Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-06
POSTAL PROGRESS lEAeUE.
MEMBERS AT MEETING DISCUSS
THREE PENDING BILLS.
Lines Of Demarkation Between Third
and Fourth Class Mail Nat
ter-Parcels Post.

The three bills now before Congress
proposing improvements and innovations
in the postal service of the country con-
stituted the principal subject for discus
sion at a meeting in the New WIZARD
last evening of the Postal Progress
League.
George NJ. Whitaker. the only resident
director of the organization. presided al
the gathering and in opening the discus
sion he claimed the right to represent
the farmers of the country and 10 STATE
their wishes by reason OF being secre.di
of the Farmers National Congress. q
member of the grange. and studen, ~ ~
agricultural movements. as presented Ia
the agricultural press and elsewh mere. ne
said that the men of the country VINO oy
using honest brain and Drawn In cooper
tian with nature create $!CooOCoNOO vi
wealth each year are unanimously In IA
vor of all three propositions which are
now before Congress. namely. cheap
LEGAL parcels service on the rural TouteS'
the consolidation Of the third and fourtn
classes of mail matter and a system Vi
postal savings banks.
Lines Of Demarkation.
Mr.. Whitaker cited several peculiar
lines OF demarkation between third and
fourth class mail matter, and In sum-
ming up he said:
'"The basic argument for a broader
parcels post is the same as underiies the
railroad rate agitation and the movement
for developing inland waterways-the ad.
vance Of civilization is question OF
transportation. The principle OF lower
rates. no discrimination. no rebates, the
same unit price to the small shipper as 10
the big shipper will help all classes IN
the community and has possibilities OF
benefit to the country merchant.
Even If some new mechanism or DIS
trihution should threaten to eliminate a
number Of middiemen. that ought not 10
deprive the general public OF the advan-
tage Of the advance sep. Improved ma
chinery sometimes injuries the few for
the gain Of the many. When we consider
the interests OF the producers OF the ma
tons wealth and Of the consuming pub
lie on the one hand, and Of the small re-
tail stores on the other, should there be
a. conflict Of interests. there can be no
question which side deserves the greater
consideration.
=. Views Of the Speakers.
Prof. Patterson Of Hyattsville. master
Of the Maryland State Grange; ]. Tazel-
lar of the American Federation OF La
Dor. F. c. Graham Of the Washington
Board Of Trade and E. c. Hill. master
OF the Pennsylvania State Grange. were
among the other speakers. Each as
sured the league Of the support Of the
different organizations in any campaign
for improvement of the postal service
James L. Cowles, secretary Of the
league. read extracts from a large num-
Der OF letters from prominent men,
among the writer's being the governors
of Mississippi. Florida and Kentucky
and the secretary of the New Jersey
board OF agriculture.
Representative John III. Small Of North
Carolina made the point that the aver
age Congressman is no better than his
constituency. and that the way to Sc
cure favorable and speedy action upon
the mos needed postal reforms Is to
inspire the people at home to write let
tiers to their Representatives In Wash
fngton. Mr.. Small expressed his per-
s0nal belief in all three bills affecting
the postal service which are how be-
fore Congress.
A question whether the express COM
panfes are not largely responsible for
the paean of protest raised by the re-
tail dealers IN the smaller towns
against the proposed parcels post was
raised by Representative William G.
Uou1t0n ~ Tennessee. e. G. Hill laid
emphasis sson the fact that the United
States in its postal treaties with for
eign countries gives more liberal treat
ment to the citizens of those countries
than 1t does to it's own citizens. Cfta-
ton OF the numerous ways in which the
proposed rural free delivery parcels
post and a consolidation of third and
fourth class postal rates would be bene-
fetal to the people was the substance of
an address by Fred c. Beach, editor OF
the Scientific American.