THIRTIETH CONGRESS—FIRST SESSION.
Report No. 608.
(To accompany bill S. No. 177.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRANKING PRIVILEGE.
May 16, 1848.
Mr. Goggin, from the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, made the following
REPORT:
The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the bill of the Senate, No. 177, relating to the subject of the franking privilege, report:

That they have carefully examined the subject to which the bill relates, and have but little doubt that frequent violations of the law have been practised by those in the enjoyment of this privilege, while, at the same time, they have as little doubt that it has been sometimes improperly restricted by the postmasters throughout the country, who, however, execute it as it is understood and acted upon by the head of the department from whom they derive their instructions. The committee, on examination, find that, by the 27th section of the act of 3d of March, 1825, “to reduce into one the several acts for establishing and regulating the Post Office Department,” the franking privilege is given to Members of Congress and, as one of them, to the Speaker, and also to the Clerk of the House, on “letters and packets,” not exceeding two ounces in weight, “to and from” themselves, &c., during their actual attendance upon any session of Congress, and for sixty days before and after such session; and on public documents without regard to the weight. By the joint resolution of the 3d of April, 1828, the privilege to the Speaker was enlarged, so as to authorize him to send and receive free, any “letter or package” without regard to the weight. The 3d section of the act of the 9th of July, 1832, limited the weight of matter to be transmitted in the mails to three pounds. The privilege of the Speaker

---

and Clerk, as well as of the members of Congress, continued, as herein stated, until the passage of the act of 3d March, 1845. By the 5th section of that act, the whole franking privilege, as it existed, is abolished.

The first section of that act gives to members of Congress and delegates from Territories the right to “receive letters,” not exceeding two ounces in weight, free of postage, during the recess of Congress, anything in the act to the contrary notwithstanding; and the same franking privilege which is granted by the said act to the members of the two Houses of Congress, is thereby extended to the Vice President of the United States, but no mention whatever is made of the Speaker and Clerk of the House of Representatives, or of the Secretary of the Senate, as in the act of 1825, and the joint resolution of 1828, before referred to. But in the 7th section of the said act it is provided that “the members of Congress, the delegates from Territories, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall be, and they are hereby, authorized to transmit, free of postage, to any post office within the United States or the Territories thereof, any documents which have been or may be printed by order of either House of Congress, anything in this law to the contrary notwithstanding.

The 8th section of the said act also authorizes the senators, members of the House, delegates from Territories, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House, during each session of Congress, and for a period of thirty days before the commencement, and thirty days after the end of each and every session of Congress, to send and receive through the mail, free of postage, any letter, newspaper, or packet, not exceeding two ounces in weight; and by this section members of Congress have the right to frank written letters from themselves during the whole year, as then “authorized by law.” This expression has reference to the 6th section of the civil and diplomatic bill, passed the 2d of March, 1833, which authorized members to frank until “the meeting of the next Congress.” But this very act of 1845 had, by its 5th section, as already stated, repealed this clause in the act of 1833, as fully as if directly recited; so the words “as now authorized by law,” are entirely without meaning in this connexion.

The 23d section of the said act also confirms the franking privilege to the President of the United States when in office, and to all ex-presidents, and to the widows of the former Presidents—Madison and Harrison—which has been since extended also to the widow of the late John Quincy Adams.

By the act of March 1, 1847, section 3, the members of Congress, delegates from Territories, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, have the power to send and receive public documents, free of postage, during their term of office; and the members and delegates to send and receive public documents, free of postage, up to the first Monday of December following the expiration of their term of office. The Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of

---

<Page 3>

the House of Representatives have, by the 4th section of this act, the power to receive, as well as to send, all letters and packages not weighing over two ounces, free of postage, during their term of office.

The 5th and last section of the act of March 1, 1847, gives to members of Congress the right to receive, as well as to send, all letters and packages not weighing over two ounces, free of postage, up to the first Monday in December following the expiration of their term of office.

