Postal Riders and Raiders. W. H. Gantz
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.”
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.
“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 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