The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1912-04-19
RURAL FREE DELIVERY HAS
KILLED THE RURAL VILLAGE

We have sometimes regretted that
the rural free delivery system has
not been established in this county,
but as much as has been said OF its
conveniences and blessings it is not
without another side to the story. In
other words, ''all is not gold that gilt
ters."
A correspondent, signing himself
"a Connecticut Farmer" writing to
the Philadelphia Farm Journal, says:
1.-THE farmers have been driven to
depend largely on the town, and
many social gatherings have been
done away with by the so-called rural
| free delivery. There is no free de-
livery system in existence; but, de-
cidedly to the contrary, the system is
a very expensive one to nearly every
one. In the village office, where ru-
raj mail is handled, expenses have in
creased several hundred dollars, and
box rents have more than doubled in
a few years.
every country township, no matter
how small, formerly had one or more
postoffices. The present system has
abolished them by the hundreds, and
| the majority of farmers are required
to discard the name of their own
town and represent themselves as be-
longing in village or city where they
never lived, and have no desire TO.
1.-The removal of the postoffice
from any town in any rural commu-
nifty is more destructive to it's pros
perity than anything else could be.
for the reason that the town is blot
ted out of existence to all larger bus
mess places. Many social gathering
was planned at the rural grocery
where the postoffice was located. The
postoffice taken away, merchants
business largely reduced, neighbors
seldom meet. The rural towns that
have been injured by rural mail deliv-
cry can be counted in large numbers,
while the one that has been benefited
| is yet to be found No one can point
out a rural community where condi-
tions have been bettered since the re-
moval of the postoffice. What else
can farmers do but depend largely
on the cities, when they are forced
to give up home dependence?"
In explaining why the system is as
| it is, and not as it should be, the edi-
tor of the Farm Journal says:
For more than twenty years the
Farm Journal advocated rural deliv-
cry, but when it came it was not the
kind We wanted, nor the kind the
people wanted. Our whole thought
was that the old postoffices would be
retained, and the deliveries made
therefrom and not from the large
central towns. The blunder came
about in this way-the business men
and persons of political influence in
the central towns went right to work,
| through the congressman, to bring
about the system such as we now
have. which is quite different from
the sort We advocated.
1.-The present system is costing the
government $4,000 a year. and only
about 80 per cent. of the rural popula-
tons are reached, and those only
that are most easily accessible. Had
the deliveries been made from the
small postoffices, by the postmaster
or his assistant, only to those who
wished it, the business could have
been made self-sustaining. Before
the present system is made to cover
all parts of the country, and reach
all rural populations, it will drain the
treasury of at least $75,000,000 a year,
with the further unfortunate effect,
pondent-the atrophy of the rural viii
lage and the further isolation of ru-
raj people While the present system
was in its infancy, We repeatedly urg-
ed congress to give the people the
right sort of rural delivery, one that
would be self-sustaining, one that
would reach every rural resident in
the United States that wished it, and
one that would not destroy the rural
village and cause a greater isolation
of country people; but it was like
Throwing water on ducks back, all
to no purpose
Those who are on rural delivery
routes, and who are satisfactorily
served, as many of course are, need
not be offended on account of what
we have written; for it is the truth
as to the millions of others who are
not served at all, are not likely 10
be; and who deplore the loss of the