcock, you may have arrived somewhere in the vicinity of the facts. Otherwise—well, you got about what other inquirers got—got what the railways wanted you to know.
I shall make no further specific reference to the fifty improvements the Postmaster General claims to have covered into operative effectiveness. It is due, however, that I say, in this connection, that the majority of those named in the report are sound, sane and serviceably economic. It is also due from me to say that I personally know that Mr. Hitchcock has already made a number of them effectively operative in his department and to the betterment of its service. My contention with the Postmaster General is chiefly concerning three points, viz.:
First—His manifest intent to throw the burden of his departmental deficit upon a few independent periodicals which, by reason of their independence, have indulged the proclivity or practice of telling the truth about corporate, vested and other favored interests, and about corrupt officials—city, county, state, national, executive, legislative and juridic.
Second—His colossally unjust and unfair way of figuring his “deficit” against such periodicals. Maybe it was Britt, Third Assistant Postmaster General, or some other “pied” subordinate who did the figuring. I do not know. However, in common with other citizens, I hold Mr. Hitchcock responsible for those figures, as we are fully warranted in doing by reason of his official position.
Third—Mr. Hitchcock, it appears, in his reports and letters, gives us a lot of talk that is twisted, “pretzel talk,” someone has aptly called it. This “night-crawler” talk quite naturally—legitimately, if not naturally—leaves thoughtful people to wonder what he wants, what he is after, what interest or interests he is trying to subserve and what “influences” have influenced him to go after certain periodicals in so bald and crude