Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-10-05
Suffered go Years.
Cured Of Piles,
MAIL RATES ON "RETURN" PAPERS.
The Postmaster General Writes to
Publisher.

The Post Office Department few days
ago received a letter from the publisher OF
q magazine requesting a reconsideration
of the order excluding return" copies
from the pound rate. Postmaster General
Smith, after giving the matter due con-
sideration, sent the following reply, in
which he gives reasons for not complying
with the request:
with a single exception you are the
only publisher who has specially addressed
me on this point. The manager of the
American News Company presented a pc
tition signed by various publishers. but
that was manifestly prompted by the news
company and in its interest.
publishers as you are well aware do
not possess the privilege of having unsold
or return copies sent back to them at the
have been allowed what Is expressly denied
TO the publishers themselves. But there
has been and is now no law for it. On the
contrary, it is in plain contravention or
the terms and intent of the law.
1.-The law is designed to aid In the dis
semination and sale of the publications IT
recognizes. With this object 1t provides
that news agents, well as publishers.
may send them to other news agents at
the pound rate. But this is for the pur-
pose of sale. The law makes no provision
whatever for return. 1t does not grant
this privilege to publishers. The publishers
are the principals the news agents arc lAiS
middle men, 1t would be manifestly a
travesty of reason to grant to the agent
the privilege of return for the principal.
which Is not granted to the principal him.
self.
Hon. ]. L. Thomas assistant attorney
general for the Post Office Department,
stated the law correctly in an opinion dated
October IA. 1895. as follows: The authori-
ty given by section 299, Postal Laws and
Regulations, 1893, to news agents to send
publications at the pound rate to other
news agents Is limited to the transmission
Of publications from one news agency to
another for the purpose of selling them and
not for the purpose of returning them to
the publishers This is so obvious that it
needs no argument.
THE duty of the department IS to exc
cute the law. 1t is trying to execute the
law faithfully and thus to cut off some fla
grant abuses which have loosely grown up.
But it must be fair and impartial 1t could
not justify itself IN executing one provision
of the law and in permitting the violation
of another.
You state that the exclusion of returns
from the pound rate would lead to more
sample copies. and thus would involve more
cost to the department. That may or may
not be; 1t is immaterial so far as concerns
the duty Of the department, for the one
method Is lawful and the other is not. The
department Is responsible If II allows an
unlawful method to go on; Ii is not respon-
sible for the greater or less cost of a law
full method.
believe that your apprehensions are
unfounded. You state that a large GUAM
tity of the copies sent out to dealers for
sale have been sent by freight or express
If they can be sent out in that way WHY
can't they be sent back in the same way?
Expedition is important in sending out for
sale, but not important In returning unsold
copies. 1t cannot be difficult to adjust your
methods to changed conditions
The force of the orders of the depart
ment falls on the illegitimate publications
which have grown up outside of the law.
and the correction of these abuses is in the
interest of legitimate publications"