THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1925. PENNY POSTAGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18942, 13 February 1925, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1925. PENNY POSTAGE.

Keen disappointment will greet the announcement that Britain is not to return to penny postage this year. That the old cheap rate will eventually be restored is taken for granted. It would not have been disturbed but for the war. Then the rate was raised with a view to an increase in revenue, it being the opinion of the authorities that even the doubling of the penny postage charge would not, for a while at least, seriously reduce the volume of correspondence. Hence, a large accession of revenue would accrue, for some length of time, from the increased charge. The opinion was justified by events. It was a time of crisis, with incalculable factors upsetting the normal run of events: and included in those factors was the influence of the war itself upon correspondence. But conditions have since tended to approximate to normal, and reasonably calculable factors rule again. With their return an agitation for the reinstatement of penny postage, as the most essential of postal reforms, has steadily grown throughout Britain. Chambers of Commerce have resolved and petitioned. Traders of all kinds have made strenuous appeal. Private citizens, both rich and poor, have swelled the chorus of request. AH £o no purpose. Mr. Winston Churchill was reported early in January to be averse to the reform, "as it involved an unjustifiable sacrifice of revenue." And now the PostmasterGeneral, Sir W. H. Thompson, has confirmed that decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has announced his inability to deal with penny postage this year. In any endeavour to estimate the financial effects of this reduction, calculations should be based upon tho experience of peace conditions. From a survey of that experience some facts emerge in encouragement of the requested reduction. It has been found that an increased postal charge tends to reduce the volume of correspondence and therefore to diminish the amount of employment in the stationery, printing and kindred trades. Similarly, a decrease in the charge tends to increase the use of the service. The ratio in which these movements aro related is not readily discoverable, but the broad facts are clear. There are, of course, limits to these tendencies of charge and volume to move inversely. There is a "point of saturation" at which the demand for postal facilities will halt; not even the institution of free postage could induce an appreciable increase in the size of His Majesty's mails. Nor is it possible for any charge likely to be imposed to reduce correspondence to the vanishing point. Here cornea the task of statesmanship—to keep the charge at such a level as to produce the utmost revenue, always having in view a further consideration the duty of the postal service to contribute to the whole Welfare of the community as such. Leaving aside for tho moment the latter point, it is indubitably true, within limits, that the extension and cheapening of facilities are attended by a gain in postal revenue. When Britain reduced the inland postage in 1840 from fourpence to a penny, the number of letters carried in a year rose from 76,000,000 to 3,000,000,000—a clear gain. But another fact shows that the ratio is sensitive to various influences. Britain's reduction of the letter rate since the war from 2d to l|d resulted in an increase of only 5 per cent, in the number of letters carried. Nevertheless, the Post Office authorities know that the amount of revenue does not depend on high charges, but on encouraging the greatest possible use of tho postal service at a remunerative rate. All calculations of revenue are more or less speculative. It has been estimated that, were Britain now to reduce the Hd charge to Id, a 50-per-cent. increase in the volume of correspondence would be necessary to maintain the revenue. The hesitation of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the PostmasterGeneral can easily be understood in the presence of even speculative calculations of that sort. But is there not need to give more weight than apparently has been given to the vital function of the Post Office ? On its efficiency as a means of communication depends in large measure the prosperity of the nation's in-

dustry and commerce. It is the messenger of the community, fetching and carrying for its profit and pleasure. Ought its service to include paying for itself? May not that be a charge spread over the commercial and other interests it serves? Must the messenger, besides doing his particular work, find means to pay his own wages and to make presents to the household? For that is what is meant by those who look to the Post Office for national revenue without thought of anything else. Britain's Post Office makes a profit of between five and six millions a year. Must that go into other departments, to atone for their losses? Should it be merged in the general accounts at all? It would seem that its best use would be to meet the deficiency that might immediately arise through the resumption of penny postage. It would be only a temporary need, if the main facts are read aright. Let the Post Office make profits by all means. It is a business concern, in part. But it is a "service" as well, and on the broadest use of it rest the stability of business, the increase of enterprise, and the social cohesion of the nation. Even if these advantages were a charge on other departments that charge should be made, in order to give cheap correspondence. But, when a good profit is shown, it seems the height of folly' to postpone cheaper postage while taking that profit for quite alien purposes.