From the foregoing review of the laws applicable to the franking privilege, it would appear very clear that the Vice President and the members of Congress, secretary of the Senate and clerk of the House, by the act of 1845, (all prior acts being repealed by it,) may send and receive all letters, packets, &c., not weighing over two ounces, free of postage during each session of Congress, and for a period of thirty days before the commencement and thirty days after the end of each session. Members of Congress, however, are allowed the privilege to “frank written letters from themselves” during “the whole year.” By the act of 1847, they are allowed to receive as well as send all letters and packages not weighing over two ounces free of postage, up to the first Monday in December following the expiration of their term of office. The Vice President is not embraced in this last extension of the privilege, in the act of March 1, 1847, so his right remains as it was under the 1st and 8th sections of the act of March 3, 1845. The secretary of the Senate and the clerk of the House, by the act of 1847, March 1st, have the right to receive as well as send all letters and packages, not over a certain weight, free of postage “during their term of office.” The speaker of the House has no especial privilege to frank either letters or documents, other than as a member of the House.

The committee are clearly of the opinion that, although the laws referred to use the expressions “to send and receive any letters, newspaper or packet, free of postage,” “to frank written letters from themselves,” and “all letters and packages,” yet it was clearly the intention of Congress to confine the right to the member himself, and it was never intended to give him the privilege, under his own frank, to receive or send the letters, packets, and newspapers, or to cover the correspondence of another. The privilege is a personal one which belongs to the officer or member, and it can neither be used for the proper benefit of another by the member himself, nor can it be delegated by him to another, to be used even for his the member’s own benefit, much less for that of another person. He can no more part with this privilege which he enjoys as a member, than he can with any other as such. If he may rightfully delegate this authority, he may claim to appoint another person to exercise his right of voting in the House. If he may rightfully conceal the correspondence of another under his own frank, with equal propriety, at any time, any postmaster in the country might furnish his friend with money out of the office funds to pay the postage of his letter. In either case, the

---

Post Office Department is the loser. In the one, the member would, by his frank, withhold from the department a portion of its legitimate revenues; in the other, an officer of the government would take out just so much as had already been in the treasury of the department.

It would seem to the committee, from the abuses that are said to be practised that it is necessary to restrict rather than to enlarge the franking privilege to members of Congress. A portion of the committee, indeed, strongly incline to the belief that the privilege should be altogether abolished. It is a source of numerous difficulties, in the proper regulation of the mails, arising from the immense amount of matter transmitted under the frank of members. It burdens the small offices in the country with a large amount of business, to little or no purpose, as hundreds and thousands of the speeches and documents that annually come to them, are never called for. It has a tendency to destroy the influence and to lessen the circulation of the country papers, or those in the towns and villages remote from the seat of the national legislature, for the reason that often the news of any interest, as well as important political events, are communicated throughout the country by members who frank to their constituents, not only their own speeches, but those of others, as well as thousands of the daily papers, (most of them furnished to members at public cost,) published not only in Washington, but in all the cities north of it, and which are daily sent down by the publishers to their subscribers, members and others. In this way the issues of the metropolitan press, and the press of the large cities north, to a great extent, discourage the issue of country papers, whose publishers find their circulation anticipated by the frank of some member who has already disseminated in many parts of his district, among a few of the most preminent reading men, intelligence which is never after sought for by the great body of the people in a town or village paper.

This facility, too, of sending all over the country the opinions of the member himself, as expressed in his speeches, no doubt encourages the habit of speech making in Congress, and to that extent lengthens the session, and adds to the expenses of the nation. On the other hand, if the editors of country papers were encouraged by, instead of having to compete with the press in Washington and elsewhere, unaided by the franks of members, in the dissemination of speeches, public documents, and general news, both would be benefitted. The country as well as the city paper would increase its circulation; a more general desire would everywhere manifest itself to read the newspapers, and to see what Congress and the officers of government were engaged in doing. The people no doubt would find reports full as accurate in the newspapers as when written out, printed, and circulated under frank at the public cost by the member most interested in their circulation, and most solicitous in regard to the impression to be produced on the public mind by them.

