Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-08-05
THE THANKING PRIVILEGE.
Throe Ladies Who Do Not Have to Buy
 Postage Stamps.

Throe Ladies Who Do Not Have to Buy
 Postage Stamps.
 There arc but three persons in the United States, other than those holding public of hce, who arc allowed to receive and send mail matter free of postage, writes q Wash ington correspondent These three persons are the widows of the late Presidents Polk, Garfield and Grant. An act of Congress Is required to grant this privilege to any one, and it has been so granted to the widows of Presidents since 1S38, when tho first act was passed confcrring tho dis nnctiOn upon Mrs. Dolly F. Madison.
 According to the United States Postal Laws and Regulations, which is con- pilation of the rules published for the in- formation and guidance of postmasters and other officials, Mrs. Tyler was not entitled to the benefits of franking mail matter and 1t is true that no law was ever passed in her case. She was, in a sense, q victim of one of those peculiar oversights of Congress which are of frequent occurrence. The Post-Office Department, however, appre- ciating the fact that Mrs. Tyler was in equity entitled to the same privilege which had by law boon granted to Mrs. Polk, Mrs. Gar field and Mrs Grant, accepted her frank in lieu of postage and collected nothing upon matter mailed to her address.
 There is a rather peculiar fact connected with the case of Mrs. Polk also The act granting her the privilege of free postage was passed in 1850. Since that date all laws conferring the franking privilege have been once or twice repealed; the last tune in 1S73, and no act has since been passed in favor of Mrs. Polk. There is no law on the statute books to-day, therefore, cntitling her to the benefits of free postage, but it is al lowed her arbitrarily by the department, and tho Postal Laws and Regulations name her as one of the persons legally entitled to the benefits of the franking law.
 It is not generally known that the law ex- tending the franking privilege to these ladies also provides explicitly that mail mat ter, including letters, newspapers and pack ages addressed to them, is exempt from the payment of postage. The only explanation of this somewhat peculiar provision of law Is that when Congress passed the first of these private acts it failed to notice that free postage to the senders of mail con ferred 20 sort of benefit upon the persons ad- dressed. Mrs. Polk, for instance, is not benefited in the slightest degree because some person who wishes to write her a let ter is not required to affix a stamp to it. Yet when the laws in favor of all the Prcsi- dents widows who came after Mrs Polk were passed, the same language was used and stands upon the statute books to-day.
 A sort of fatality in the direction of mak- ing mistakes seems to have followed the course of lawmaking on the subject of the franking privilege, and the most stupendous blunder of all that Congress made in tue first general act passed has never yet been corrected. This is the failure to provide penalty for violation of the law. Although there have been as many as fifty frankng- privilege acts passed by Congress since 1879, not one of them provides any penalty for their infringement or evasion. This very singular oversight is cause of much inconvenience and annoyance to the postal officials, and because of 1t very few arrests have been made, although tho one of franks by unauthorized persons and on unfranka ale matter is of very frequent occurrence.