Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1874-02-28


sentiment was not, we think, dis
eliminating one. The changes has
been Fr1ng npon the abuse Of the
franking privilege, which, it cannot
be denied, was very great. The i'm
portance-we might almost say-the
necessity of a free communication
between our lawmakers and their
constituents, properly regulated and
observed, was little thought of. The
thought that-any member of any
branch of the Government, paying
postage to that Government, for
heedfnl postal intercourse with the
sovereign people whom he directly
represents, and whose wishes and IN
terests it is his business to carry out
was overlaid by the abuses OF the
frank that filed the public mind,
and the wasteful and inconsiderate
expenditures of the public printing,
which was part of the abuse. A
bill properly guarded, returning the
frank, there is, in our opinion, no
reasonable ground to oppose.
The views, too, of Mr.. Garfield, on
the relative characters and qualities
of the local and metropolitan jour
mails of the land, and their respective
rights to Government regard, are
clear, discriminating and just. In
both these respects, we think, he has
planted himself upon the true ground
which, we think viii secure to him
the approval and endorsement of the
people of the district. The speech is
as follows:
Mr.. GARFIELD. 1 have only two
reflections which l wish'to submit to
the House. In the first place, |
mite agree with what has been said
here by one gentleman, that it is not
time for us to say that we have
fairly tried the effect of the repeal
of the franking privilege. The re-
neal took effect only on the first day
of july last. If we restore the
frank, as proposed in the pending
bill. it ought to be because we have
already found by experience that 1t
was un7wise legislation, or because
we have clear and conclusive proof
| that the people demand its restora-
ton. l have heard no evidence that
either of these conditions exist at the
present time.
GentIemen have sneered at the
twenty-five thousand petitions that
were laid before Congress, because
| most of them were copies of blank
sent ont by the Postmaster General.
| Il is neither wise nor just to sneer at
a petition because the man signing
| it is not the man who drafted Its
PRAYER. l hope gentlemen will not
throw contempt upon the people by
insinuating that they were made the
| tools of the Postmaster-General;
| that they were duped into signing
petitions which they knew and
cared nothing about. The fact
| is. Mr.. Speaker, that there was a
general demand for the repeal OF
the frank1ng privilege, and genera
| conviction that it had grown to be
an abuse. The impression had be
come general, though enormo us
that the frank was sort of corrupt
perduisite which Congressman en-
| loved, and which ought to be taker
away from them. In SO far as thai
was the feeling l did not sympathizC
| with it at all. 1t was not on any
such ground that / voted for the re
peal. True, there are abuses grow
| ing out of the frank. Whocan de
nv that the abuse was great wher
we saw two political armies quarter
ed in the two wings of this Capito
dnring the last presidential cam
paign, one of them sending ou
i their franked documents by the mil
i lion. from one end of the Caplto
| and the other, clerks at work ant
the mails loaded with tons of weight
which bore no share of the burdeI
of: supporting the postal service.
believe that was an abuse, and al
abuse that good men everywher
wanted to see abolished. The frank I
ING privilege having been abolished
let us stand by the present system
and fairly test its results. Ii w
| find that any marked injustice ha
been wrought by the law, let u
amend it. But in my judgment
Il would be unseeming trifing TO
us to restore the frank as propose'
in this bill. We have seen the doz
en- baskets full of petitions senti in a
the last session, asking for the re
peal, but we have not seen slngI
petition asking for the restoration
T of the frank.
4 Gentlemen say that the restora
ton is to be made in the interest 0
the people. Let us at least wait til
they ask for it.
i Iadmit that to abolish the fran
i, for the Executive Departments an
, to issue official postage stamps is i
itself no saving of money. Thi
has apparently swelled our apprc
: priations for the current year by a
, most $4,000, 900; and yet the g.
GOO, 900 worth of stamps authorize
to be used actually cost the Govern
ment less than $4,000. So that a
actual expenditure of $4,000 in mou
ey on the books of the Treasury a
an expenditure of $5,0O0,OO0, Tha
; is one of the items which made tn
t appropriations of the last Congres
appear larger than they reall
were. 3D. f
, But there is another phase of tn
case that has seemed to me a mucI
greater abuse than the frank itself
, I refer to the extraordinary amour
c of public printing. Aside from tn
: | Congressional Globe, which costs u
about $3.50, 900 a year, we have bee
paving nearly 81, 100000 a year, fo
several years, for public printing
/ o5;no, and issuinp books and doc