ABUSE OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.
By John D. Bradley
THE abuse of the public printing and franking privilege in the interests of the work of the church-and-state-lobby at Washington, the International Reform Bureau, not only continues, but seems to be growing. But fortunately it is not escaping some publicity and criticism. The latest news in regard to this abuse is the following article which appeared in the Washington Post of July 23: Reform Bureau Man Floods the Mails with “Patriotic Studies.” He Denies That There Is Anything Improper about It, but Says Nothing So Fits Purpose of Franking. A novel use of the franking privilege, which he justifies because it is in the name of reform, has been started by Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts. A good-sized document styled “Patriotic Studies,” which highly lauds the International Reform Bureau, of which Mr. Crafts is the organizer and head, is being sent extensively through the mails under the franks of Senator J. H. Gallinger, of New Hampshire, and Representative Gillett, of Massachusetts. Not only is Mr. Crafts sending his book, which weighs seventeen ounces and has 288 pages, with a thin cover, through the mail under these franks, but along with the book he sends a franked envelope. If the recipient does not want the book, he is requested to return it in the franked envelope; if he does want the book, he is requested to send to the International Reform Bureau 35 cents for the good of the cause. “Patriotic Studies” contains a history of many bills that Mr. Crafts has championed in the name of reform. It is said that several officials in the Post-office Department refused to sanction such use of the mails, but finally one high in authority consented, and the books have been going out by thousands. It is charged that 70,000 copies have been so distributed, at least that that number of envelopes have been printed. Mr. Crafts, now in Iowa, has stated that the number is not 70,000, but 2,000. In the same connection Mr. Crafts adds: “The book ‘Patriotic Studies’ is made up not partly, but wholly, of frankable public documents; the number is not 70,000, but 2,000. It is not devoted to the work of one reform or one society, but records the work of all reforms, all societies, all senators, all congressmen who have helped in public documents. The Bureau is not making money out of the books, which cost over 50 cents each for reprinting, while those sold bring but 25 cents as part payment, and the larger number are given away. Nothing ever sent in franks has so exactly fitted the purpose for which the franking privilege was established, namely, the education of public sentiment on great public questions; for this book reprints, for use of such congressmen as choose to use the Bureau’s clerks as their own to send it out, government documents on divorce, Mormonism, temperance, gambling, prize-fights, immigration, the Sabbath, popular election of senators, and the referendum.” The fact that this book may be made up of so-called frankable public documents does not prove that its printing and carriage through the mails at public expense is not an abuse of the public printing and franking privilege, but rather points to the fact that there is a compound abuse in the matter, and that one abuse has opened the way for another. Matter that was nothing else than Reform-Bureau matter has been printed as public documents through the same means by which Mr. Crafts is now enabled to perpetrate the abuse of having a book containing these documents and other Reform Bureau matter printed and mailed at government expense as a public or governmental document. An instance was the printing as a senate document a year or two ago of a report of the work of the Reform Bureau, written by one of its officials, a clergyman. A description and advertisement of this book, “Patriotic Studies,” has a prominent place in an eight-page circular catalogue issued by the Reform Bureau, and headed, “Literature of the International Reform Bureau;” and it is there stated that it was compiled and printed to “signalize” the tenth anniversary of the Bureau, which occurred in April last; and that it consists of “extracts from public documents which show the Bureau’s legislative work and at the same time furnish material for ‘Patriotic Studies,’ which it is a prime purpose of the Bureau to promote as the only secure basis for improved political and moral conditions.” It is also stated that in the book “black type is used to indicate the acts of government that were initiated by the Reform Bureau—the acts drawn by it, the hearings secured by it, the government documents prepared by it, and the petitions prompted by it,” and that “the Reform Bureau had a secondary part in all the other acts of government discussed in this volume except the prohibition of prize-fights in the territories.” It is thus plain enough that the book is as much Reform Bureau literature as anything can be, and yet it is printed and carried through the mails at public expense as a government document. And this pretended government document and the franking privilege are not only employed in promoting the work and aims of the International Reform Bureau (not only a private institution, but one which in some things is devoted to work and ends that are in contravention of fundamental American principles), but also as a means of soliciting and securing money for the Bureau and its work! It is some satisfaction to know that this abuse is not escaping public comment entirely, and that where comment has occurred it has not been