New Ulm review., 1912-03-20
The Parcels Post Debate.

The question we are debating has
already been stated. l will try to add
few reasons to those already given by
my colleague, why the parcels post
system would not be good thing for
our country. Let US look at the foreign
countries, England, Germany, and
;Janad !, where the system was intro.
duced and see what it has done for
them. England, the country of short
distances, has few routes longer than
fifty miles. So no packages have to be
carried far, and fat rate for carrying
parcels prevails. AS railroads are
short, very few changes are made in the
course of transportation. This tends
to cut down expenses, but in spite Of
this and the fact that the people live
close together, so that few carriers
can take care of many people, the
system has never paid for itself.
England's first two. reports showed
heavy loses, and since then no reports
have been made.
Germany, with an area less than
that of our one state, Texas, uses the
zone system in parcels post trauporta-
tion. As Germany owns her own rail
roads, she need pay nothing for trans
portation and yet there in spite of these
conditions the parcels post does not
pay either. .
1t is argued that the parcels post will
pay here because it does in Can ada, but
in Canada the maximum weight o. par
cells is lbs., and the rate is one cent
per ounce, 80 that it costs $50 there to
send package that Uncle Sam is ask
ed to carry for 5 Is; besides this, Cana
da has no rural free delivery, hires no
expensive mail coaches and pays it's
postal employees but g of what the
United States pays for like service.
With all these condition favoring it the
parcels post does not pay. ..s... ..N
II the system does not pay in these
three countries with 80 many very favor
able conditions, how could it pay here
where almost all distances are very
conditions, how could it pay here great.
where people in many instances live far
apart and where our postal system
shows yearly deficit, how could it
ever be made to pay with additional
expenses? Tank of the increased
expenses in the department. We would
need larger post Offices, more clerks.
You may say, "But the people have to
pay to send their packages" Yes, but
not half enough to cover the cost OF
actual transportation. What are the
facts? Parcels post advocates are ask
ing the government to carry parcels up
to II lbs. weight at the rate of sos for
the first pound and S.O2 for
each additional pound or fraction up
to 1llbs. The average cost OF trans
porting the mail is about sos per lb''
80 that the government is being asked
to carry for q. 25 package the handling
of which would cost the pos, Office
department nearly 8 81 or would be an
average loss to the government of al most
SOC per ID. on every Id. of such mail
matter carried. We have population
of about 91,OOO,OOO. Let US say, that
each citizen sends only parcels year;
that would make 273,OOO,00O parcels.
At loss of sos per h., the loss on all
would be about SIT 900, 900, and this on
trans portation alone and for only one
year.
Who is it that is anxious for the
of the Parcels Post? 1t is
the great manufacturing concerns OF
the East and the mail order houses,
who send aluring out advertisements
They, of course, can sell cheaper than
the local merchant because they sell
directly to the consumer. With a
parcels post system, that will allow
goods to be carried cheaply from these
mail order houses to the very door Of
the consumer, what will be the result? |
These mail order houses, that pay no
taxes of any kind in your community,
do not help to maintain your schools,
libraries, hospitals, and other
public institutions, give you neither
sympathy nor help when misfortune
comes, they, who have absolutely no
interest in you, except to get as many
Of your dollars as they can and give as
little in ret6rn as possible, are the ones,
who will receive the peoples trade.
More and more people will buy from
them and the money of the various