Objection is urged by some to any restraint upon, or to dispensing with, the franking privilege, on the ground that its use diffuses

---

information among the people; but if the argument be a sound one that the press of the country will afford more facilities in the diffusion of a correct knowledge of the current events in Congress than can be derived from the partial reports, franked off by members, which often never reach their constituents, then this objection is without foundation. Daily and impartial, as well as accurate reports of the proceedings of the two Houses of Congress, emanating from the press in the city of Washington and elsewhere, copied into the local papers, under a cheap system of newspaper postages, and a proper speed in the mails, with an abolition of the franking privilege, can and will reach hundreds and thousands of that class of persons who now never see these reports. They are denied this advantage from the fact that the city press here is discouraged, as well as the press of the country, from reporting the proceedings of Congress, because they are spun out to a length so interminable that it is almost impossible to do it on private account. Accordingly, we see the Senate has its paid reporter, whose compensation is derived from the contingent fund of that body, and out of the treasury of the nation. This, then, is of itself cause of discouragement to the papers of the city, which cannot compete with the Senate, whose means are more ample than theirs. But the principal evil to be reached is that lengthened character of the proceedings of Congress, growing out of the right which members have of sending abroad through the mails, at a slight expense to themselves, but at a heavy cost to the people, all that they say and do in the two Houses of Congress. An impression prevails in many parts of the country that the member who sends his speech to his constituents has done all the labor and incurred all the expense himself to give them his views, sentiments, and opinions. How little do some of them know how much they contribute to pay for this seeming kindness of their representative—a large portion of the labor and expense is charged to public account. But on the score of economy, as far as the member himself is concerned, it were far better that he should have no special privilege to send free what he speaks or writes through the mail. If he even paid for the circulation of his own speeches, without this privilege, which he would do less frequently, and if he prepaid all that he sends of his own productions while in Congress, which would rarely be done, however, he at least would never be found subscribing and paying for thousands of speeches of his party friends, (from mere courtesy, as is now often the case,) to be sent by mail, whereby to tax others at home; for they would not thank him for such notice of them if they had to pay for it—by no means. The member then would gradually restrict himself to a correspondence with his constituents in relation to their business, and for which they would never object to pay; for it often happens now that members receive letters marked paid, though entitled to go free, from such persons as conscientiously think it their duty to pay their postage when writing on their own business to members of Congress. But no member, it would seem, should object to the occasional imposition of a slight tax of this sort from his friends and constituents at home,

---

who had honored him, as their representative in Congress, by their good opinion, if not by their votes. And particularly would he not object to it if his being deprived of the franking privilege has removed from him a burden and a tax rather than a blessing and a benefit. This freedom from all taxation, in the way of postage, of a body of some three or four hundred men, is an immense tax upon the public. It increases the size of the mails, and it adds, of course, to the mail pay for the transportation of what they send in it. But it is felt in other forms by the public; such as protracted sessions, waste of paper, stationery, &c., &c., the folding of documents, the expenses of messengers, &c., which would be curtailed one-half by correcting its abuse or rather by its entire abrogation. That no evil would come to the public thereby, the committee feel fully satisfied, as they believe it would more encourage the reading of newspapers in the country, in which the public would see fuller details of the proceedings of Congress than are now given. They would also find in such papers, perhaps, interesting articles on morals, agriculture, and science, which they now seldom meet with, as the public appetite has been vitiated, to a great degree, by a desire to see and to read what is sent out among the people, from the halls of legislation, by members who are interested in the information they disseminate under their franks, and with which such papers are now necessarily filled.

