Rural Mail Delivery For Ann Arbor

It Meets with Very General Favor Among the Business Men Who are Interviewed - In Fact

THE MERCHANTS OF ANN ARBOR FAVOR IT

They Do Not Seem to Feel That It Would Injure Their Trade with the Farmers

It Is a Step in the Direction of Progress - There is No Reason Why Ann Arbor Should Not Have It - Free City Delivery Did Not Injure Trade - Why Should Rural Mail Delivery Do It - Interviews with a Number of Ann Arbor Merchants.

Why should not the farmers living about Ann Arbor have rural mail delivery? The Argus has several times propounded that question. The postmaster of Aun Arbor has been quoted as making the statement that he can get rural mail delivery if the people wanted it, and suggested that the business men of Ann Arbor did not want it. There is but one way to get at the opinions of the business men and that is to interview them. This the Argus has done today so far as it has been able to see them, for many were found to be out when called upon. The opinion seems to be generally favorable for free rural mail delivery. This is not surprising when it is remembered that the predictions of the croakers when free delivery was established ín this city that it would hurt trade was found to be unfulfilled. Rural mail will not injure trade. People will come to town and buy when they need articles and when they don't need them they won't buy even when they do come to town and the less time spent in getting the mail in the busy season of the year, the more money the farmers should have to buy with.

It will be noticed that the business men are generally favorable to trying rural mail delivery at Ann Arbor. Those few who are seemingly opposed, appear to be rather opposed to the government going to the expense of rural mail delivery all over the country thau to any trial of it here. But that is not the question here. The government has appropriated a certain sum of money for experimenting in rural mail delivery. If not spent here it will be spent somewhere else. This being so shall the farmers about Ann Arbor be allowed the advantages of free rural mail delivery?

The merchants interviewed spoke as follows:

Herman J. Goetz, with John Goetz, jr., grocer : "In some cases it might be a good thing and iu some not. The farmers might want to neglect their work in waiting for the mail."

George Hildebrand, merchant tailor: "It would employ more carriers. If the government feels like spending the money and won't tax the people for it, all right. "

G. H. Wild, merchant tailor: "In Germany the rural free mail delivery is to groups of people living in villages, like Lima Center, not to isolated farm houses. I don't think it would be as good here as there would be too much expense to the government."

Michael Fritz, assistant cashier of the Ann Arbor Savings Bank: "I think very favorably of the plan. It would undoubtedly be of great value to the farmers and of great convenience to the town people."

Robert Martin, oue of the substantial farmers of the township of Superior: "I think it is all right. The farmers have just as good a right to free mail delivery as the people in town. Let us have it in the country."

Fred Belser, cashier of the Farmers & Mechanics Bank: "I don't see why it would not be a good thing. I am not opposed to it."

Anton Teufel, harness maker: "I have nothing against the plan. I think it will not bring the farmers to own as much as at present, but it will not make any difference in business one way or another."

Ex-Sheriff Michael Brenner: "I think it would be an awful expense and not much advantage to the farmers. The farmers that need it get their mail quickly enough. I believe if it was generally introduced it would take from 25 to 50 millions of dollars out of the United States treasury. The telephones at present prices, are so that every farmer can have one and that is much more convenient than free rural delivery."

Ex-Mayor C.G. Darling: "It's a good thing. Push it along.

" J.J. Goodyear, druggist : "If there is any good around give it to the farmers. they have had enough bad luck."

D.C. Goodyear, marchant: "It won't let the farmers come to town quite so often but it will not make any difference in trade, as when the farmers have something to buy they will come anyway.''

William Wagner, retired merchant: "I think it will be beneficient to everybody."

Israel Kuhule, a prosperous farmer of Scio: "When the matter was first agitated I thought it would be good for us. The farmers are worked to death and need every couveniauce. It will nourish the prosperity of the country and no one would feel the expense."

Eugeue Koch: "I don't think the question is of much interest to us but it is to some businessmen who may suffer from people not coming to town."

Ald. Simon Dieterle: "I think it is all right and we are bound to have it."

Emanuel Wanger, capitalist and retired grocer: "It is good for the farmers and businessmen."

Euch Dieterle, undertaker: "I think it would be very handy. I have often wished I could get a letter quickly into the country."

Col. Dean: "I believe it would be a good thing. Never thought that improving mail facilities could injure anybody. When I went around the Horn," said the colonel, "to California, I had to pay $5, on reaching San Francisco, to get my mail. In those days a message which is now put on a postal card, if sent from Ann Arbor to Chicago, cost 18 cents. Country is not growing worse by having quicker mail delivery." 

