Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-06-23
ABOLITION OF THE POSTAL SYSTEM.
SPEECH OF HON. GERRIT SMITH
OF NEW YORK
OF NEW YORK,
In The House Of Representatives. June is, 1854

The bill and substitute (both Of which were
introduced by Mr.. OLDs, Chairman of the Com
mittee on the Post Office and Post Roads, being
under consideration,
Mr.. SMITH, of New York presented the follow
ing amendment;
And be IL further enacted, That this act shall
continue in force two years; and that, at the ex-
piration of that time, the Post Office Department
shall be abolished and individuals and associa-
tions shall thereafter be free to carry letters,
as to carry anything else
Mr.. SMITH, Of New York, said:
wish, Mr.. Speaker, to make an argument In
support Of my amendment 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 ! am
constrained to say, that | do not like either of
them dislike both of them--and / do so, if for
no other reason than that they both bear so much
resemblance to the existing post Office laws.
The SPEAKER viii the gentleman from
New York inform the Chair, whether he proposes
to amend the original bill or the substitute?
Mr.. SMITH. | have no choice. Whichever
the Chair shall think most proper shall be sat
isfed with.
A MEMBEa. Apply it to each.
MIR. SMITH. Let my amendment be first to
the original bill; and then, if it fail in that mode,
be to the substitute. daughter.
My first objection to these papers-for such
both propose to retain the franking privilege. 1t
is true, that the substitute does not propose to
retain it to the discredit Of the Post Office
Department--or, in other words charge
upon that Department; but, what is the same
thing to the people, it proposes to RETAIN it at the
expense of the common Treasury.
am free to admit that most members Of Con-
gress have to write more letters than they would
have to, were they not members of Congress.
ba nn1A ~ Ia bnVxy ax,ar
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 an
swers, 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 writer's 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. apprehend that,
in the food of speeches, which we pour over the
land, there is quite as much of darkness, as of
light OF course / would not speak disparag
ingly of my own speeches Laughter. Every
member will so far provide for his self-compla-
cency, as to make if not an express, at least
tacit exception, in behalf of his own speeches,
whenever he is tempted to speak slightingly of
the mass Of speeches daughter. But, | 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, am willing to have Govern
ment furnish each member of Congress with
stamps, during his term, to the amount of say,
$500 or $500. 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;
and let single frank be sufficient to frank two
ounces. The member of Congress, who should
not wish to use all his stamps, would take pleas
ure in letting fellow-member have the bal
ance
Another objection, which have to these pa
pers, is not that they propose more than one rate
of postage--bnt 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 fftieths of the let
tiers 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 dis
lance the sole ground of difference in the rates of
postage. Distance is but one, and 1t is far from
being the most important one, of the grounds for
such difference Density and sparseness of pop
ulaton; facilities and non-facilities of carriage;
are much more important considerations in au-
thorizng and measuring such difference. Hence,
then, although the existing post Office laws pro-
vide for but one rate of postage, and although
there evidently should be more than one, never
theless the papers before are, even in this
respect, hardly an appreciable improvement on
those laws, so il-grounded and faulty is the
higher rate of postage, which they propose.
To illustrate the error of these papers, in ma
king mere distance the ground Of difference, in
rates of postage they provide, that letter
from Boston TO San Francisco shall be charged
with ten cen cents and letter from San Fran
cisco 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, accord
ing to the other. But IL 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 in
sufficient reason, must, If adopted, be very
short-lived; and, because, too, 1t seems well nigh
impossible, that it should be adopted | shall
regard these papers, in the argument am now
making against them, as virtually proposing but
one rate of postage.
/ have still another objection TO these papers.
1t is my chief one They would have Govern
ment continue to be the mail-carrier. But would
have Government separated from such work, en-
tirely and forever. am in favor Of breaking up
the Post Office Department. | 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 people2 Again, if Govern
ment may carry the property Of the people, why
not the persons of the people also why not pas
sengers as well as property
Is il said that letters, especially some of them,
are very precious and important and that there
fore the carrier Of them should be highly trust
worthy and responsible2 ! admit il all; and |
hold, that this Is a reason why the people should
not be confined to one carrier, but should have a
choice Of carriers-ay, the widest range of selec-
ton.
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 act