If it be necessary, as perhaps it is, that the franking privilege should be somewhere retained by the two Houses of Congress, in order that public documents may be disseminated free of postal charges to members or to the people, a special clerk might be appointed to whom the power to frank for that purpose might be delegated. And if it is deemed essential that members should in some way be secured against losses from postages which they might be subjected to the payment of, it would be competent to delegate to the postmaster of the two Houses the right to pay all such postages for members during their actual attendance, out of a fund provided and set apart for the purpose, not to exceed a given sum to each member. A similar provision, it is well known, now exists in regard to the stationery of members of the House, who, until the 27th Congress corrected the evil, had an unlimited right to any quantity, sometimes averaging, as was shown, of nearly $300 to each member, for a single Congress preceding, now reduced to an average of $30 for each member for the session, which is an ample supply, effecting thereby an immense saving. Similar results, it is confidently anticipated, would be the consequence in the changes now suggested in regard to the franking privilege.

Violations of the law in regard to the franking privilege have been, the committee have no doubt, of very frequent occurrence; and such violations will occur, notwithstanding the many efforts made to detect and expose them. Those efforts on the part of the Postmaster General and his assistants, do often lead to unpleasant difficulties, which should be avoided if possible, when really no purpose to do wrong is entertained; and violations occur many times through ignorance of the law and the regulations. It is the

---

duty of the Postmaster General, however, to see the laws of his department faithfully executed; and in doing this he sometimes will necessarily come in conflict with the opinions and wishes of others.

To enable postmasters properly to execute the laws, instructions have been given from time to time, and these no doubt sometimes have been carried out with too much rigor, and authority has perhaps been assumed by the department over the franks of members never designed by law. Such instances of stringent regulations in the department may well cause some desire to see these acts, regarded as abuses, corrected. The bill of the Senate, now referred to this committee, is no doubt designed to have this effect; and while its objects are commendable, the committee doubt whether they can be attained under the bill, or rather, whether greater evils will not grow out of it than those intended to be remedied by it.

In the edition of the Post Office Laws and Regulations recently published, chapters 40, 41, page 38, will be found most of the regulations now in force, and most of these the committee believe were adopted by the department before the present Postmaster General took the control of it. In these regulations, instead of requiring the personal application of those claiming the privilege to the postmaster at his office, to enable him to decide whether the applicant is in reality entitled to it, and thus to avoid imposition, it has been deemed sufficient for the person, member or officer to endorse the word “free,” or “public document,” on the letter or package, and sign his own name in his own proper handwriting. And upon this evidence the postmaster is to decide whether it is the act of a person authorised to exercise the privilege or not; and further, to decide whether the letter or package is from him; for the 28th section of the act of 1825, which is not understood to be repealed by the 5th section of the act of 1845, imposes a penalty of ten dollars on any person “who shall frank any letter or letters other than those written by himself, or by his order, on the business of his office;” and it is made the especial duty of postmasters to prosecute for said offence.

Very soon after the passage of the act of 1825, the abuses of the franking privilege became so common, as seriously to impair the revenues of the department. It was exercised so as to cover a very great proportion of the friendly and social correspondence in the principal cities, as well as the most important commercial and business transactions. Banks, venders of lottery tickets, and others engaged in extensive business in many of the principal cities and large towns, secured envelopes with the frank on them, of persons entitled to the privilege, in which their correspondence was transmitted, not only during the session of Congress, but throughout the whole year. To such an extent were such frauds upon the post office revenue practised, that Postmaster General Barry, on the 11th of April, 1833, issued instructions to the postmasters, “that when the circumstances connected with the letter are such as to show that it is not from such person, and that the frank on it is in effect a false certificate, postmasters will in such cases charge the

---

letter with postage, and they are particularly required to do so, whenever the address on the letter is in a handwriting different from the frank, unless that circumstance is satisfactorily explained.”

These instructions have been continued from that time to the present, and repeated by all the successors of Mr. Barry, as is believed, and are now contained in regulations No. 296, in the publication referred to, and had not, therefore, their origin with the present head of the Post Office Department.

