The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1902-03-18
RURAL FREE DELIVERY.
HON A. G, EATIMER's sPEECa IN CON
GRESS.
he Opposes the Bill Placing Rural Delivery
Service Under the Contract System.
- DeiiVered in the House OF Rep
.- resentatIves March 9th.

The House being in Committe, OF the
Whole, and having under consloers-
ton the bill (a. r. 1l72S) to CLASSIFY
the rural free-delivery service ana nS
the compensation to employees Thereon.
Mr.. Latimer said:
Mr.. Chairman: During the ten
wears that I have been member OF
this house, have learned, in listen
ins to the debates on the multitude
of propositions that have been pre-
sented here, that there are gep+!e-
men on this floor who can make q
good argument on either side OF a
question.
I realize that there are two sides
to most propositions which come up
for discussion here. The varied In
terests and conditions of the coun-
try give rise to divergent views upon
nearly every public question. But
the argument and practical policy of
the question before the house are so
clearly on one side that I am at a
loss to understand why there should
be a difference of opinion in relation
to it.
The great advantages derived by
the people from, the rural free-deIlV-
cry system, I take it. are not IN ques-
ton in this discussion. We are all
agreed upon the merits of the sys-
tenn, and it IS upon question of ad-
ministration only that We disagree.
The leading points that have been
made in favor of the bill placing the
rural delivery service under the con-
tract system are, first, that it will
prove economical to the government
/, and will equslize the compensation
of the carriers, and, second, that it
Will largely remove the service from
political influences.
AS to the first proposition, it is a
remarkable fact that where service
is to be rendered in the country or
rural districts the question OF econ
omy is always predominant; but we
hear no complaint of the fact that in
the cities the carriers of mail receive
from $500 to $1,000 per snnum for
eight hours service, nor do we hear
the proponents of this bill complain
ing that the number of carriers TOR
the cities has been doubled in order
order that the mail can be delivered
from four TO ten times q day to q
population living within easy reach
of the post Office, the most remote
being not more than half mile
away from the main post Office or
substation, with street cars penetrat-
ing every section of the city, and
beautifully paved streets to walk on
in case exercise is desired. These
highly favored fellow-citizens must
have mail carriers who are exempt
from the injurious contract SYSTEM
lest the service ce crippled, the ques-
ton of economy not being consid
cred; but it must be applied to the
rural mail carrier, it matters not how
much it will degrade and lower the
standard of the service.
Why this discrimination in favor
of the cities? Can it be successfully
contended that the city can not be laid
off in,o routes as clearly defined as
those in the country, or that the city
service requires superior fitness or
qualities not required in the rural
carrier? There can be no force IN
the first proposition, and 1t is we'll
known that the city carrier is not re-
quired to register letters, handle re,
eeipts for the same, or sell stamps
and envelopes, all of which the rural
carrier is required to do 1t you Will
examine the question you will ind
that the carrier on rural routes
has much greater responsibilities
than the carrier on the city routes.
He is in fact travelling post office,
and if q discrimination is to be made
it should be in his favor. Besides,
the city carrier does not have to un'
dergo the hardship of exposure tc
rain, sleet, snow, mud, and all kinds
of weather. Many of the large build
ings in New York and Chicago, as
stated by the gentleman from Hi