The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-07
OPPOSITION 70 FREE MAIL DE LIVERY.

The question of free rural delivery of the mails ought not to have any opposi- .tion. one would think. The people who live in towns, cities and villages where the post office is only a few minutes walk from home. even if there Is no free delivery, have little idea of the incon- venience undergone by those in the re- mote rural districts who can only get their mail by trip of several miles. and who are thus practically. cut off from communication with the rest of the world. There ought not to be any objection to free delivery, but The New. York Com mercial thus tells of one:
 A well-known and reliable drummer out in the Northwest is responsible for the report that business men in the small towns of that section quite generally con- cede that the rural free-delivery of mail has materially affected the liquor traffic there. This is the form of argument taken by the saloon keepers, as noted in The Minneapolis Journal: When farmers and others used to come to town every day for their mail. they were almoss sure most of them-to drop into the saloon while they waited. Everybody drank and everybody treated. and that made trade lively. Now the farmers come to town two or three times a week. or more often only one, and never come together; for their visits are to purchase supplies. and no two mems supplies give out at the same time. So there is no general con gregation; treating has practically ceas- ed. and the saloon trade, to quote the saloon-keepers. has been ruined.
 We learn. too, that a North Carolina Congressman found his popularity very much diminished among the business men of the towns and villages of his district because of his advocacy of rural delivery The merchants of all classes complained that if the farmers could get their mail at home they wouldn't come to town. and thus trade was bound to suffer.
 The Advertiser is never disposed to ad- yocate any measure that may have a tendency to injure trade. but 1t draws the line aginst the merchants in this case. If there is really any line to be drawn. But, as a matter of fact. we are not con vinced that the complaints as above in- dicated are well founded. So far as the saloon keepers are concerned we may dismiss their arguments with the com ment that hardly anything could be better for the farmers-and for some others-if the opportunities for buying liquors were very much curtailed. Dealers in other articles of merchandise may have real cause to complain, but possibly they have not as tenable grounds as they imagine. If the farmer is de- prived of the temptation and opportunity to spend his money at all times. does il not stand to reason that he will be bet ter off at the end of the year? Will he not be in better condition to pay his | debts, and will he not spend as much I for the merchants goods as he would | have done if he came to town two oi 1 three times a week?
 But, admitting that all these complaints are we'll founded, we are still heartily | in favor of the proposed system. "Tht greatest good to the greatest number" k
 pretty good theory to act on, and in thi:
 case the good to the country people will
 far overbalance any real injury to ths
 merchants. At the same time we have | no doubt but that there are Congress
 men who will oppose free delivery be-
 cause they fear the influence of tht towns.