In executing the law, and securing to the department its just and legitimate revenues, it cannot fail to be perceived that there are many difficulties to be encountered by the postmaster and his assistants in the city of Washington, where there are collected, during the session of Congress, three or four hundred persons authorised to exercise the franking privilege, whose persons, as well as their handwriting must, in many cases, be unknown, and whose documents and letters daily, by the cart-load, have to be examined, assorted, and sent off in the mails. The frank being in one handwriting, and the address in another, without any explanation, has been regarded and treated as prima facie evidence that it is not the letter of the member, and the letter is charg[e]d with postage, and a line drawn around the frank, (not crossed at all,) so as to give notice to the delivering postmaster that postage is to be charged. If an error is committed, the delivering postmaster is authorised to correct it, upon the letter being shown to be from a person authorised to exercise the privilege. If a letter or package is placed in an office having the frank on it of a person known to be in a different section of the country, it is not regarded as a proper exercise of the privilege. It is, in the language of the regulations, No. 298, a privilege which “travels with the person possessing it, and can be exercised in but one place at the same time.” In other words, it is personal, going with the person, and to be exercised by him alone, and not by deputy.

Shortly after the present session of Congress commenced, the committee are informed, that some inconvenience had arisen to the members from a rigid enforcement of the rules at the city post office; because it had become very common for members of Congress to have their speeches and other printed documents directed by clerks, employed for that purpose, but franked by themselves. This was regarded as an explanatory circumstance, to prevent the city postmaster from rating them with postage; and he was so instructed, and the action of the office is now understood to be in accordance therewith. It has not, however, been deemed prudent or safe to relax the rule upon written communications; and the committee cannot well see how the rule can be dispensed with altogether, though they propose to modify and change it.

It was confidently expected that upon the introduction of the cheap postage system, the abuses of the franking privilege would have ceased; but there are strong reasons to believe that such abuses are yet practised to a great extent. The committee are informed that it has been the practice of some members to send off

---

many thousands of documents which they never saw, and consequently never franked; but the frank was put upon them by agents or deputies, who either wrote the member’s name or stamped it wit a fac simile of his hand-writing, engraved for the purpose. Such stamps have been in use, as the committee have reasons to believe; and these stamps may be loaned to any one for the purpose of franking the member’s name, (to cover any amount of correspondence,) tnough the regulations require the frank to be underwritten. If a member may thus properly use one of these stamps in violation of the law, he may as well provide one to be left at home for his family; for each county; for each town; for each neighborhood, and, in fact, for each voter in his district. It is now understood, moreover, that persons entitled to the privilege have been in the habit of leaving franked envelopes with their families, partners in business or other friends, or at their places of residence, which were daily used in the transaction of private business; and they have permitted letters in reply to be addressed to them, at their private residences, or places where their business is transacted, while they were at the seat of government. So that often the private correspondence of a large number of persons, on private business, was carried on by the frank of one individual, while he was in the enjoyment of its legitimate use in other places.

Letters of third persons have been daily transmitted, under cover, to and from persons entitled to the franking privilege, in direct violation of the 13th section of the act of 3d March, 1847; and it has been by no means unfrequent to find packages passing through the mails, as is said, franked as public documents, which are not so in fact. But there is no penalty provided in the law for punishing the authors of such false certificates, though there certainly should be.

With such abuses constantly practised, even under the cheap postage system, the Post Office Department, it may be reasonably supposed, would not deem it expedient to relax regulations, long since adopted, to prevent and detect such abuses; or to guard the department against the commission of such frauds on its revenue. The regulations may not be the best adapted to the attainment of the objects, and the committee incline to think they are not. At the same time, however, in the condition of things, as glanced at in this report, they believe that the bill of the Senate, to them referred, is not well calculated to aid the department in its objects of suppressing these abuses; nor will it be necessary to pass the same, in order to protect members in the enjoyment of their rightful privileges, should the bill be adopted which this committee now recommend as a substitute for the said bill of the Senate.

This bill is designed more to condense all the laws relating to the franking privilege of members, and to define the same, while it will guard, as the committee think, against most of the abuses complained of by the department, as well as those intended to be remedied by the bill of the Senate.

The committee, therefore, recommend that the bill of the Senate be so amended as to substitute for that the bill herewith reported, for the adoption of the House.