The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-12-02
MONEY ORDERS DON'T PAY.
Something Tntcre~tirg About This
Branch of the rn-r-' Service.

\ special to the CoIGmoia & CO
State from Washington says:
Auditor Henry \. Castle Of the post
office department makes the following
statement:
In our annual report; for 1893 an ex-
PLANTATION was given that the statement
OF table 10. printed in the statistical de-
department of the auditors report for
man years. showing IN ITS :ace 4 large
net revenue from tn sale of money
orders, was misleading. Quotations
were made from the official report Of
the postoffce department which ad-
hitting that numerous tens OF ex-
penses which would be a legitimate
charge against the revenues from the
sale of money orders dc not appear.
being paid from appropriations from
the postal service, nevertheless claimed
that the system is wholly seIT-sustain-
ing. and, in addition, it pays a liberal
propOrtionate share OF the expenses OF
the general service In lew Of our own
misleading table reproduced in reports
for many successive years, IL seemed
incumbent on this bureau to throw all
DOSSlDAe llSIl vi liz SuclENl- L -
were accordingly made TO secur an
approximate statement as to the profit
or loss OF the business OF selling eX-
change carried on by the government
through the pOstoffice department. The
result of those efforts we're tabulated
in the report referred to. and after a
correct statement OF many items Of ex-
pense properly chargeable, a conserva-
tive estimate was made as TO the mat
ter Of salaries OF mOneY-CTder clerks
in city postoftices. which was n OF the
unascertained items. Including this
aVOwedly minimum estimate, the aggr1-
gate expenses of the money order bust
ness were shown to exceed the total rev
enues my Sl05, 900 per annuni.
The correctness Of this statement
was challenged by persons interested
in exploiting the supposed profits Of
the m~oney-order system. Since the
item of clerks salaries was the only
one in which our table was not sus-
tanned by indisputable official figures,
the challenge could not apply 10 that
portion. The estimate of such salaries
was 1924, $50. That this estimate was
too low rather than excessive was be-
lieVed and stated at the time, and has
since been confirmed by the i~ndepend-
ent calculations of another division OF
the pOstiffice department. In an official
letter from the general superintendent
OF salaries and allowances 10 the CnaIr-
man of the committee on the postoffice
and post roads of the house of repre-
Sentatives figures are given of the ag-
gregate salaries Of employees exclusive
ly engaged in money order business in
city postoffices, aggregating $SO3, 400.
The letter goes on to say:
I'm addition to these clerks eXClu-
sively employed on money order work
there are 93S assistant poStmaSters n
second class pOstoffices, with salaries
aggregating $977, 700. and 1872 CLERKS in
charge of sub-stations, with salaries
amounting to $270,0 900, a total % 2,G7J
employees with aggregate salaries -
81. PAT, 700. one-third of whose entp {
time, perhaps, was devoted to :he
money order service In addition &c
the above. there were more than l,0JC
clerks, with salaries a~ggregating al
least 5000, performing dual service III
postofficeS, practically dividing then
time between the money order and the
registry divisions Accepting these
carefully prepared from a perfectly
authentic source, which cannot be con
troverted by another division in tn
same bureau, our item of salaries o.
money order clerks should have beer
81, 519, 500, instead Of 1924, $50. Allowing
for a reasonable increase during thre,
years. it is evident that the ascertain.
able loss on money order business
should have been fixed at over $500, 90
in 1899, instead of S105 900, as stated
1t is greater rather than less at thi!
time, and many other known but un
calculated expenses should still b
| added"