LEGALIZED INJUSTICE.

Author

admin

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

LEGALIZED INJUSTICE.

SIR,

May we avail ourselves of your valuable space to protest against a most flagrant case of infringement of the rights of all users of a Public Service.

By the Economy Act (1926) the Postmaster-General is empowered to imprint upon our envelopes any advertisement he wishes—including publicity matter emanating from competitive firms.

Admittedly, immediately after posting, all letters dispatched by us are in transit technically the property of the P.M.G.; actually, however, they belong to us. If we send matter through the post contrary to or in defiance of postal regulations we, and not the P.M.G., are proceeded against by the authorities. If documents valuable to us are lost in the post we, and not the P.M.G. are the losers. We, not the P.M.G., pay the cost of collection and delivery, at a rate which, if it is not the highest in Europe, is among the highest.

Why, then, must we submit to the defacement of our postal matter by any person, Body, or Government whose title to the property could not be upheld in any Court ?

Why must we submit to the decoration or utilization of our property by Public Servants in a manner which is distasteful to us, and is calculated to result in financial loss to us. Why is the implied contract to deliver our property in its original condition not respected ?

Why must we, at the behest of the P.M.G. subsidize or pay for, or facilitate, the advertising of other peoples’ goods ; why, for example, should our heavy world-wide mail be converted without our permission into an advertismg medium from which we derive no benefit, and which may involve us in loss of business ? Why, in order to protect oui selves against unfair exploitation must we rent or purchase a franking machine

of alternatively be compelled by the P.M.G. to advertise in a manner which does not appeal to us, and whose value is unknown and undeterminable ?

In short, why should the Government unjustifiably and inequitably use our property to increase Revenue at our expense?

May we hope that the wide publicity which this letter will receive will arouse long suffering manufacturers and traders to combine and undertake concerted action to end this legalized injustice. We are, Sir, Yours obediently,

BARIMAR, LTD.

(Scientific ‘Welding Engineers). C. W. BRETT, Managing Director.