LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
THE POST OFFICE AND THE TREASURY
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Smn,—Sir William Acworth's letter on the Post Office as a business proposition fails to convince. The Post Office can never be tested as a business proposition. Its continued existence cannot be contingent on the realization of a profit. Its power to raise fresh capital cannot depend upon the confidence of the public in its future ability to earn its expenses and something over. The nation would not tolerate such commercial methods as rebates for large customers, the abolition of unremunerative services, or even the imposition of extra charges to meet exceptional costs. Parliament would never allow to the Post Office such a free hand with labour, or with contracts, as a commercial company has. The Post Office has a monopoly. It is a public service and must be managed as such. • • The analogy of a railway system is not complete. But if it were, the results would not be altogether encouraging. The Canadian National Railways are not allowed to charge remunerative rates. The Indian Legislative Assembly is not disposed to refrain from interference.
Separation of the Budget, with carriage to the Exchequer of a fixed sum or a fixed percentage from the net surplus, creation of a capital account, some relaxation of Treasury control—these are feasible measures. • But Sir William Acworth's comparison of the Treasury with a company's accountant strikes me as unfit. The true comparison is with the board of directors which controls finance and has to restrain its managers from. launching into expenditure at moments unpropitious for raising fresh funds. So also no separation of budgets will prevent the Treasury from having to consider the influence upon the financial situation of demands for fresh capital for the Post Office.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