Wahr & Miller: "We favor the scheme. It would bring country and city into closer relationship to their mutual advantage." 

George Haller: "Have never given the matter any thought but on general principles believe it would be a good thing. Don't think it would keep farmers from the city."

President Seabolt: "If the farmers want it they should have it."

Wm. C. Reinhardt: "I think it would be a step in advance, as free delivery in the city has been. Do not believe it would keep farmers away from town or injure trade any."

W. W. Wadhams: "I think it would be in line of advance, a good thing for the rural districts and no detriment to business in the city."

L.C. Goodrich: "Haven't thought of the subject but think the country should have what it wants in the matter.'"

J. Henne, grocer: "I am not opposed to it. It will give some persons employment. It surely will be a convenience for the farmers. So far as it being detrimental to business I don't think it will be injurious."

John Duffy, justice: "I think we are out to have it. It is now being tried by the government in an experimental way. Those that are opposed to it are largely doing so under a misapprehension. I say this because I can recollect how the businessmen opposed the letter carrier system. They thought it would injure their business and the results show the contrary. It was the same witii the street cars that they thought it would keep farmers from coming to town and hitching their horses on Main St. Now they all know it is a good thing."

John Bennett, attorney: "It is certainly a good thing for the town, country and everybody. There is no reason why the farmers should not have as many conveniences as the people in town."

Fred Schumacher, grocer: "It is something I never thought much about. I don't know why it is not a pretty good thing. It would not help business but it would be a great convenience for the country people. It could not do much harm as the country people must buy so many goods anyway."

William Goetz, of Goetz & Son, grocers: "lts probably all right. If I lived in the country I would not object to it."

A. C. Schumacher, of the firm of Schumacher & Miller, druggists: "I don't know, I want to think it over. I think it would be a fine idea. Mail delivery for the farmers is sometimes very essential, but not as much so as for the businessmen. On first thought I do not want to favor the government going to the extra expense. It would need extra mail carriers who would have to be paid by the government."

John Burg, shoe dealer: "It might be good enough for the farmers. It would be a big expense and I do not see where it could be very profitable."

Fred Staebler, grocer: "It would be a move in the direction of progress. Some people claim that not so rnany people would come to town with rural free mail delivery but I don't think so. I would like to see them try it."

Theodore A. Reyer, secretary of Cutting, Reyer & Co.: "I suppose it is all right. It is a great success in some localities and 1 think it is a good thing."

Albert Manu, of Mann Bros., druggists: "Can't see but that it would be a good thing. This county is thickly enough populated to try it."

John Lindenschmitt, of the firm of Lindenschmitt & Apfel, clothiers: "I have not given the matter much attention. Where I come from in Germany we have the rural free mail delivery. It is certainly a success there." 

Edward Wolfel, manager of the A.L. Noble clothing house: "I don't see why it is not a good thing and the farmers should receive the same mail facilities as anyone living in the city."

Moses Seabolt: "I don't know if it is a good thing or not. I rather think it wouldn't do any good."

Walter C. Mack : "I arn for it. It is foolish to oppose it as it is an advance in mail facilities. It is nonsense to say it will injure trade. When farmers want to buy they are going to buy. The fact that their mail is delivered to them will not prevent their having to buy things they must go to town to get."

Delos Davis: "l am for it if it will be self sustaining."

D. F. Schairer: "Am for it if it will be self sustaining. Am in favor of anything and everything in the mail line which will be of advantage to the people."

E. F. Mills: "So far as the businessmen of the city are concerned it will probably neither advantage or disadvantage them. But it would be a great advantage to the farmers. It would keep them in closer touch with the markets and affairs generally."

Wm. Goodyear: "Good thing for the farmers. Often advantageous to businessmen in the city also through the prompt delivery to farmers of important mail which now frequently lies for several days in home office before it is called for."

Titus F. Hutzel: "I believe it a good thing for farmers and they are the ones interested. no reason why businessmen should kick on it. Instead of its keeping farmers away from city it will bring them in. Will make it easy to communicate with them when butter, eggs and various other things in their line are needed in a hurry."

L. Gruner: "Great convenience. Farmers should have it. I am in favor of it."

H. J. Brown : "Don't appear to me to be especially necessary or desirable."

Col. Thompson: "When it is made clear to me that a dog needs two tails then I shall be convinced that free rural delivery is a good thing. It seems to me there is no advantage in it."