The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-21
OPPOSING THE LOUD BILL
Arguments on the Proposed Amend
ments TO the Postal Laws.
Mr. Little Believes n Large Reduc-
ton in Revenues Would Result
Abuses of the Second-CInss Mail
Privilege A Radical Change of
Policy-CircuIatinE sample Copies.


relating to second class mail matter, was
considered by the House yesterday in the
regular order of business. An agreement
was reached that general debate should
continue until o'clock Thursday; that
from 2 to 4 o'clock that day to be consid-
cred under the fve-minute rule for amend
ment, and that at o'clock the vote be
taken on its passage.
Mr. Loud and H. c. Smith advocated the
passage of the bill and Messrs. Little of
Arkansas, Bell of Colorado. Henry of Texas,
Stokes of South Carolina, and Brown OF
Ohio opposed it.
Opening the debate. Mr.. Loud narrated
the facts which moved him to introduce
the bill He said much more radical bill
had been passed by the House in 1897, and
in the last Congress a similar bill had been
defeated. After his return to Washington
last December not less than 20O members
had asked him il he was not going to bring
up the bill again; some of them said that
they had voted against it, but desired to
change their action.
The bill was drawn originally by the
Third Assistant Postmaster General in 1894
then. Mr.. Loud said, but he did not know
what he was today. The speakers only
thorship in the matter was the changing Of
some of the provisions of the bill. When
the bill was considered by the committee
there was no apparent division, and it was
ordered reported. Sixty days ago there was
no objection to the BILL but since that time
an active opposition had been waged against
it. This had been managed Mr. Loud said
an tyaf fr,f lie Cif cttrlf,
self a committee of publishers. who did not
give their names. The speaker said that
they were the representatives OF Robert
Browns Sons, Patrick Farrelly. manager
OF the news company, and Oryille J. Victor,
a former book publisher.
Mr.. Loud devoted some time to an ex-
position of the methods employed to work
up sentiment against the bill He exhibited
a blank form OF petition sent out by +. NJ
Lupton, who promised anyone securing ten
signatures thereto and sending them to
the Representative in Congress from the
district in which he lived four 25-cent
books. College presidents had written. pro-
testing against the passage Of the bill as
serting that il would deny them the prvi-
lege of the mail open to all others. Cor
respondence showed that these institutions
generally speaking, published nothing that
entered the mails under the second-class
privileges. If he could reach every man
who had complained about the BILL Mr.
Loud said. there would be no opposition to
the measure.
An Abuse of the Privilege.
A great abuse of the privilege he said,
was committed by the incorporated insti-
tutions of learning which the law of 1894
gave the privilege of distributing pub
licationss at second class rates. The Gov
ernment3 was losing forty five millions
of dollars a year in handling second class
mail matter and if the privilege OF the
mails was to be extended to the libra
ries the loss would be one hundred mil
lions. The question for the House to con-
slider was whether or not it wanted to
continue the practice? Every Postmaster
General since John Wanamaker and two
Presidents, one Republican and one a
Democrat. had advocated the passage
of this bill. There had been no express
sion of the public upon the BILL because
none had been asked but Mr.. Loud said
the issue raised by this bill should be
welcomed, for the people were in favor
OF the proposition that the users of the
mails should pay their proportionate part
of the expense.
Responding TO questions from varf-
Gus members, Mr.. Loud SAID that he did
not believe the interests of the news com
panies needed to be protected by legis-
.lation: that the bill would place the
news dealers upon exactly the same plane
the news companies; that in the hand
ling of second class matter the mails
got the long, Improbable haul. and ex-
press and freight the short. profitable
hauls and that the bill affected news
papers only by cu:tailing the privilege
of sending sample copies through the
mails.
Mr.. Little Of Arkansas said his opposi-
ton was based rather upon the long-con-
tinued policy of the Government than
upon any specific provision of the bill /
That policy. he said favored the widest
dissemination of litera tHTe and of the
newspapers as well not for the profit OF the
publishers but for the benefit of the great
mass of the people That policy. he ap-
proved, operating for the best interests
Of the Government. He did not concede I
that the deficit in postal revenues was
caused by the transportation of .second
class matter. But IL it were to cut off
that class OF publications from the mails
IL would cause such a reduction of first
class postage as to bring the Department
to confront an even greater deficit In
support of this contention Mr.. Little went
into analysis Of the postal revenues for
the years 1898 to 1893 inclusive
Frem his study of these figures Mr. |
Little concluded that seeond-class mail /
matter was the source OF the greatest |
amount OF revenue received by the de-
partment. And this. despite the fact that /
the Postmaster General reported that the /
12S 600 900 pounds of first-class mail mat
ter yielded a revenue of S56, 300, 900 and /
that the 320. 900. 900 pounds of second-class |
matter produced revenue OF $500, 600.
Mr. BcI Opposes the Bill.
Mr. Bell OF Colorado also opposed the |
bill. He reviewed at length the history !
of the movement resulting in the estab-
lishment OF second-clHss mail matter II
was intended. he said. to afford sort of
..franking'' privilege to the people, and il
was never supposed that the transporta-
tion OF 1t would be paid for by the revenue
arising from it.
Mr.. Bell quoted from the testimony of
Mr. Farrelly. OF the news company be |
fore the Committee on PGstoifices and Post |
roads. to show that if the bill became |
law it would result in saving not to ex- !
ceed 5000 900 year.
The bill was further opposed By Messrs |
Henry of Texas. Stokes of South Carolina |
and Brown OF Ohio. The latter responded I
TO challenge by Mr.. Mcpherson of Iowa |
to show how q country newspaper could BE- !
injured one scent piece in the course of a !
year The bill. Mr.. Brown said reduced |!
the number of sample copies that paper |
might circulate under second class rates: /
that was certainly damaging to il. An |