The DeSmet leader. (DeSmet, Kingsbury Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1890-10-11
POSTAL TELEGRAPHY.
A Vigorous Argument Put Forth by
the Postmaster General.

TIC EONtmhStcE VNhpNuas
Postmaster General Wannamaker
has made public a letter recently adj
dressed to Representative Bingham,
chairman of the house committee on
postotfices, embodying an elaborate
argument in favor of his limited plan
| Of postal telegraphy. The postmas-
| ter general in his letter says in part:
Your subcommittee on postal tele-
graph informs me that all the parties
that have signifed desire to be heard
on the postal telegraph bills have sub
mitted their testimony and that it is
i'll order for me to add anything upon
the subject.
After standing for a year past in the
| midst of the controversy. over postal
telegraphy that for forty years has
gone on with sharper tone and widen
| ing range, | am more than ever con-
vinced of the wisdom and practicable
ity of restoring the telegraph to the
postal service and make it what it was
originally intended to boa part OF
the postal system. say this after
closely studyIngt the arguments against
the bill, made so vigorously by the
great telegraph company which is now
its only visible opponent. ! do not
believe it possible to argue the ques-
ton down. There is deep and far
reaching conviction among the people
that the telegraph service is by right q
part of the postal service. To carry
the postal system from pony ''riders"
to stage coach and On to railroad SER
vice and stop all further progress be-
cause 3 3,0OJ owners of telegraph stock
oppose, it is not in accord with the
genius OF our people or the spirit OF
the times.
The will OF the people in this respect
has manifested itself unmistakably
before congress in public speech and
statement during the last twenty
years. Resistance to that great pop
ular demand may not be the wisest
thing, nor is it fair to count those who
urge the adoption in some form or
other of the postal telegraph as to ex-
listing corporations. We stand con-
fronting q public measure OF no mean
import or magnitude. 1t is to
give the country vast enlargement
OF its postal system and to bring home
to the people the cheap use OF one OF
most powerful agencies OF commerce
and civilization.
II has been argued by learned law
yers for score of years that q gov
ernment telegraph is unconstitutional.
The motives of these gentlemen have
been one of two in all cases. They
have been the paid attorneys OF those
corporations whose special interest
have demanded that their monopolies
should IN no way be interfered with.
They have known their business, and
have done it well. The other OPP
ponents were those who imagined
that the constitution would be ex
posed to. every sort of outrage ii
they were to fall sick for day. The
courts Of highest appeal have settled
:. this question. Congress settled it, I'm
, advance of judicial action, by making
the United States the owner and the
; postoffice department the manager oi
. the first line OF wire constructed for
= commercial and public. uses. The old
) government telegraph schemes were
constitutional. What shall be said,
. then, of the limited postal telegraph
. plan which | have been somewhat
= criticised for bringingforward? There
is no doubt that it is constitutional
! The constitution permits the genera
, government to transmit intelligence
for the people. The postofiice de
| partment has been doing this, with
a the money and the improvements a'
) it's disposal, for one hundred years
, 1t is preposterous to argue that TIN
+. telegraph ought not to be utilized To-
q the cheaper, speedier and more accu
, rate Transmission of messages. Th
attorney general for the department
assures me that the conclusion tina
the limited postal telegraph plan !
constitutional cannot be resisted.
The postmaster general then follow
n with an elaborate explanation OF TIN
limited plan and OF it's operation; al
, guing that it would pay the TELEGRAPH
g companies and be more efficient a
J, well as lower-priced' and lnconclusiol
g says:
desire to explain as explicit a
u may be one or two things that ar
e not understood. ] have challenges
v the most rigid scrutiny OF the limite
a postal telegraph bill. | ask TO hay
=, printed all Of the printed criticism
of il which have come to my motto
'i as an argument in its favor Th
l. limited postal telegraph bill is not
4 proposition to take money from th
. treasury or to employ additions
u civil servants; it is not a proposition
5, to put any power whatever IN tn
d hands of the government which Is no
,s at present greater and more dange'
= Gus where it is IL is propositio
IL simply to doveta;l together two grea
l. machines so that one sha
n do business equitably, ard b
a. that means make more money, whic
3. shall be willingly accorded to it by th
1f people, the other to utilize its preser
IN skilled and faithful energy to help SUI
9 ply the people with still better near
IN of communicable furnished stillmoi
10 cheaply. IL is not a proposition Z
buy the railroads or the coal mines
I. the saw mills or the bake shops OF th
il country. Ii is not confession this
"a American ingenuity is incapable
d keeping up with the march oil mercal
Ie tile and industrial progress.
ID II others speak out Tor the Telegram
n, stockholders some one must stan
4. for the people in the interest OF Il
lt cheaper telegraph that they want.
n. believe it belongs to this departures
no to take this stand, and propose i
st telligently and persistently to ket
or this subject before you in strong Co
,ir fidence that it will not be long befo
,ir your committee will take steps
Iy give the people the relief prayed TO
Z