in line with Mr. Crafts’ brazen claim that “nothing ever sent in franks has so exactly fitted the purpose for which the franking privilege was established” as does his book “Patriotic Studies.” One of these books was received by the Hartford (Conn.) Courant recently and elicited from it an editorial, printed on July 4, in which it observed that “Uncle Sam paid for the printing and carries ‘Patriotic Studies’ in the mail bags without any postage stamp remuneration,” and declared that “a worth-while annual saving would be effected at once if a stop could be put to the printing and distributing of such so-called public documents of ‘Patriotic Studies’ at the people’s expense.” This editorial, which was headed “Patriotic Studies” in quotations, was the occasion of another under the same head in the Washington Post a few days later, in which that paper stated that “the President deemed it expedient, in the exercise of his discretion, to refer to such abuses as this incident represents in his first message to Congress,” and that “he is not unlikely to have more to say on the subject.” The Post’s editorial was as follows: “The Hartford Courant, among whose commendable qualities gratitude for benefits conferred stands forth in conspicuous prominence, acknowledges its indebtedness to the Hon. Frederick Huntington Gillett, Representative in Congress from the Second Massachusetts District, for a handsomely-printed pamphlet of 288 pages, in flexible covers, entitled ‘Patriotic Studies.’ For a reason similar to that which controlled the ratioculation of the girl who ‘knew he was a sailor, for he wore a sailor hat,’ the Courant reaches the conclusion that whatever of frankfulness it owes for this pretty little book is primarily due to Representative Gillett. In the first place, his autograph adorns the upper right-hand corner of the envelope in which the pamphlet was enclosed. In the second place, the upper left-hand corner imparts the information that the pamphlet is ‘Part of Congressional Record’ and ‘Free.’ Our contemporary suggests that the United States Government, custodian of the money raised by taxing all the people, paid for the printing, and carries ‘Patriotic Studies’ in the mail bags without any postage-stamp remuneration.” “But interest in this incident centers chiefly in the contents of the pamphlet—the material which Mr. Gillett, in these hot midsummer days, is sending7out at the expense of the people to tone up their patriotism. The title page carries the enthusiastic announcement that the following pages contain extracts from ‘bills, acts, and documents’ of the years 1888-1905, a period of seventeen years. The Courant exhibits exceptional courage by carrying its investigation far beyond that announcement, right into the inspiring midriff of the work whose happy fortune it is to be a protégé of Congressman Gillett at the public cost. Having, with conscientious care, inspected many pages, the Courant finds that ‘they preserve for posterity generous samples of the views of Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, Ph. D., and others, on “Sabbath observance,” the liquor traffic, the opium traffic, gambling, sectarian schools for little Indians, etc.’ And our contemporary mentions another fact that may or may not possess general interest; it is that several of the bills included in the pamphlet were drawn, in whole or part, by Hon. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts. Having finished its expert analysis of this simple incident in the management of the public printing and the use of the enormously-overworked franking privilege, the Courant remarks:” “‘The President, as we understand it, thinks that if less money were frittered and fooled away, year by year, to no valuable purpose, there would be more money available for really important national uses. A worth-while annual saving would be effected at once if a stop could be put to the printing and distributing of such so-called public documents as “Patriotic Studies” at the people’s expense. But that’s the people’s own affair—not the President’s. Their congress is the offender, and they alone can enforce a reform.’” It is true that Congress is more directly responsible for this sort of expenditures than for the printing and franking that are under the immediate supervision of the executive departments. But the President deemed it expedient, in the exercise of his discretion, to refer to such abuses as this incident represents in his first message to Congress. He is not unlikely to have more to say on the subject. The commission appointed by the President to investigate departmental business methods may furnish him texts for instructive discourse. A good place to begin the reform in the abuse of the public printing and franking privilege would be in this matter of the Reform Bureau; it is certain that no more improper abuse than that can be found in this whole matter. And so a governmental reform could fittingly begin by stopping an abuse that is being participated and perpetrated by a so-called “reform” bureau that has been established in Washington to “reform” the government and the nation! The most unreformed people in the world, so far as public affairs are concerned, and the most inimical to a right conduct of public affairs, are religionists who seek “reform” by political means. For principle they substitute the interests of their “reforms,” which always mean the promotion of their theology, and there is no abuse and no corruption in government that promotion of their “reforms” does not to them hallow and sanctify. Washington, D. C., July 25, 1905.