New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-01-31

hold at its right value press not only devoid
Of political common sense" but destitute
alike of honor and of common honesty.
s-zz-,s.-s=zz=z-=>-n<n--E
NEwsPArEHs AND POSTAGE LAWS.
10 The Editor Of The ". Y Tribune.
SIR: VIII you allow Country Editor and Pub
Usher to pitch into VOC and others the city press You
have noby fought the miserable scheme Of Mr. CoxfaI for
taxing your paper. with postage whether they soin Uncle
Sam. slow coach or You land mean by you sse
city pre also have been omnipotent the abolition OF
Frankhg Privilege Blu, notice all the city press that the
New York Boston, and Philadelphia press. even consent 10
paw postage on exchanges with Chan resignation NOW
l. i, not fact every Of these measures you have az
vocatsd with much eans,ne and success VIII pu money
In the pockets Of City Pub'hers The abolition o. the
FrsnLins Privilege certainly will f your ideas correct on
the subject The privilege you now enjoy and which MI
Cox through your influence failed 10 take nom you OF
eitns your papers by eIpre" without fee to the
Of course great profit TO Aud
So too aaw compelling Publishers to postage on Er-
changes will opsais pecunisry benefit OF the city
And may not that be the why submit 10 Il with so
much meeknes Iii very clear, II such bill should be-
come law would greatly damage aud ultimately reduce
the number Of newspapers In The rural Districts You, OF the
city viii not exchange with you have to pay po'sg'
papers, for they Of no particular consequence to
you anyhow Wills We ,hsi he compelled no only TO pay
postage on our city exchanges (which mus. hsss bu, will
be compelled 20 pay you for your paper Don't you see
And. Of just In proportion as he usefulness OF tbs
country pres. deereae Just tina, ratio the City Pres, IN
take is place And In view Of the law pro-
hbins free exchange. between papers viii benefit you II
this po,on land no. y may not, with
reason attribute tia course Of the City Pre elGhre
rather than pure pstriot.m Especially. question
by no means definitely settled that the abolition Of the Frank
Ing Pnyilsge viii ncfeSc the Of the Government
smensbs "a the objections spd ell Of " msde
TO the bin Of Mir Collar vim That IL. peoJ lie will the
Intelligence they at under the present syssn. md
matter Of n they DO no, the Government would cot 70
nerel.e OF revenue DO you believe there 1. r.ir'd com
p.ny or proprietor Of stage coach In New yofk state mo
would sbao any preni fa,sTs Contract for
rsryin; the mail, esnseqssnco Of the abolition Of ITO
Pransing Pr.vese' But enough Of thi' n ny Vows sre
not sound, hope TO be enlightened
Eaahiagfon Jan 2s. 1862. COUNTRY EDITOR
Reply by The Tribune.
/. We deny the right of any man, even
though "A Country Editor to use words ID
contempt Of their obvious meaning. IL ia no
privilege" Sir, to allow those who buy our
and other City papers TO convey them or pro-
cure their conveyance by whatever mode is
most convenient and agreeable to Themselves.
And if you don I know the difference between
priylege--such as having newspapers or
ANYTHING else carried in the Mails for nothing
and the simple natural RIGHT TO do your
own ireigLting or have it DONE in the most
cheap and expeditions manner-ought you not
to address yourself to the study Of the English
languages before you venture to NEEDLE with
matters above your comprehension
The carrying OF exchange papers in the
Mails for nothing is strictly privilege, and Is
often grossly abused, as privileges are apt TO
be. To abolish il would be to call on us for
$500 to 81 900 year, to be paid into the
Post Office revenue. We do not demand such
abolition, do not desire il; but, If our judy
ment were asked, we must cay that we see no
public reason for opposing It. And II any
Member of Congress fancies making US pay
that $500 or $1,000 into the Treasury would
be doing us great favor, We beg him not to
vote for such abolition on our account. If the
public can stand bringing us for nothing a
bushel of newspapers per day from all parts OF
tie country, wen try to endure receiving
them at that rate. That making us pay for
carrying them would be doing us great favor
we utterly deny. We do not sec how il would
materially affect us otherwise than by making
us pay for service that is now afforded us for
nothing.
II. Our correspondent nsists that TO let those
who buy copies OF our paper procure their
transmission on the terms they deem most adynn-
tageous. " is source of gteat pr9ft to" Us.
Jgst now We are not making profits, but we
do not deny tia! for the Government to let our
business alone ard not tax those who buy OF
us for service that it cannot or will not rem.
der is satisfactory to us and our customers.
We submit that it ought also to be satsinc-
tory to everybody else, as 1T would seem to
be TO our correspondent. Ii he will but un-
derstand that to be let alone ia no "privi-
lege," we viii consider this part of the contro-
versy closed.
III. We deny that the Country Prcss-that
il, so much of it as has any real vitality or ia
of the least service to any one on earth--goes
upon Government crutchcs. Our experience
convinces us that it is quite as well sustained,
makes as good n profit on tho capital and tai
ent invested, and is quite as independent Of
Government favor, as the City Press. 1t does
nOtj of course, object to having its issues dis
tributed through the Mails without charge;
but it lived and fiourisbed before that privilege
was accorded it, and will do tho same after il
is Withdrawn. We believe ourpals should be